Penalised for an accident that wasn't my fault!

brambleramble

In October 2009 a small tree fell on my car while it was parked outside a neighbour's house. For the last 15 months my insurance company has been trying to get the owner of the property to admit liability - unfortunately the property is rented and there is a tenant, a landlord and a managing agent involved, none of whom think they should be liable. The insurance company clearly doesn't think it is my fault as they have been actively pursuing the claim. The impact on me has been having to pay out the £250 excess for the repair work (the total cost of which was £1,300) and increased premiums due to the loss of No Claims Bonus. The insurance company has told me that both these losses will be remedied once they get someone to accept liability.

In my latest conversation with the insurance company they now tell me that their only option is to go to court and that due to the likely costs involved they may not take this course of action. I asked where this left me and their response was that they were sorry, but my losses would not be re-couped.

This seems really unfair!!! Is this normal? Has anyone any ideas how I might resolve this more favourably?

gregd_3

What caused the tree to fall over?? Was it blown over in a storm or due to another reason??

If the tree was blown over in a storm then the other insurance co are quite right to refuse to pay back as there is no negligence attached however say the tree had was rotted and had been neglected then, there might be grounds for a recovery.

brambleramble

The tree did blow over, though not in a storm - the tenant said that it was rotten and they had asked the landlord to cut it down. However, the insurance company now tell me that the tenant doesn't want to get involved - understandable I suppose as they would not want to upset their landlord!!!

Quentin

If you can prove negligence over this (by any of the third parties involved), then there is no reason why you cannot pursue the negligent party (or their insurer) yourself for your excess.

If you are successful, then apart from recovering your excess it should follow that your insurer will get full recovery of their costs and will reinstate your NCD.

(But as already posted if there is no negligence, then you will just have to swallow this)

lisyloo

This seems really unfair!!! Is this normal?

Yes it's both unfair and normal.
No insurer will spend thousand going to court for a £1300 bill.
That is unfair on you but it's the way insurance works.
If they went for total fairness then unfortunately our premiums would be a lot higher than they are now because of all the legal costs.

Has anyone any ideas how I might resolve this more favourably?

It's difficult to see how you (or the insurer) can establish who is liable without taking someone to court.

ruthandoll

I am in a similar situation. June 2010 I had someone drive into the side of my car, I obtained 3 witnesses and informed my insurance company. I have spoken to my insurance company today and the other drivers insurance company are disputing that the witnesses are independant as they do not wish to be interviewed now (9 months later - who can blame them??). I am now in the position where I am £150 down as I too had to pay my excess and come April I need to look at a new car insurance policy. I have logged my concerns with them as if it is not decided by then I have to state I have no NCD when in fact I have 3 years.

Does anyone know if I can use any ombudsman to lever the insurance companies into making a decision for liability?

Thanks.

gregd_3

The Ombudsman would not help you for this type of dispute.

Looks like the third party has probably told a different version of events to what you have said meaning there is a dispute in liability otherwise, they would have admitted fault and paid back your excess/

Do you have legal expenses cover on your motor policy to cover the cost of trying to re-claim your excess??

Alter_ego

You have to remember, it's No claim discount, it isn't No blame discount. You have made a claim.

lisyloo

You have to remember, it's No claim discount, it isn't No blame discount. You have made a claim.

Yes, but where costs are recovered in full, then NCD is re-instated.

Alter_ego

lisyloo wrote: »

Yes, but where costs are recovered in full, then NCD is re-instated.

Yes, but then there has been effectively no claim, in financial terms.

ruthandoll

I am not overly concerned about the excess at the moment as luckily I always opt for a relatively low excess and know I will get this back if I am deemed not at fault as have been advised of this.

Also I have been told that my NCD will not be affected if again I am not deemed not at fault.

I am most concerned about the fact than when I come to renew my insurance I have to state that I have 0 or 1 (if lose 2 years) no claims discount when in fact I have 3 - it is true that no claim has been made in financial terms as it has not been settled/agreed.

My insurance company have also said if I renew with them then it is likely they will deduct NCD from me in view of a claim still being pending.

I wanted to know if anyone knows of any mechanisms available to lever the companies to speed up the whole process. I fear it will come down to complaining and seeing where that gets me.