Why the Excess?

chrissyb_2

I was stationary in a line of traffic when a car smashed into the back of me and sent me into the car in front and so on..... When I submitted my claim I was told that I would have to pay the £150 excess. Does anyone know why I have to pay when I am totally innocent?

maclean2

Hi - under your policy you have to pay the excess when your car is repaired even if the accident is not your fault.To reclaim the money for your accident write to the guy who hit you in the rear with a copy of the receipt for the excess.Ask him to pass it on to his insurance company without delay.Hopefully within a couple of weeks or so you will get a cheque for £150.00.

If you have legal expenses cover send the legal expenses company the excess receipt and they will deal with this for you.

Best of luck

Alasdair

JasonW_2

Yup, you should get it back no problem from his insurance company. Sometimes can take ages to get it from stories I have heard from people I know, but keep chasing them. They will eventaully get bored and send you the cheque

JW

MarkyMarkD

Yes, you would have to pay the excess initially ... but your insurers should pursue the third party who hit you from the rear for the whole of their outlay, not just the £150. If you have "uninsured loss recovery" insurance, they should be sorting this for you, if not the insurers should be doing so anyway as otherwise they appear to be treating the claim as your fault with consequential implications for your no claims discount, never mind the £150.

chrissyb_2

Thank you all so much! I shall speak to my insurance company tomorrow. I feel far more confident now!

YorkshireBoy

I'm no expert but one possible reason is that the person you "hit" is claiming off your insurance company, ie A claims off B, who claims off C, who claims off D for example.

This is the problem with multiple nose/tail shunts.

You need to get this cleared up asap as it sounds as though you will have an "at fault" claim on your record. Keep a copy of all correspondence for your defence when you come to re-insure.

Hopefully, if you're successful in recovering your uninsured losses, and you have documentary proof, the accident will be recorded as a "non-fault" accident.

I stand to be corrected but hope this helps anyway.

YB

chrissyb_2

Thanks, that could well be the problem - there were 4 cars involved. Good job three of us had our foot on the brakes!

MarkyMarkD

Maybe if 3 of you had had your handbrakes on, instead of your feet on the brakes, less cars would have been involved in this accident?

I agree with YB, though - I think your insurer is being lazy (but mad, given it's their outlay in the main) and treating it as your fault rather than pursuing for a recovery against the person who hit you. In the bad old days, the insurers all had "knock-for-knock" agreements under which they all paid their own claims and didn't bother pursuing the other insurers - which sort of came out in the wash and probably saved on admin. But it meant that they had no incentive to prove the other party liable ... and mainly just nobbled their own customer's no claims.

IIRC Direct Line came on the scene and refused to be party to "knock-for-knock" and the system unravelled a bit. I'm surprised that companies are still taking a "lazy" approach, as this seems to suggest.

YorkshireBoy

MarkyMarkD wrote:

Maybe if 3 of you had had your handbrakes on, instead of your feet on the brakes, less cars would have been involved in this accident?

Not wanting to start another "off-topic" debate here, but...

3 handbrakes = 6 braked wheels
3 footbrakes = 12 braked wheels

Surely better to have footbrake applied, isn't it?

MarkyMarkD wrote:

...In the bad old days, the insurers all had "knock-for-knock" agreements under which they all paid their own claims and didn't bother pursuing the other insurers...

This caused me some MAJOR grief when, in 1991, an unleashed dog ran straight out into the road and disappeared under my car - causing over £300 damage. I was with the Co-op and, although I successfully, and privately due to no legal protection, claimed my uninsured losses back off Pearl (the dog owners home insurers), to this day I believe the 2 company's colluded to go "knock-for-knock" to save on admin costs.

I had to threaten to take it all the way to the top before the Co-op gave me written confirmation that the accident was not my fault.

user1234_2

YorkshireBoy wrote:

Not wanting to start another "off-topic" debate here, but...

3 handbrakes = 6 braked wheels
3 footbrakes = 12 braked wheels

Surely better to have footbrake applied, isn't it?

When you get shunted your foot flies off the pedals. Handbrakes stay put. Surely your driving instructor told you that!

YorkshireBoy

user1234 wrote:

When you get shunted your foot flies off the pedals.

I've no experience - never been shunted (touch wood!)

user1234 wrote:

Surely your driving instructor told you that!

Can't remember, 'twas 27 years ago!

Just made my comments after giving it some thought, ie if you're looking in the mirror and someone is hurtling toward you, you can adopt a "brace" position with both hands on the wheel and foot hard down on the brake. This way, even when the back end lifts off the floor (and handbrake becomes useless) you still have front wheel braking.

Like I said, not wanting to start another "off-topic" debate here...

YB