Advice on insurance increases after non-fault accident?

lisyloo

This was a spot of luck for the member.

I'd certainly recommend trying it then.

malkie76

Thanks for the input. I don't plan to chase the TP insurance for any increase in my premium, otherwise I could be doing that every year for ever more.
I'm more interested in challenging the concept that I'm now a higher risk because someone else scratched my car while parked in a public place.

If they are basing their increases on the statistics of repeat accidents then I'd like to be able to see these statistics before accepting any increase.
Last year they increased my premium, and when I challenged them they suggested there had been an increase in uninsured drivers in my area. However, local government stats suggested there had actually been a decrease in uninsured drivers, so I assume my insurance company were reading from a script when I challenged them.

I'd rather not be done over similarly when my premium is up for renewal.

vaio

I’m not going to repeat the circumstances (search function is your friend here) but, as you know, I’ve successfully reclaimed non fault loading from the at fault party.

My view remains that as it was a cost incurred solely as a result of the third party actions then it is recoverable just like car hire etc. From memory your view was that I was “lucky” and the third party company didn’t really have to pay.

In the interests of transparency maybe your previous post......

Quentin wrote: »

There are no methods whereby you can get your insurance premium considered an uninsured loss!.......

should have “I don’t think” added at the beginning and “but others have reported successful claims” added to the end and maybe be even “so give it a try and let us know how you get on” to finish

These discussions tend to end up with me inviting any logical argument as to why documented & mitigated non fault loadings should not be paid by the third party.

The replies tend to be variations on “they don’t pay those” which, coincidentally, was exactly the same as Direct Line were saying right up to the point a copy of the court papers landed on someone’s desk at which point they changed their minds and paid.

“Lucky”, “not worth defending for the sums involved” or even “insurance company altruism”. Frankly I don’t care, I got paid and can’t see any reason why anyone else in similar circumstances wouldn’t get paid too.

vaio

malkie76 wrote: »

Thanks for the input. I don't plan to chase the TP insurance for any increase in my premium, otherwise I could be doing that every year for ever more.
I'm more interested in challenging the concept that I'm now a higher risk because someone else scratched my car while parked in a public place.

If they are basing their increases on the statistics of repeat accidents then I'd like to be able to see these statistics before accepting any increase.
Last year they increased my premium, and when I challenged them they suggested there had been an increase in uninsured drivers in my area. However, local government stats suggested there had actually been a decrease in uninsured drivers, so I assume my insurance company were reading from a script when I challenged them.

I'd rather not be done over similarly when my premium is up for renewal.

Your insurance can use whatever basis they like to arrive at your premium and you have no legal right to challenge it.

Similarly, you also have no obligation to accept it as you can take your business elsewhere.

Basically, take it or leave it

What you do have the right to do is reclaim any costs if you are the victim of someone else’s negligence.

Traditionally, damage to your car, loss of earnings, car hire & compensation for any injuries suffered are all converted to a cash value and then reclaimed from the at fault party under the presumption that if you suffer as the result of the negligence of another than you should be put back in the position you would have been in had the accident not happened.

I further argue that these losses should also include “non fault” loadings on future premiums but others disagree.

Quentin

vaio wrote: »

In the interests of transparency maybe your previous post should have “I don’t think” added at the beginning and “but others have reported successful claims” added to the end ......

Others have not reported successful claims! Only your one experience has been reported here!

lisyloo

otherwise I could be doing that every year for ever more

You either have to report claims for 3 or 5 years, so you will not be penalised for ever more (although I agree 3 or 5 is still a pain).

I'm more interested in challenging the concept that I'm now a higher risk because someone else scratched my car while parked in a public place.

Well frankly you are higher risk.
My car is parked on a private driveway which is a dead end (no place to pass or turn). The fact is I'm lower risk than you and you have now proved that by making a claim.

BTW - This is in no way saying that you are a worse driver or in any way to blame, simply that your at higher risk of being hit (for example than people who park on private land).

If you do not want to face a premium increase then go with one of the companies that don't increase premium for non-fault accidents.
The problem with limiting your choice by one criteria is that it may not suit other criteria e.g. price, service, free phone number, low fees, internet access.
I always try to get the best fit rather than jsut go by one criteria.

vaio

Quentin wrote: »

Others have not reported successful claims! Only your one experience has been reported here!

I used “others” in the generic sense but it’s a fair point so make it “vaio has reported a successful claim”.

The general idea was to try and alter the very authoritative “you can’t get it” your post conveyed into a more reasonable & honest “I don’t think you can get it but others disagree”

Quentin

vaio wrote: »

I used “others” in the generic sense....

Unfortunately there are no "others" anywhere, generic or otherwise.

If only there was, then it would be the norm to add this to our uninsured losses as all claim handlers, insurers "legal cover" departments etc would add it on as a matter of course.

But it can be stated "authoritatively" that increased premiums attributed to a non fault claim are not uninsured losses in law, and not a "right" for innocent third parties to claim off the guilty party.

vaio

Quentin wrote: »

.......But it can be stated "authoritatively" that increased premiums attributed to a non fault claim are not uninsured losses in law, and not a "right" for innocent third parties to claim off the guilty party.

Well, if you can state that "authoritatively" presumably you can quote the “authority” on which the statement is based?

For clarity, my case involved a mitigated and documented non fault loading due to the negligence of a third party and I’d welcome any case law, legislation or indeed just logical argument as to why that loss should be treated any differently to any other loss such as car hire, taxi fares or loss of earnings.

malkie76

lisyloo wrote: »

BTW - This is in no way saying that you are a worse driver or in any way to blame, simply that your at higher risk of being hit (for example than people who park on private land).

I'm really not following you here. Do you keep your car on private land at all times and never take onto the public highway ? Otherwise you and I are exactly the same risk.

Overnight I'm on my private driveway, during work it's in a secure car park with plenty of space.

My car was scratched in a public car park while at the cinema.

My circumstances have not changed so why would I be a higher risk next year compared to this year? (ie what factual evidence actually is there to support this assertion ?)