Someone drove into me and now it puts £300 on my policy

DUBSTEP

Hi all first post so sorry if im doing anything wrong

At the start of the year i went to tesco just to pick up a bag of yorkshire puds for the sunday roast, but it turned into an absolute nightmare, as i was driving out of the car park a woman decided to not look INFRONT of her before pulling out of her space and planted herself into the side of my car, i'd only been driving 4 months and i was well and truely shaken up.
Claim went through fairly quickly, i got a courtesy car for two weeks while the fixed £1000 worth of damage to my Fiesta (was only bought for £750) and i thought everything was sorted, but no.

My renewal is oming up and went through some quotes for a Clio and because of this useless driver my policy has gone up £300, how is this possible when it was entirely her fault, she said to the insurers it was, and its not just the fact that prices have gone up, i did a quote with and without the accident details.

Is there anything i can do because this is beyond a joke now, colossal insurance the first year and now this when its nothing to do with me.

Please help me out

Quentin

Shop around for the best deal. (Having any claim on your record can result in premium loadings, and premiums are rising irrespective of any recent claim history).

property.advert

I guess the first wrong thing you did was telephone your insurance company rather than hers. It may well be that your company paid for your repairs and car hire and then got some or all the money back from the other party. In any case, you have made a claim.

If you look at Direct Line's website, they do not load for a claim where there was full recovery. I know as I've checked.

As part of a settlement for someone driving into the side of my car, they were billed a figure for this very point, that some insurance companies will load you for some clown driving into you as they perceive your risk has increased. You need to extrapolate this increase this year out for future years until it falls off radar so to speak.

They will resist it but the simple fact remains that your insurance would not have increased had they not driven into you.

Their insurers may not pay up but if not, just invoice them and if they refuse, put them in the small claims court. Your claim will be less than their cost of obtaining legal advice and defending your claim and any prudent person would settle before court.

System

property.advert wrote: »

I guess the first wrong thing you did was telephone your insurance company rather than hers.

Personally I believe that when I have paid for comprehensive insurance, I expect the insurer to deal with incidents / claims on my behalf since that is part of what I have paid them to do.

Even if you do decide to contact the third party insurer to claim yourself, you must still contact your own insurance company to inform them of the incident. Hence, there should be little difference in how the settlement is made since it will be based on the facts of the incident not on the method you used to contact the two insurance companies.

If your own insurance company goes against the facts of the incident, to your material detriment, then make a complaint in writing using their complaints process.

There should not be any need for comprehensive insurance policy holders to take action themselves since their insurance policy is there to do that work for you.

OP ...
Are you enterring the incident details correctly when requesting quotes ?
Have you received your renewal documents / quotation from your current insurance company to check if the premium has been loaded after the incident ?

daveyjp

Leave the incident off and see if this is affecting your quote. Insurance for some people has risen dramatically - in the case of a friend it went from £500 to over £1,000 after shopping around due to their postcode.

vaio

property.advert wrote: »

........As part of a settlement for someone driving into the side of my car, they were billed a figure for this very point, that some insurance companies will load you for some clown driving into you as they perceive your risk has increased. You need to extrapolate this increase this year out for future years until it falls off radar so to speak.

They will resist it but the simple fact remains that your insurance would not have increased had they not driven into you.

Their insurers may not pay up but if not, just invoice them and if they refuse, put them in the small claims court. Your claim will be less than their cost of obtaining legal advice and defending your claim and any prudent person would settle before court.

Are you saying that you recovered the non fault loading from the third party?

lisyloo

Personally I believe that when I have paid for comprehensive insurance, I expect the insurer to deal with incidents / claims on my behalf since that is part of what I have paid them to do.

Ah yes, but there is a difference between expecting them to deal with it and expecting them to pay for it all up-front (it's not clear which you are referring to).
One involves a non-fault claim and the other a fault claim until money is fully recovered.

ven if you do decide to contact the third party insurer to claim yourself, you must still contact your own insurance company to inform them of the incident

Yes, but the premium loadings for non-fault and fault claims are different.

Hence, there should be little difference in how the settlement is made since it will be based on the facts of the incident not on the method you used to contact the two insurance companies.

This isn't correct if you are talking about getting the damage fixed by YOUR insurer prior to liability being settled (which sounds like what the OP did from the timecales).
If your insurer puts monye up front then it is a fault claim until money is recovered in full.
So no, it isn't based on the actual liability. It's based on who is out of pocket.
To clarify.
If 3rd party agrees liability and pays for damage then that is a "non-fault" claim.
If your insurer pays for damage up front then it is a "fault" claim until it is all claimed back at which point (possibly after renewal) it becomes a "non-fault" claim.
The loadings are different NOT on liability but on whether your insurer is currently out of pocket.

If your own insurance company goes against the facts of the incident, to your material detriment, then make a complaint in writing using their complaints process.

Complete waste of time.
The go on whether your insurer is out of pocket and not on liability and have done for decades (in general).

There should not be any need for comprehensive insurance policy holders to take action themselves since their insurance policy is there to do that work for you.

But if you ask them to pay up front, then there are consequences,.

System

DUBSTEP wrote: »

my Fiesta

.

My renewal is coming up and went through some quotes for a Clio

So what quotes do you get for your Fiesta? You can't compare quotes for 2 different cars and then blame all the difference on the claim.

System

lisyloo wrote: »

Ah yes, but there is a difference between expecting them to deal with it and expecting them to pay for it all up-front (it's not clear which you are referring to).
One involves a non-fault claim and the other a fault claim until money is fully recovered.

Yes, but the premium loadings for non-fault and fault claims are different.

This isn't correct if you are talking about getting the damage fixed by YOUR insurer prior to liability being settled (which sounds like what the OP did from the timecales).
If your insurer puts monye up front then it is a fault claim until money is recovered in full.
So no, it isn't based on the actual liability. It's based on who is out of pocket.
To clarify.
If 3rd party agrees liability and pays for damage then that is a "non-fault" claim.
If your insurer pays for damage up front then it is a "fault" claim until it is all claimed back at which point (possibly after renewal) it becomes a "non-fault" claim.
The loadings are different NOT on liability but on whether your insurer is currently out of pocket.

Complete waste of time.
The go on whether your insurer is out of pocket and not on liability and have done for decades (in general).



But if you ask them to pay up front, then there are consequences,.

Thanks for your responses to each of the points I made in my post.

I did not say that I would ask my own insurance company to pay up front, I said I would use my insurance for the full cover which I pay for which includes dealing with the claim process on my behalf.

I know that if renewal occurs before the claim is fully settled then my premium may be loaded until the third party repays my insurer at which point I should be refunded the loading. It is when this process goes wrong or when a policy holder wants to challenge the outcome that a complaint may be needed (So it is not a "Complete waste of time", unless you put blinkers on which is what you seem to be doing in an attempt to paint the blackest possible picture).

Yes, insurers may try to limit their own liability, that is good business after all, but agreed terms and conditions exist for a good reason, and if everyone adheres to those T&Cs then no grounds for complaint.

Actually, I do not think our opinions are too far apart, but it is the slant you have put on your responses which seem a little one sided.

19lottie82

OP, it might not be due to your claim. After my first years insurance (after I had just passed my test), Diamond quoted me an extra £280 to renew, with a years no claims ! (no other details had changed)

Shop about, visit some comparison websites and see if you can get a better price, I'm certain you will. x

lisyloo

I did not say that I would ask my own insurance company to pay up front, I said I would use my insurance for the full cover which I pay for which includes dealing with the claim process on my behalf.

Yes sure and I agree that works well if your car is driveable. If it isn't and you need transport then it might be a problem waiting for liability to be settled as it takes months.

I know that if renewal occurs before the claim is fully settled then my premium may be loaded until the third party repays my insurer at which point I should be refunded the loading.

There is still a loading for non-fault claims (with most insurers).

So it is not a "Complete waste of time", unless you put blinkers on which is what you seem to be doing in an attempt to paint the blackest possible picture

I am merely stating how the system works.
You suggestion of a complaint about a loading because you weren't liable is a waste of time, because that is not the criteria insurers use. The criteria they use is whether the loss has been recovered or not.

Actually, I do not think our opinions are too far apart, but it is the slant you have put on your responses which seem a little one sided.

I am not expressing any opinion, merely staing how the system works.
If you make a non-fault claim then these days there is a loading with most insurers (morally I don't agree with this, but it's a reality and statement of fact for most insuers).