Hastings Car Insurance BEWARE

adamc260

I'm sorry but i've yet to come across a situation where a valid injury claim can be made from wing mirrors clipping... other than now ofc

Williewonthe

Sorry Adamc260 if I have confused you.

The claimant only referred to the wing mirrors in terms of my allegedly having hit his back door and his wing mirror (NB without touching his driver's door? Think about it!!!). He did not mention what actually happened, i.e. the clipping of wing mirrors.

His whole case was based on me slamming into him at 20 mph in a car weighing (including occupants etc.) about 1800 kg and his body being thrown around inside, resulting in the injuries that he falsely represented - in contravention of the 2006 Fraud Act, 2, (1), (a) and (b), (i).

All this whilst (in his final, signed and certified as being accurate and truthful submission to the court) he admitted that there was not a mark on his car.

I would have liked to have seen him prosecuted under the Fraud Act, and a lot of publicity accompanying the case. I feel that that would have done more to stop such obviously fraudulent claims, which the insurance industry claims to be so concerned about, and our insurance premiums would have benefitted.

Finally, one thing I would say is always carry a disposable camera in your car (not a digital one since it could be claimed that the photos you present as evidence have been manipulated to show your side of the story) in case you need one in such a situation.

dacouch

I don't think anyone on MSE has a kind word too say about Hastings, it appears to me that Sarah was giving you advice on how the matter is viewed from someone involved in motor claims.

Her posts do not appear (To me) to be pro Hastings, if you read the contributions on the MSE Insurance thread and in fact most threads answered by people who work in a relevant industry. Their answers tend to be regarding the technicalities and often from a different view point to the OP in order to give a different perspective to the poster.

If we all just agreed and said whatever an OP wanted rather than try and look at it independently the advice given would not always be accurate.

Most of the contributers work in the industry in different fields, to some extent some of our posts are as much to provoke discussion between ourselves, share knowledge as well as (Hopefully) trying to answer queries.

Hastings are a very cheap and not very cheerful company who I would avoid at all costs.

adamc260

dacouch wrote: »

Hastings are a very cheap and not very cheerful company who I would avoid at all costs.

The problem with Insurance is... you could happily pay £400 extra a year and go with a very respected Insurer and still have a bad experience =/ You also have to balance the cost and the chance of having an accident that results in a claim. In my case, I've been driving 6 years and not needed to claim yet and in that time I've been with some 'not so good' Insurers. It's hard to strike a balance I find.

dacouch

adamc260 wrote: »

The problem with Insurance is... you could happily pay £400 extra a year and go with a very respected Insurer and still have a bad experience =/ You also have to balance the cost and the chance of having an accident that results in a claim. In my case, I've been driving 6 years and not needed to claim yet and in that time I've been with some 'not so good' Insurers. It's hard to strike a balance I find.

Have you left NFU and started with Hastings lol.

I know what you mean, however if you spend any time at the coal face dealing with arranging and then the subsequent claims etc. You see how events you could never predict happening happen and the benefit of a decent policy.

I often get asked to help out friends or more often friends of friends who are having a problem with normally a Lloyd's or Gibraltar Insurer or HBOS. Where their claim has come unstuck due to poor service, lack of knowledge, policy restrictions or poor cover.

You would not believe some of the claims I've seen, things like a high net client who shipped his supercar out to the U.S for an extended holiday. It was subsequently TWOCed by a U.S army hero who did not understand the power, started the car, pressed the accelerator and drove it straight into a lake.

I've even had my own house burn down.

However as you say it comes down to economics, for many people the cheapest is the best Insurer. They're buying an intangible product that does nothing until they need to claim or adjust their cover.

I can totally understand why people buy the cheapest.

thegirlintheattic

Williewonthe wrote: »

To date I have refrained from responding to the two ridiculous assertions by sarahg1969 that:

A) “If no argument was put forward on the basis of a low-speed impact, some other defence must have been pleaded; and it looks like the judge didn't accept that defence.”

and

“However, I do wonder what the defence actually was, if the OP had to go to court. There must have been some kind of defence other than the value of the claim (which wouldn't have required his attendance). We obviously don't have the full picture.”

Because, at the time, I just felt they were comments from someone who is determined to have an argument and any response from me would just have brought about even more ridiculous statements. After talking to a friend who knows about such things, I now feel that, as she said, the person in question may be a mole employed by Hastings (and possibly other insurers) in an attempt to rubbish the assertions by an aggrieved insured person.

To respond briefly to the above comments:

A) NO OTHER DEFENCE was put forward. In fact, no defence was put forward in court. The judge dismissed the case, WITHOUT any court procedure where both myself and the claimant would have been questioned, because Hastings had not presented the case on the basis of the Low Vehicle Impact Protocol. There was no other defence that the judge "didn't accept". The judge would not hear the case at all, NO DEFENCE WAS PLEADED, simply because of the LVIP!

The defence, if I had actually got into court, would have been that the so-called collision simply did not happen (see next paragraph). The claimant said that I, in an Audi A4, hit the side of his Vauxhall Astra at 20 miles an hour and threw his body around in the car causing the injuries for which he was claiming. In his final submission to the court he confirmed what I already knew, what I had told Hastings, and what I had proven by the photographs that I had sent to Hastings, that his car did not have a mark on it!! Was his car the only one in the world that could defeat the laws of physics. An impact at 20 mph, his body thrown around, but not a mark on the car???

No….. He was quite simply lying. In fact my barrister told me that the claimant's barrister had said to the claimant that if my barrister had got the claimant into the witness box he would have "ripped him apart". ALL sides knew that the claimant was lying but the case was not examined, because there was no court hearing. The judge would not hear the case because Hastings INCOMPETENTLY had not proceeded with the case under the Low Vehicle Impact Protocol.

That is "the full picture". I expect another ridiculous comment from the lady in question which, I feel, will prove that she is a mole to make Hastings appear blameless but the reason they had to pay out is that they didn't follow the correct procedure, something they should have done.

The only good thing to come out of the whole affair is that the claimant's mother was in court with him and she saw that her son had (successfully) defrauded the insurance company and that he was a liar and a general scumbag. A pyrrhic victory for £550!

I can't believe you are accusing a long-time member of MSE of being a mole. She gave her view of the situation from her experience. Not everyone who disagrees with you or provides another view is a mole.

Your problem is with the solicitors - hopefully by now you have made a complaint against them.

adamc260

dacouch wrote: »

Have you left NFU and started with Hastings lol.

Nope :P I worked for a solicitors for a while and now I've changed industry. Had enough of Insurance for a while

Williewonthe

I am not averse to other opinions but I am of the opinion that to put forward ‘another view’, that view should be based on facts. As for not agreeing with me, where is the disagreement? what I did is to relate the FACTS of what happened to me, facts that can be verified. What part of them was being disagreed?


For sarahg1969 to state (after I had clearly said that the case was not heard in court, therefore NO defence was put forward) :

“some other defence must have been pleaded; and it looks like the judge didn't accept that defence.”

is based on not very realistic invention.



I’d like to hear more about her ‘experience’, especially the experience where a judge hears a defence without the barristers or the parties involved being present, and, in particular, one not known by the defendant or his barrister!

Williewonthe

In the absence of a response from ‘thegirlintheattic’, I maintain my suspicions about the motives of sarahg1969 and that she is someone who does not like (for whatever reason) to see Hastings being called incompetent).



Look at sarahg1969’s statements from another angle:


Who else but someone whose aim it is to make Hastings seem blameless for the ruling in my case would invent the ridiculous idea of some other ‘defence’ on the basis of which or some reason due to which I lost in court?


Who else would wish to divert attention from HASTINGS’ INCOMPETENCE, except someone who has an ‘interest’ in such a whitewash?


During my last conversation with Hastings I told them that I would be telling everyone the facts of my case and I hoped that by doing so I would cost them at least one customer – I hope I have achieved that goal and saved at least one person from the, at least, financial consequences of dealing with those clowns!

Hastings_Direct_company_representative

Hi Williewonthe,

Thank you for taking the time to post about your experience, I am sorry to hear that you are unhappy with your experience with Hastings Direct. I would really like to look into your case and find out exactly what has happened. If you would like to send me an email with some details about your policy I will be happy to investigate and see if there is anything that I can do to help. [EMAIL="socialmedia@hastingsdirect.com"]socialmedia@hastingsdirect.com[/EMAIL]

Many Thanks,
Jamie