We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Car Accident Advice
Comments
-
She should have done, but as is common, she expected to settle privately.
The driver who bumped her car admits doing it and causing damage. That reduces her requirement to provide proof substantially.
When the bill arrives for £400 or so, which is a relatively small amount, and the son's insurer investigates and finds out that YES, there was an accident, and he did cause damage, then rather than argue over the pennies, they will simply strip his NCB, record a fault claim and pay up. They can't do much else since their insured has admitted the bump was his fault; it is not worth the hassle, staff time, legal costs and so on to argue about a £400 claim where their insured has admitted fault.
I hope the OP takes your advice with a pinch of salt otherwise there might well be a pretty big shock come renewal, after their insurer at the time gets wind of this.
You really have no idea about motor insurance, do you?
Insurance companies are well wise to people getting a minor bump, doing nothing about it, and then trying to get unrelated damage repaired at a later date. They have a well established procedure for dealing with such claims.
If you're really so naive as to believe that insurance companies are gullible enough to accept a quote for damage repair THREE MONTHS after an incident, go ahead and believe it but take a tip: don't try and pull the same stunt yourself as you will be in for a rude awakening.
0 -
As all this can come back and bite, your son needs to report this incident to both his current and previous insurer.
By not doing so he has broken both policy conditions, and should the third party make a claim he will have far more to lose over this! (In terms of getting his current policy voided for failing to disclose, and finding it difficult and expensive to get any cover elsewhere)0 -
If you're really so naive as to believe that insurance companies are gullible enough to accept a quote for damage repair THREE MONTHS after an incident, go ahead and believe it but take a tip: don't try and pull the same stunt yourself as you will be in for a rude awakening.
Not so.
3 months is a short time to pursue a claim. The "injured" party has 6 years to make their claim.0 -
Not so.
3 months is a short time to pursue a claim. The "injured" party has 6 years to make their claim.
Why don't people actually read what is written before rushing to reply?
It isn't the time she took to make the claim that is the problem. It is the time between the incident and the quote for repair.
Insurance companies are very used to claims from people who pull this stunt and know exactly how to handle it.0 -
Why don't people actually read what is written before rushing to reply?
.
If I hadn't read your words, then how would I have been able to reply.
As previously posted, your suggestion that 3 months to get in a claim (or get in a quote!) isn't too long at all.
Your suggestion that an insurer would "smell a rat" on a quote dated 3 months after the incident is just a red herring.0 -
Insurance companies are very used to claims from people who pull this stunt and know exactly how to handle it.
Quite.
Of course, if the quote refers to damage that equates with the damage reported by the insured, they'll certainly pay up.
But if she's trying to pull a fast one and the two descriptions of damage are markedly different they will need a a lot of persuading including a very good explanation of why she waited 3 moths to get a quote and why the two descriptions of damage differ substantially.
The insurance companies use a degree of common sense that seems to be lacking in this thread.There are two types of people in the world: Those that can extrapolate information.0 -
Your suggestion that an insurer would "smell a rat" on a quote dated 3 months after the incident is just a red herring.
Nope. He's absolutely correct.
Why would an honest person wait 3 months to get a quote?
This has happened to a family member and the insurance company dealt with it quickly and efficiently. The chancer rapidly withdrew their fake claim when they realised that the insurer was on the ball.There are two types of people in the world: Those that can extrapolate information.0 -
It isn't the time she took to make the claim that is the problem. It is the time between the incident and the quote for repair.
That's a step forward. You seem to accept the claim itself is valid, but say it's the delay in getting the quote that's the issue.
The delay in a written quote is easy to explain. "I got a verbal quote straight away as he said he would pay, but he didn't, so now things have got more formal and I have obtained a written quote".
As the son admits having the bump and admits causing some damage, the insurer isn't going to turn around and say "Yes, our insured hit your car, and he admits causing damage, but we're unsure about this £400 bill". They know damn well that £400 is nothing in the world of car repairs and you cannot get a lot done for £400 at all. If the bill was for substantially more, then I agree there may be more eyebrows raised, but not for a £400 claim where their insured admits to having the bump.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards