Renewing car insurance - car accident - help

teddet

Hi there

I've recently been sent a renewal letter from my current car insurance provider (Kwik Fit). There is a lot in there I don't understand (I've only been driving a year)

The attached quote states more than I was paying (probably because I got into an accident a couple of months ago). I'm now expected to pay almost £600 a month for TPFT cover on my C1! The accident itself wasn't my fault...a driver hit the back of my car on a main road when my car was stationery - traffic in front of me was moving slowly as traffic lights had just turned green.

At the back of the statement I received, under the section labelled 'Give details below of any motoring accidents, claims or losses in the last 5 years irrespective of blame', the following was stated:

Driver-Proposer, Date-28/10/2011, Own Damage Costs-Nil, Third Party Damage Costs-Nil, Personal Injury Costs-Nil, Claim Pending-No, Fault Claim-Yes, Claim on Proposer's Policy-Yes, NCD Prejudiced-Yes.

Somebody explain to me what this means as I have no idea..
Does 'Fault Claim - Yes' mean that they think this accident was my fault?? I do know that the driver that hit my car said to the people that were dealing with my claim that I reversed into him..but this didn't actually happen. This is the first car accident I've been in so I don't really know what this means..Is my insurance provider supposed to let me know who they think was at fault? I haven't paid for the damage done to my car - I wasn't asked for payment - I only have TPFT cover.

Can I switch insurance providers if I find a better deal without having to pay anything on this one??I'm really confused

I'd really appreciate any help or advice you can give me

StanVanDamn

Hi there,

Ill try and address some of your points as best as I can:

* Your renewal documents have been sent to you as your current policy or contract with your insurance company is coming to an end. This means you can move to a new insurance company. Most companies will provide better quotes to new customers so it is definitely worth looking (see the guides on this website for help).

* I understand you say the accident was not your fault but from what you have written it would seem the other party involved in the accident disputed liability. If an insurance company cannot prove if the third party drove into you or whether you reversed into them - this means the claim would go 50.50. That means your insurance company would have to pay half of the third party claim (so if the third party had 500 worth of damage - your insurance company would have to pay 250). This in turn means your NCB would be lost.

I know this seems a little harsh against you but is pretty normal in the life of insurance claims. Unless there is a witness holding the third party at fault, if the claim was to proceed to court it would go against the both of you as impossible to prove who hit who.

Hope that is helpful for you.

Quentin

A "fault" claim means that your insurer has had to pay out to the third party. You should enquire about this as if there was a split liability you will be entitled to claim your "share" of the costs you experienced off the third party.

eg. If liability was 50/50, then you can claim 50% of your costs directly from the third party.

You do need to disclose this claim on your record when looking for cheaper insurance elsewhere.

mikey72

You need to query why the insurer has agreed it is a fault claim, and how much they paid out.
There appears to be a growing trend for 50/50 claims at the moment, even when liability is clear cut, as here. A cynic would think it was a policy to reduce both ncd's rather than just one.

If you do not get a reasonable explanation, make an official complaint, and refer it to the FOS.

MarkyMarkD

mikey72 wrote: »

A cynic would think it was a policy to reduce both ncd's rather than just one.

A cynic might claim that, but they would be a stupid cynic.

Insurers settle claims 50:50 if there is no clear fault and they don't think it's worth the cost of fighting in court. Very few minor accident claims are worth the cost of fighting in court.

If you do not get a reasonable explanation, make an official complaint, and refer it to the FOS.

I agree with you here. I cannot understand why it would seem remotely likely that the OP reversed into the other party, unless there is something that they didn't mention in their original post. It is normally accepted that the vehicle driving into the back of another vehicle is responsible.

mikey72

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

A cynic might claim that, but they would be a stupid cynic.

Insurers settle claims 50:50 if there is no clear fault and they don't think it's worth the cost of fighting in court. Very few minor accident claims are worth the cost of fighting in court.

I agree with you here. I cannot understand why it would seem remotely likely that the OP reversed into the other party, unless there is something that they didn't mention in their original post. It is normally accepted that the vehicle driving into the back of another vehicle is responsible.

You may find other posters on here, myself included, think possibly the stupidity lies with these that find no problem in an innocent party losing their ncd due to the indifference of insurers, or through a policy that doesn't offer any benefit to their customers, but does offer the chance to increase premiums.

MarkyMarkD

But that isn't what happens.

If it was, insurers would always pretend that their customers were to blame for every accident, just so they could incorrectly steal their NCD.

As that clearly is NOT what happens, your cynicism is misplaced.

There is a difference between not pursuing a "guilty" party where the blame is unclear and the cost of pursuit is greater than the loss incurred (presumably the case here, although as I've said I cannot see why blame is unclear given the circumstances as relayed by the OP) and simply failing to assess claims properly as you allege.

In the majority of cases, customers who lose their NCD as a result of an "incorrect" judgement by their insurers are going to move their policy elsewhere, in any case, so it isn't even financially beneficial for insurers to do as you suggest.

kizkiz

teddet wrote: »

Own Damage Costs-Nil, Third Party Damage Costs-Nil, Personal Injury Costs-Nil,

Really?
not sure why this even went through insurance if there was no damage to either car or person
Yes, i know you should "inform" them anyway

teddet

Thank you all for your response and apologies for the lack of updates. I've been in touch with Kwik Fit last week who basically told me to speak to Sabre (the actual insurance providers (confused)), which I did and was told that there was a 'yes' under 'fault claim' because the third party disputed liability. I then asked them for information other insurance providers will need to be given quotes and was asked if I needed to know what has been paid out. As she was looking through this claim, she said it looks as if the claim is still open and will probably change to being a non-fault accident as someone went into the back of my car. Was also told that the claim is still open because they're attempting to make a claim but not heard from them (I don't know who 'them' is - whether it is the third party or insurer) in a while so put down non-fault and pending when looking for insurance elsewhere. Do you think I am ok to take this advice?

kizkiz wrote: »

Really?
not sure why this even went through insurance if there was no damage to either car or person
Yes, i know you should "inform" them anyway

Yes, really. I guess it's a mistake seeing as though the claim is still pending. The statement of insurance says different though

knowing

Claims that are pending will always be put down as fault until settled, it works on a "worst case" basis. You may get a return premium on your cover if the claim is settled in your favour.