Insurance increased because of undeclared incidents

vaio

vax2002 wrote: »

When they are asked to pay it is a "claim" they are either liable or not, they do not "do" accidents.
However, someone runs in to you, then its an accident and they can charge you more.
The simple truth is, you can not claim on someone else's policy, they have to do it.
So you have made no claim, for been an innocent party in someone else's accident.
Someone should take these **** to court and get it laid down in stone that UK law states you shall not suffer loss or harm.
Is this what they are doing ? causing you loss for someone else's negligence ?

I think the bank of contract and tort law does this already, the problems start when insurance companies & others start suggesting that these laws don't apply to insurance companies

I don't think you can (or should) legislate to prevent insurance companies arriving at my premium in which ever way they choose, if they choose to use load for non-fault incidents then that's fine but if they do so then that loading is a consequential cost which can be reclaimed from the at fault party just like the repair cost, loss of earnings, hire car etc.

mikey72

lisyloo wrote: »

I agree a complaint should go in (which is what I suggested in post #13).
But you cannot say who is at fault with one side of the story.
Taking further action should surely depend on the outcome. For example if the insurer has full trace backing them up then why would you encourage anyone to unnecessarily raise costs for everyone?

Yes I agree that's what he said (I'll check it out later but I'm working from 9)
That doesn't in anyway mean the customer is right in this case.
It depends on the input and at the moment we have one person's word with no evidence.

I think the proof of ncd, backing up what the op has said would do for most people.
As against the "computer says no" mantra re-interated so often.

Again, yes, I wouldn't mind the odd penny going on my insurance
instead of taking the word of the insurer, who I'm sure could happily state their it department was infalible, so I'd let them prove that a well.
I asume you would expect them to have full access to be able to prove the comparison site was also glitch free as well, as required by the FSA in my link.

For the record, can't see anything like you suggesting a complaint in post#13, maybe you forgot to type it in?
People can be mistaken over what they remember, or thought they did.