Tiny bump in school car park - am I covered?

thenudeone

Joe_Horner wrote: »

If the OP was willing and able to cover their costs from her own pocket then she's entitled to do so.

Did your mates down the pub tell you that?

You need to read up on some facts.

1) you must be insured to use a car in a public place, even if it's private land
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/143
2) a person against whom a claim is made MUST provide their insurance details to the person make the claim
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/154

There is absolutely nothing you can do if a third party wants to claim off your insurance rather than deal directly with you.

Joe_Horner

thenudeone wrote: »

Did your mates down the pub tell you that?

You need to read up on some facts.

1) you must be insured to use a car in a public place, even if it's private land
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/143
2) a person against whom a claim is made MUST provide their insurance details to the person make the claim
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/154

There is absolutely nothing you can do if a third party wants to claim off your insurance rather than deal directly with you.

Thanks for the "mates down the pub" comment - usually the first call for someone who doesn't know a subject as well as they think. Those who do know tend to understand that just giving accurate info will do without the tired, recycled, sarcasm

Your points are correct and nowhere have I said otherwise. In fact, I was quite clear that both insurers must be informed.

But, having informed them, you do NOT have to leave it for them to pay out. If you can afford to cover the claim yourself you're perfectly entitled to do so and there's nothing the other party, or anyone else, can do to stop you.

Except for using a CMC to inflate the claim for a couple of scratches until it's too expensive, of course.

thenudeone

Joe_Horner wrote: »

If you can afford to cover the claim yourself you're perfectly entitled to do so and there's nothing the other party, or anyone else, can do to stop you.

How exactly are you going to pay if they refuse to communicate with you on the very reasonable grounds that they are already claiming from your insurance?

Are you going to follow them around to see which garage they get it repaired at, ask the garage how much the repair cost, post a cheque through the other driver's letter box, hope they don't throw the cheque away, then tell your insurer - "Don't bother paying out - I've already covered it"; and hope they take it seriously?

Your insurer MAY be prepared to allow you to pay their costs and count it as "no claim", but they don't have to.

I am genuinely intrigued as to how you think you can stop an insurer paying out (when they accept that they are legally liable) and force a third party to accept money from you instead.

Joe_Horner

thenudeone wrote: »

How exactly are you going to pay if they refuse to communicate with you on the very reasonable grounds that they are already claiming from your insurance?

Are you going to follow them around to see which garage they get it repaired at, ask the garage how much the repair cost, post a cheque through the other driver's letter box, hope they don't throw the cheque away, then tell your insurer - "Don't bother paying out - I've already covered it"; and hope they take it seriously?

Your insurer MAY be prepared to allow you to pay their costs and count it as "no claim", but they don't have to.

I am genuinely intrigued as to how you think you can stop an insurer paying out (when they accept that they are legally liable) and force a third party to accept money from you instead.

Quite simply really.

Your insurer is NOT "legally liable" to the
third party for anything. They have a contractual liability to YOU to cover the cost of any claim against you. In return for that cover you agree for them to act as your agent in the case of a claim, because it's in their interest to minimise the cost of the claim. But YOU are still the one who is liable to the 3rd party.

As long as you meet that liability the law couldn't care less how you do it. You could sell your grandmother into slavery to raise the money, doesn't matter* as long as you pay.

If you contact your insurer and tell them you intend to deal with a given claim yourself then you're absolving them from their contractual obligation, and their right to act as your agent, in that instance. They may not give you any benefit in return for that but they actually CAN'T act legally on your behalf if you tell them not to, any more than a stranger on the street can.



*although you may be in trouble elsewhere for that

thenudeone

Joe_Horner wrote: »

they actually CAN'T act legally on your behalf if you tell them not to, any more than a stranger on the street can.

It is a condition of your policy that you allow the insurer to make all decisions regarding the claim.

For example this is a section of my Aviva policy:

You must report any accident, injury, loss or damage to us as soon as possible so we can tell you what to do next and help resolve any claim.
If any person insured claiming under this policy receives any contact from another party in relation to any claim, the person insured must re-direct this to us and we will manage it on their behalf.
Anyone claiming under this policy or anyone acting on their behalf must also let us know immediately if anyone insured under this policy is to be prosecuted as a result of an incident or if there is to be an inquest or a fatal accident inquiry.
(2) Anyone claiming under this policy must not admit to any claim, promise any payment or refuse any claim without our written consent.
If we want to, we can take over and conduct in the name of the person claiming under the policy the defence or settlement of any claim or take proceedings for our own benefit to recover any payment we have made under this policy.
We shall have full discretion in the conduct of any proceedings or the settlement of any claim.
The person who is seeking payment under this policy shall give us all the information, documents and
assistance we require to enable any claim to be validated for us to achieve a settlement or pursue a recovery.

There was a "loophole" many years ago in which you could avoid having a claim against you simply by refusing to tell your insurer about the accident.

Thankfully that changed ages ago and the insurer doesn't need your permission to pay a third party if they believe the claim is valid.

If you think you can stop them, you're in cloud cuckoo land.

Joe_Horner

That is a CONTRACT term between you and the insurer, which I believe I mentioned in my previous post:

Joe_Horner wrote: »

They have a contractual liability to YOU to cover the cost of any claim against you. In return for that cover you agree for them to act as your agent in the case of a claim, because it's in their interest to minimise the cost of the claim.

There is nothing there that transfers legal liability for the accident to them, and nothing which grants them any power to make decisions or take action on your behalf except in so far as they need to to limit their losses under the contract.

All that means is, if you refuse to allow them to act as your agent in a particular case, they won't pay for the damage. Which is not a problem if you're paying for it yourself anyway.

olly300

JennyP wrote: »

I own up to being careless....I just can't figure how it happened. I was looking!



Gosh, do you know her?!!! She wasn't in the vehicle but I wouldn't put it past her to have a go....

Now for some good news.

While your insurance will raise next year hers is very likely to as well.

Even if you have a non-fault claim the fact that you placed your car in a place where it can get damaged and you claimed, means that the insurance company will increase their premium. This is simply because you risk profile now includes the fact you leave your car in places where it gets damaged.

So unless your car is expensive or new car (not just new to you) it's not worth claiming for minor damage on insurance.

dggar

olly300 wrote: »

This is simply because you risk profile now includes the fact you leave your car in places where it gets damaged.

.

I'm never going to take my car out of the garage ever again.
that will stop the premiums going up. :T

JennyP

olly300 wrote: »

Now for some good news.

While your insurance will raise next year hers is very likely to as well.

.

I know it's mean-spirited of me, but YOU HAVE CHEERED ME UP NO END!!!!

And actually, that's true. Someone hit my partner's car when it was parked and it all went through insurance (loads of damage - not just a tiny scratch!) and it DID put his insurance up!

:rotfl:

Joe_Horner

olly300 wrote: »

Even if you have a non-fault claim the fact that you placed your car in a place where it can get damaged and you claimed, means that the insurance company will increase their premium. This is simply because you risk profile now includes the fact you leave your car in places where it gets damaged.

It's also because the actuarial basis for assessing a premium is the likelihood of them having to pay out, not the likelihood of you having an accident or suffering loss. They're interested in how much of a danger you are to their profits rather than danger to other road users. Which is exactly how it should be because they are a business, after all!

The chance of you causing damage (through inexperience, postcode, driving history or whatever) is one part in that. The other part is the chance of you requiring them to pay for the damage if it happens. Running to them for every little scratch where a tin of paint from Halfrauds would have done the job is a pretty clear indicator that you're likely to cost them!