car insurance -outrage

impy78

I agree that Kwik Fit forcing you to have the MLP when you do ot require it, is a little baffling, yet I can't really see your cause for complaint with Bell: Had you told them prior to buying the policy, they would have given you the correct price, including the £60.

Sooler

tali wrote:

hands up , yes i did fail to disclose accident - but i still think they're blatantly conning me - same as kwik fit with blatant lies about legal protection , perhaps, but unlikely , it could be part of quote - but why tell me at the 11th hour and keep it hidden until i agree to take insurance?- lies and deciet

Withholding required information could quite possibly be construed as a blatant con, lies and/or deceit, … by either party.

Works both ways doesn’t it?


Legal protection is optional but skimping on it is a false economy.

Particularly as nowadays if a driver crashes into you there is the possibility that they would lie in court to the extent to say that they were going in the opposite direction to which they really were and will even say you crashed into them, even though you were actually stationery, it’s only your word against theirs … what will the judge decide??? or even they may deny any knowledge of any accident or just not report it to their insurance company in which case their insurance company may refuse to consider any claim unless you perhaps initiate court proceedings – try sorting that out on your own.

With legal protection you just sit back and do nothing as your insurance company will instruct a solicitor who will do it all for you.

tali

some of you have already idiotically (brazillianwax) assumed that i deliberately witheld the info -!!!!!!? and comparing with a dead woman speed ticket - double !!!!!!?
remember it was a non fault settled claim - you seem to think i deliberately witheld a fault claim - why should i be fleeced for another £60 for an accident i didn;t cause?? - thats my personla opinion

Bossyboots

tali wrote:

some of you have already idiotically (brazillianwax) assumed that i deliberately witheld the info -!!!!!!? and comparing with a dead woman speed ticket - double !!!!!!?
remember it was a non fault settled claim - you seem to think i deliberately witheld a fault claim - why should i be fleeced for another £60 for an accident i didn;t cause?? - thats my personla opinion

How could you have accidentally withheld the info? You are obliged to inform your insurers of any accident in which are involved as a driver, whether your fault or not and whether you make a claim on your policy or not. You also have this obligation even if you are driving on someone else's policy.

brazilianwax

tali wrote:

some of you have already idiotically (brazillianwax) assumed that i deliberately witheld the info -!!!!!!? and comparing with a dead woman speed ticket - double !!!!!!?
remember it was a non fault settled claim - you seem to think i deliberately witheld a fault claim - why should i be fleeced for another £60 for an accident i didn;t cause?? - thats my personla opinion

1) I am not an idiot - the fact that I understand how insurance works helps to show that
2) you knew you'd been involved in the accident, albeit non fault
3) you didn't disclose it when the question would have been "have you been involved in any accident or made any claims in the last 3 years, regardless of fault?" (i actually worked for Bell Direct so know this to be a fact)
4) your personal opinions have no place in the insurance world

I rest my case.

brazilianwax

PS - This is exactly why the Motor Insurers' Database exists - to prevent fraud.

Becles

tali wrote:

remember it was a non fault settled claim - you seem to think i deliberately witheld a fault claim - why should i be fleeced for another £60 for an accident i didn;t cause?? - thats my personla opinion

It was still a claim.

Motor Insurance prices are based on "no claim" not "no blame".

You had an accident and as it wasn't your fault, you claimed from the other persons insurance. For some reason, as you have claimed once, this makes you a higher risk than someone who has not claimed at all.

I agree it is harsh. I'm in the same boat as someone ran into the back of my stationary car a couple of years back, and I claimed off her insurance. I've had the same problem with higher premiums compared to if I was still claim free.

pianeet

why do we suddenly need legal protection,i thought that was the point of having fully comp insurance,ie you are insured comprehensively for any claims,also check if you have legal cover on your house insurance before you pay for it again on your motor insurance.

anewman

Becles wrote:

You had an accident and as it wasn't your fault, you claimed from the other persons insurance. For some reason, as you have claimed once, this makes you a higher risk than someone who has not claimed at all.

In that case when it comes to someone smashing into us and claiming against them, can we not also claim for future increase of insurance costs?! Or should we all just be sly and pretend to have whiplash and hope to get compensation for it?!

impy78

anewman wrote:

In that case when it comes to someone smashing into us and claiming against them, can we not also claim for future increase of insurance costs?! Or should we all just be sly and pretend to have whiplash and hope to get compensation for it?!

Your insurance goes up substantially if you have claimed for personal injury as part of a car insurance claim - they see you as someone who will claim for the slightest thing if you have.