Car Insurance Question regarding an accident

HMorton

Hi,

My OH had a minor car accident during the week, totally his fault. The other person involved agreed to get a couple of quotes for the damage to the bumper and he thought he would settle it outside insurance as he already has a claim from August 2011.

The other person has now come back with a quote for £1,400 to fix a bumper of a 15 year old car _pale_ which we think is extreme.

I vaguely remember hearing that it was possible to have your insurance company deal with the claim and if you subsequently settled the bill via the insurance company it did not register as a fault claim against your policy. Does anyone know if that is correct ?

Any other advice on how to deal with this would be appreciated.

Thanks

withabix

:facepalm: <

---

there should be a smilie for this!

As soon as you contact your insurer, the fault accident is registered, however it is settled.

Whatever your insurance goes up by will be less than £1400 unless you are under 25 or have a flash car.

Phone your insurers now and report the accident.

Don't tell them that you have admitted liability, because that will anger them.

There is a good chance that the other driver isn't insured at all, so that might get you out of an expensive mistake.

You will undoubtedly be getting a whiplash claim soon as well - all the more reason for your insurer to deal with it.

HMorton

I thought there was a concept in Insurance of an accident with no resulting claim, i.e. the insurance didn't pay out.

Fortunately no chance of personal injury as both cars were parked in a garage forecourt, OH hadn't applied the hand-brake correctly and it rolled into the other car. Both drivers were in the garage.

mikey72

withabix wrote: »

There is a good chance that the other driver isn't insured at all, so that might get you out of an expensive mistake.

Do you not have insurance, or do you assume only you have? How does it get you off being paid by the third party if you don't?

Quentin

HMorton wrote: »

I vaguely remember hearing that it was possible to have your insurance company deal with the claim and if you subsequently settled the bill via the insurance company it did not register as a fault claim against your policy. Does anyone know if that is correct ?.....

That is correct.

"FAult" & "non fault" claims refer to whether or not the insurer concerned had to pay anything out.

Thus if you subsequently reimburse the insurer in full it is no longer a "fault" claim, and any NCD you lost should be reinstated.

You still have the incident on your record, and it must be disclosed to future insurers you approach for quotes, but it won't be regarded as a "claim".

withabix

mikey72 wrote: »

Do you not have insurance, or do you assume only you have? How does it get you off being paid by the third party if you don't?

Your post makes no sense.

The point was, if (hypothetically) the other driver has no insurance, it is unlikely that he will pursue you for damage to his car, because his will look a lot worse after it comes out of the crusher...

adamc260

Exactly what Quentin said

Quentin

withabix wrote: »

....The point was, if (hypothetically) the other driver has no insurance, it is unlikely that he will pursue you for damage to his car, because his will look a lot worse after it comes out of the crusher...

If you are the innocent party in a collision, what difference does it make what insurance you have?

You can pursue the liable third party (and would have to if you had no cover for damage to your own car!!)

thenudeone

withabix wrote: »

The point was, if (hypothetically) the other driver has no insurance, it is unlikely that he will pursue you for damage to his car, because his will look a lot worse after it comes out of the crusher...

A driver needs third party insurance to be in place if the car is "used" in a public place. If it was unattended it probably wasn't being "used" so at that point no offence was being committed.

Even if it was, there is no power to retrospectively seize vehicles that were uninsured. They can only be seized if found whilst being driven. unfortunately.

vaio

thenudeone wrote: »

A driver needs third party insurance to be in place if the car is "used" in a public place. If it was unattended it probably wasn't being "used" so at that point no offence was being committed.

Even if it was, there is no power to retrospectively seize vehicles that were uninsured. They can only be seized if found whilst being driven. unfortunately.

I'm pretty being parked in a public place needs insurance too so the offence is committed even if it isn't being driven, don't know about the retrospective seizing though.

Either way, insurance status doesn't affect the liability of the at fault party