Insurers refuse to make cash settlement

mikey72

dacouch wrote: »

Looks like RSA won the latest round http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/motorinsurance/9333905/Court-ruling-could-force-motor-insurance-premiums-to-rise-by-25pc.html

It's ok if RSA do it.

mikey72

Quentin wrote: »

Come at it another way. Get your mate to give you a commission for getting him the job!

Surely you mean a referral fee.

Quentin

mikey72 wrote: »

Surely you mean a referral fee.

No. The expression I meant was "a bung".

mikey72

That's not what insurance companies companies call it when they're on the receiving end though.

paddedjohn

Twice in the last 15 years i have had to claim on my buildings insurance and both times with 3 different builders i was asked what my excess was so they could build (lose) it into the quote.

Dangermac

mikey72 wrote: »

That's not what insurance companies companies call it when they're on the receiving end though.

oh come on Mikey72. I cant really be bothered arguing with you tonight, but you would be the first to moan that everyone's premiums are rising because of insurers' inability to deal with fraud.

At least the OP was honest enough to come clean about his motives!!

At the end of the day, inflating a claim to 'lose the excess' is wrong, albeit it's very much a small-scale fraud - but still wrong - and could cost the OP dearly if he was ever found out.

DM

magpiecottage

Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 says:

"(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)A representation is false if—
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading."

So it IS fraud.

Section 1 of the same Act says:

"(3)A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both)."

High risk strategy - if you commit the crime then you could risk losing your freedom. You also risk never being able to get ANY insurance again. If that happens, you can wave goodbye to your car as well.

In the end, the cost of your proposed crime, and it is a crime, are the honest policyholders whose premiums will reflect the cost of it.

So I hope you see the error of your plans but if you don't, I hope you are caught.

mikey72

Dangermac wrote: »

oh come on Mikey72. I cant really be bothered arguing with you tonight, but you would be the first to moan that everyone's premiums are rising because of insurers' inability to deal with fraud.

At least the OP was honest enough to come clean about his motives!!

At the end of the day, inflating a claim to 'lose the excess' is wrong, albeit it's very much a small-scale fraud - but still wrong - and could cost the OP dearly if he was ever found out.

DM

I don't agree with doing it, from either side. But it could pale into insignificance compared to the insurers dubious pratices that are in the public eye now. As you say, at least he was honest enough to admit it.

Dangermac

mikey72 wrote: »

I don't agree with doing it, from either side. But it could pale into insignificance compared to the insurers dubious pratices that are in the public eye now. As you say, at least he was honest enough to admit it.

Yeah. Pretty minor stuff, but could cost him dear if he is ever found out. What happens if his contractor friend spills the beans at a later date?

Regarding dubious insurer practices, not sure that is relevant to this thread. I can see what you are trying to do.

DM

vaio

magpiecottage wrote: »

Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 says:

"(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)A representation is false if—
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading."

So it IS fraud.

Section 1 of the same Act says:

"(3)A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).".........

interesting to read that in the context of the recent RSA case