None fault accident

huckster

MoneySaverLog wrote: »

Rubbish, I was not even in my car when the drunk hit it. It was parked up.

You miss the point. It was not whether you were in the car at the time of the event taking place, but that you owned the car. It has something to do with risk models, which indicate that if you are subject to one misforturnate event, you are satistically proven to be more likely to suffer another.

We can all think that this is rubbish and debate this until the cows come home. But unfortunately, Insurers believe this to be true and they increase the risk premium, by applying loadings.

No point telling people that they are spoutish rubbish in their posts. Do your own research into this and then come back with a reasoned argument, as to how you believe the Insurers in your case, did not apply any principles of evaluating risk.

lippy1923

MoneySaverLog wrote: »

Rubbish, I was not even in my car when the drunk hit it. It was parked up.

I completely agree. Utter rubbish! Similar situation to you,except the man who hit my parked car was not drunk... that I know of. Just some silly oap driving an oversized vehicle that he obviously couldn’t handle. Yet I have to disclose for the next 5 years the fact I was involved in an accident “eventhough I wasn’t present” and I am obviously a high risk to others now.

I understand how statistically speaking I have been involvedin a claim, but cannot comprehend how this premium increase each year is justified for my specific situation. Why should I have to pay extra for the next 5 years when I wasn’t even there? I don’t see why people like us can’t claim off the other persons insurance for the increase we have to pay and have it reimbursed to us each year.

O well, life isn't fair

Mrs_Arcanum

Or like someone OH knows who suddenly found a claim had been made (and paid) against his insurance without them telling him. Yet their premium was only affected some 2 years later.

They are fighting this.

lippy1923

huckster wrote: »

It has something to do with risk models, which indicate that if you are subject to one misforturnate event, you are satistically proven to be more likely to suffer another. /QUOTE]

Should this mean that after 5 years, if we have not had to claim and not been apart of their "statistically proven to have another accident" spiel, then people in our situation should get our extra premium increases back?

Actually, to be fair I can't really complain. My increases have only been minimal £20-£30 here and there. Then last year going through confused.com I tried the quotes with and without the accident to compare and for some unknown reason, my quote went down when I disclosed the accident by £125 .... Anyone able to offer insight as to why this may of happened?

huckster

lippy1923 wrote: »

I don’t see why people like us can’t claim off the other persons insurance for the increase we have to pay and haveit reimbursed to us each year.

I agree with that. There should be some provision in law, that enables you to claim a relevant sum for premium increases that you suffered, for a non fault accident.

At the point of the accident being settled, you won't know the amount, so the courts can't deal with an unknown amount. But if there was a court case in the high court, which ruled that innocent motorists, were able to submit claims against the third party for premium increases at the time the increase was suffered, you would then see a change in behaviour from Insurers. They would have to think about not adding premium increases for non-fault accidents, whatever the merits risk wise in doing so.

huckster

lippy1923 wrote: »

huckster wrote: »

It has something to do with risk models, which indicate that if you are subject to one misforturnate event, you are satistically proven to be more likely to suffer another. /QUOTE]

Should this mean that after 5 years, if we have not had to claim and not been apart of their "statistically proven to have another accident" spiel, then people in our situation should get our extra premium increases back?

You won't get them back.. But after a period of no losses being suffered, the loadings will come off. I think most Insurers will remove the loading for a non fault claim after 2 years anyway.

thegirlintheattic

MoneySaverLog wrote: »

Rubbish, I was not even in my car when the drunk hit it. It was parked up.

I didn't say I agreed, I was telling what they insurers say to justify the loading. No need to be rude.

thegirlintheattic

lippy1923 wrote: »

I completely agree. Utter rubbish! Similar situation to you,except the man who hit my parked car was not drunk... that I know of. Just some silly oap driving an oversized vehicle that he obviously couldn’t handle. Yet I have to disclose for the next 5 years the fact I was involved in an accident “eventhough I wasn’t present” and I am obviously a high risk to others now.

I understand how statistically speaking I have been involvedin a claim, but cannot comprehend how this premium increase each year is justified for my specific situation. Why should I have to pay extra for the next 5 years when I wasn’t even there? I don’t see why people like us can’t claim off the other persons insurance for the increase we have to pay and have it reimbursed to us each year.

O well, life isn't fair

You can. You can sue the third party for the extra premium you have to pay due to the accident.

Quentin

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

You can. You can sue the third party for the extra premium you have to pay due to the accident.

What is the source for this poor advice?

(Sueing costs - and when you lose you don't get your costs back!)

thegirlintheattic

Quentin wrote: »

What is the source for this poor advice?

(Sueing costs - and when you lose you don't get your costs back!)

My friend was involved in a no-fault collision a few years back and got the difference between his premium with/without the accident paid for the next year. I believe his court costs were very low, from what I remember all he had to do was fill in a form. The other insurer wouldn't pay because it wasn't considered an uninsured loss or some such but he took it to small claims and the third party did not dispute.

I was not advising that the poster do this, simply saying that you can take someone to small claims for this, and in this case won.