hit and run, so to speak....admiral probs

Bl_betty84

My car that was parked on the road where I live was damaged at night by another car who left the scene of the crime at the beginning of this year. The police was called just after it happened but unfortunately, although there were few witnesses at the time, nobody got the car registration (even though a neighbour mentionned that the driver was a friend of a neighbour who was having a party when it happened.. drunk (uninsured?) driver?.. But the police said this neighbour would certainly not give his friend up to the police.. of course!). I immediately put a claim on my insurance, and after inspection of the car (was I supposed to get the inspection report before talking about my car valuation?), it was declared of a total loss and the insurance gave me a valuation for my car.
However, my insurance is now telling me that altough I haven't lost my NCB (protected), my claim is classified as an 'accident at fault' because they don't have a third party to claim liability and their money back. Why would it be 'my fault' whereas I was not present at the moment of the accident, and the car was parked correctly? Surely the police report should confirm that? I feel very frustrated with the way the insurance deals with my claim, almost like if I, the victim, was responsible for what happened!

Thanks for all your thoughts!

InsideInsurance

It is an unfortunate word that has gotten stuck.

"fault" from an insurance perspective is nothing to do with "blame" but is as simple as if the insurer gets their money back or not. They may not get their money back for a whole host of reasons (your to blame for the incident, the third party is untraced, third party is uninsured, thief isnt caught, thief cannot afford to repay etc) but all would count as a "fault" claim.

A couple of insurers, EG Direct Line, have "promises" around things like vandalism or uninsured drivers but even with these you need to read the small print as many are not as broad/ good as the headline sounds

Quentin

Had you been able to trace the culprit, your insurer would have pursued him or his insurer to reimburse them, and your "fault" claim would have been changed to "non fault". Your lost protected NCD "life" would be reinstated

When applying for quotes you will need to disclose this claim as a fault claim as that is how it will now be recorded on your claims history.

notanewuser

Fault in insurance terms relates to who paid, not who was actually at fault.

Bl_betty84

I guess I'll have to carry this 'fault' with me for the next 5 years then... I really feel that insurance businesses (and I don't think these two words should go together) are very unfair, in the sense that we all take a policy thinking that we will be covered for any damages that could happened to my car (I usually always read small print and all that, but until it happened to you, you never realise the importance of each word!) and we try to be as honnest as possible and we get pay a little for the damage; whereas some people pay (or not) an insurance, damaged other people properties, and get away with it...
Harsh truth!

InsideInsurance

The fact that someone else didnt have the decency to stop really isnt the fault of the insurer.

The insurers have honoured their part of the deal in terms of repairing/ total lossing your vehicle in exchange for your premiums

Bl_betty84

But in that case there is also no need for the insurer to add a claim 'at fault' in my record, knowing that it will increase my premium in the future.

InsideInsurance

Bl_betty84 wrote: »

But in that case there is also no need for the insurer to add a claim 'at fault' in my record, knowing that it will increase my premium in the future.

As I say, "fault" is the wrong word and its unfortunate that its become an industry standard.

They've added the fact you've made a claim and they've made a net outlay. Which is simply the truth.

Bl_betty84

I will be very cautious next time to put a claim toward my car insurance, knowing that it would in any case affect my record. Which should not be the case according to me, but insurance companies don't seem to agree on that...!
Thanks anyway for all the answers!

Quentin

In this present case you had little choice but make a claim

(Unless you were happy to pay for a new car and lose whatever value your write off came to)

Though even if you had made no claim, the (total) loss would still have to be reported, (unless you are happy to breach your policy conditions and risk non disclosure and all its consequences), with a premium loading probably inevitable!