Accused of accident that never happened

Quentin

vaio wrote: »

yep, but in this case as the OP will suffer a loss (potentially or actual if he decides to retain the car) if the insurance company don't defend (or at least consider defending and discuss it with the OP) then I'd say he's not being trested fairly and should complain & refer to the FOS if they don't have a rethink......

How can they defend the claim if their policyholder refuses to comply with them over the allegation?

And his insurer just could not accept his instruction that he does not want them to deal with this.

Insurers generally do have a procedure to deal with claims against their policyholders not complying with their request for assistance over claims from third parties!

By not complying the OP is asking for this to be dealt with as the insurer thinks.

vaio

how can the policyholder give proper help to the insurance company if he doesn't know the details of the incident?

I'm not sure I'd be spending any time on it if the insure wouldn't tell me the details

Being unwilling to commit to writing seems strange too

magpiecottage

Tell your insurer you have not been involved in any incident and know nothing about it.

They will then be in a position to respond to the other party. Ask your insurer to confirm in writing that this has happened and that it will not appear as a claim or incident on your insurance record.

Crazy_Jamie

vaio wrote: »

how can the policyholder give proper help to the insurance company if he doesn't know the details of the incident?

There are several steps to take in order to adequately defend an accusation of this nature. One of those steps is to instruct an engineer to examine the client's vehicle to confirm that there is no damage and/or no recent repair work. Another is to get the client to confirm where s/he was on the day of the accident. Whilst I certainly agree that the insurer should be providing the OP with a date, time and location for the accident, equally the OP should be willing to comply with an engineer inspection as well. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

vaio

yep but surely the first stages should be paper based rather than the expense of sending inspecting engineers out.

I still can't see any reason why the OP insurer won't commit to writing and can't see any reason why he shouldn't have the full details of the incident before having to try and refute it

mikey72

I wouldn't entertain any discussion about this over the phone, and would only respond to written communication. There are far too many ways to be scammed otherwise, and any insurer should be able to recognise that and submit the request in writing. I won't even discuss anything over the phone if I haven't instigated the call initially.

sarahg1969

rtho782 wrote: »

Also, how can an engineer report ever work out in my favour?

Possible outcomes:

1. Car is immaculate. He can just say I've had it repaired.
2. Car is scratched or god forbid not in perfect condition and has a crack. Obviously it happened in the "accident".

There just isn't a way to prove a negative.

Yes, there is.

A forensic accident investigator would be able to tell if a vehicle had or had not been repaired. And they would also be able to consider whether or not any damage found is consistent with the damage to the other vehicle and the alleged accident circumstances.