Requiring (at fault) accident advice.

McKneff

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

You an expert in tail lifts?

No, just from experience and common sense.

Youve been in a bad mood for a coupla days now SP, wots up wi' ya.

losgiganteskid

Best leave this to your insurers to sort out - although there was only slight damage to the rear of the 3rd party vehicle, the owners will almost certainly wish to claim for loss of use whilst it is off the road undergoing repairs

Argos74

You do have the option to "buy out" the claim - that is, pay all of the claim costs to protect your NCD. The costs of the claim and potential effect on your future premiums will give you an indication of whether this is worthwhile.

For example, if your insurance goes up by £200/year, and claim costs are £5,000, it's not really going to be worth it. Conversely, if your insurance goes up by £500/year, and claim costs are £400, it definitely would be worth your while. When the claim is settled and finalised, get the total costs from your insurer and have a play around on price comparison sites to give you an indication of what would be the best option for you.

On the plus side, if it's a large national, the third party is more likely to claim for loss of use rather than credit hire, which can be eye-wateringly expensive.

chanz4

and whipcash lets not forget

Sgt_Pepper_2

Quentin wrote: »

Because if the insurer is reimbursed in full that's what it will be!

("Fault" and "non fault" claims don't refer to "blame" - you can be blameless and still get a fault claim eg. after being struck by an unidentified third party, or having your car vandalised etc)

I understand you can be at fault and blameless. But I don't see how running into the back of someone can be a non fault if Iinsurance is all about risk.

Do you have a link to something I can have a read of?

Quentin

Insurers use the terms "fault" & "non fault" to describe whether or not the claim costs them anything, and is nothing to do with "blame".

Insurers will still take the incident into account, but it will be a "non fault" claim if the OP reimburses them.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Quentin wrote: »

Insurers use the terms "fault" & "non fault" to describe whether or not the claim costs them anything, and is nothing to do with "blame".

Insurers will still take the incident into account, but it will be a "non fault" claim if the OP reimburses them.

So our op runs into the back of someone and pays the insurance back. They are then free to search for a new policy and declare it as a non fault claim?

Do you have that written down somewhere?

Quentin

I've written it down for you above now in more than one post! I have explained the insurance interpretation of "non fault" being nothing to do with "blame".

If you are blameless but make a claim eg after a vandal keys your bodywork and smashes your headlights you will have a "fault" claim on your record!