Don't EVER notify your car insurance of an 'incident' if you don;t intend to claim!!!

olly300

roddydogs wrote: »

this can also happen-somone mistakes your reg no for another (or just plucks a number out of the air which happens to be yours-)and reports to thier insurance company that a vehicle reg no**********(your number) hit their car and drove off so they are claiming against you. (your insurance company is on the police database)
Quiet obvioulsy you then say (as i did) that you were nowhere near, say Scotland at that time. Your insurance company (Churchill in my case) then sends you 3 letters demanding an explanation, despite repeated calls that the incident was nothing to do with me.
Net result-when i get my renewal notice it still says i have this as a "Claim", thou as i luckily, as have a protected bonus i do not pay any extra premium!

You do what I did and be proactive. It's hassle but as you are on MSE you should be aware that sometimes you are going to have to go through a bit of hassle to stop companies taking the p!!!, and phoning call centres rarely works. Also writing a letter is quicker than getting through to a call centre.

You firstly refuse to complete the claim letters and send a complaint letter to the insurance company via recorded delivery asking why they keep sending you the claim forms and making it clear on the date in question where you were. At the end of the letter you state if they don't resolve the issue in writing you will take the matter further including complaining to the financial ombudsman.

They then should answer your letter and admit that you have no claims as they have to pay if your complaint is referred to the financial ombudsman.

If they don't in the timeframe given for complaints you refer your complaint to the financial ombudsman and do a Data Subject Access Request. (Apparently such requests are a hassle for most companies.) You then ask them to change the incorrect data they have on you or you will refer them to the Information Commissioner.

marble

calisto wrote: »

LOL! I am of course being facetious - except of course, someone has already been done for having factory fit parking sensors. (do a MSE history search)

Is there any chance you could have a go at finding the link? I'm not being lazy, but I did a search and came up blank (I tried various terms including 'parking sensor insurance'). I used to work with insurance claims, so I'd be very interested to read this.

Al

calisto

marble wrote: »

Is there any chance you could have a go at finding the link? I'm not being lazy, but I did a search and came up blank (I tried various terms including 'parking sensor insurance'). I used to work with insurance claims, so I'd be very interested to read this.

Al

Hi - found it: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=65328&highlight=parking+sensors

Let me know what you think?

raskazz

calisto wrote: »

Hi - found it: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=65328&highlight=parking+sensors

Let me know what you think?

If that is true, then I fear for the sanity of Admiral's underwriters.

No policy I have ever seen rates parking sensors as an increased premium.

It's not clear but actually I do have a sneaking suspicion that the charge in that case may have actually been an admin fee for a policy amendment and that Bell were pulling a fast one with their 'explanation' of the charge.

calisto

raskazz wrote: »

The fact that you as an indvidual assosciate modifications only with extreme alterations is irrelevant.

Insurers' questions are worded in a clear way - usually along the lines of "has the car been modified or altered in any way/had optional extras added?". If you answer honestly, then there is no problem.

As soon as I open the door and sit in the car it has been modified in some way. If only by the impression of my fat bum on the seat.

So what you are telling me is that everytime I replace my pen in the pen holder, or change my airfreshener, I must inform my insurance company? I guess I could stop informing them of changes of mirror mounted "Magic Trees" when I replace them, providing I stick to the same scent on replacement. However, I must inform them if I decide to change to an air-vent mounted type freshener?

Where is the boundary between "extreme" modifications, and "any modifications from manufacturers specification" ?

Admin fees have been discussed elsewhere and are fair. If the modification is genuinely insignificant then no insurer will void cover. You cannot really 'void' RTA cover, but we don't have to go into all that here.

Yes it is fair to charge £25 or so every time I change my air freshener, replace a tyre, or introduce a new pen to the vehicle.

Underwriters do take a commonsense approach on these matters - under FSA rules we cannot repudiate a claim on grounds of non-disclosure of fact if the insured could not have reasonably been expected to disclose that fact.

Glad to hear it. However, FSA guidelines are not the law. I refuse to believe a judge in a court of law would allow an insurer to refuse to pay out for e.g., the Selby disaster if it turned out Gary Hart had failed to notify the insurer of his £15 Netto reverse parking sensors.

raskazz

calisto wrote: »

As soon as I open the door and sit in the car it has been modified in some way. If only by the impression of my fat bum on the seat.

No - if you want to be pedantic that is actually wear and tear, not a modification.

calisto wrote: »

So what you are telling me is that everytime I replace my pen in the pen holder, or change my airfreshener, I must inform my insurance company? I guess I could stop informing them of changes of mirror mounted "Magic Trees" when I replace them, providing I stick to the same scent on replacement. However, I must inform them if I decide to change to an air-vent mounted type freshener?

No. The frivolous examples you use would not have to be declared as air fresheners, pens etc are personal effects rather then modifications to the vehicle itself.

calisto wrote: »

Where is the boundary between "extreme" modifications, and "any modifications from manufacturers specification" ?

This is precisely why insurers ask for ALL modifications/extras to be disclosed so a judgement can be made, the policyholder can be informed and no grey area is left.

calisto wrote: »

Yes it is fair to charge £25 or so every time I change my air freshener, replace a tyre, or introduce a new pen to the vehicle.

Again, these are not things that would have to be disclosed anyway (assuming the tyres are the correct dimensions etc), so are not relevant.

calisto wrote: »

Glad to hear it. However, FSA guidelines are not the law. I refuse to believe a judge in a court of law would allow an insurer to refuse to pay out for e.g., the Selby disaster if it turned out Gary Hart had failed to notify the insurer of his £15 Netto reverse parking sensors.

All insurers are regulated by the FSA and thus in the event of any dispute the FOS would make its judgement in accordance with the FSA's rules and the insurer would be bound by the decision. The insurer would not be able to escape the liability to third parties anyway, as long as a policy was inforce at the time of the incident.

Edited to add: Actually, the relevant legal principle is called 'uberrima fides' (Utmost good faith). In a nutshell this means that the insured is obliged to disclose all 'material facts' to the insurer. A fact is material if the fact would influence the judgement of a prudent or reasonable insurer in determining whether or not to accept the risk; and, if accepted, at what premium and with which terms and conditions.

calisto

roddydogs wrote: »

Net result-when i get my renewal notice it still says i have this as a "Claim", thou as i luckily, as have a protected bonus i do not pay any extra premium!

I think you will find you will have possibly paid an extra premium. The NCD protection will cover your NCD percentage. But your claims history is calculated anyway.

It defies common sense I know, but the fact you have a claims history will apply additional to your base premium even though you believe you are covered by protected NCD.

In most cases 2 Windscreen claims will not apply, and a certain amount of "non-fault" will be rated at zero too. But 2 or more "non-fault" incidents will ramp your premium (depending on insurers rating engine). All other rating factors will then total up.

Finally your "NO CLAIMS DISCOUNT" will then apply to the overall premium as a percentage discount.

I know this because I coded a rating engine for one of the bigger insurers out there!

judderman62

That's weird - this must vary with Insurance so.

i recently had someone drive into me and we sorted it all without insurance companies getting involved - though to be safe I did ring mine and advised them of the incident to be safe and in case the guy suddenly renaged and I was told they would not even make a note as one has (I think it was 90 days) to report it so we could go ahead and sort with no notes being made anywhere and if it did go pear shaped I could then contact them and it would have no implications

Judders

calisto

raskazz wrote: »

No - if you want to be pedantic that is actually wear and tear, not a modification.

True, LOL!

No. The frivolous examples you use would not have to be declared as air fresheners, pens etc are personal effects rather then modifications to the vehicle itself.

So what exactly *is* a modification to the vehicle itself?

This is precisely why insurers ask for ALL modifications/extras to be disclosed so a judgement can be made, the policyholder can be informed and no grey area is left.

What *is* a modification? I have always felt it is not something so trivial as an air freshener, or any factory option, or aftermarket pattern parts, yet you ask me to tell the insurers of ALL of them. At £25 a time. Not forgetting that the call handler is probably some 18 year old bint who doesn't know the first thing about cars, got the bus into work that day anyway, and is only interested in making a sales target.

Again, these are not things that would have to be disclosed anyway (assuming the tyres are the correct dimensions etc), so are not relevant.

What makes you so sure?. First, EVERYTHING has to be declared - you know - just in case, then next, I am using frivolous examples.

The insurer would not be able to escape the liability to third parties anyway, as long as a policy was inforce at the time of the incident.

Aha, so If I had a TP policy the whole thingummy about modifications is irrelevant anyway? The law will cover all third parties?

Ok, my own car and injuries may be toast, but something as big as the Selby disaster will still be covered?

raskazz

calisto wrote: »

What *is* a modification? I have always felt it is not something so trivial as an air freshener, or any factory option, or aftermarket pattern parts, yet you ask me to tell the insurers of ALL of them.

Generally a modification is anything that alters the mechanics, performance, value, or appearance of the vehicle from the standard model.

Personal possessions eg air fresheners do not have to be disclosed. But permanently affixed sat nav would.

Aftermarket pattern parts are also generally fine as long as they do not actually alter performance, value, appearance.

Factory options have to be disclosed. For example, factory or not, a body kit increases the risk.

I don't know why this is such a big issue - it's not too much to ask to quickly inform your insurer of any extras is it?

calisto wrote: »

At £25 a time.

Not really. Of course you would be expected to disclose them at inception or when changing vehicle - in which case no admin fee is charged purely for disclosing extras/modifications already present. You would only incur this fee if you made the addition/modification mid-term - and even then, normally only if the modification/extra changed the actual risk premium.

calisto wrote: »

What makes you so sure?

Because I'm a motor underwriter. :cool:

calisto wrote: »

First, EVERYTHING has to be declared - you know - just in case, then next, I am using frivolous examples.

Yes - everything that is a modification. What you listed were possessions not affixed to the vehicle - ergo they are not modifications and do not have to be disclosed!

calisto wrote: »

Aha, so If I had a TP policy the whole thingummy about modifications is irrelevant anyway? The law will cover all third parties?

Ok, my own car and injuries may be toast, but something as big as the Selby disaster will still be covered?

You're getting into quite complex stuff now. :eek:

But to simplify things - if a third party was injured in an RTA and the insurer voided the policy then they would have to indemnify that third party BUT could then seek to recover from the policyholder - i.e. sue him for what they paid to the third party. This is the main reason why non-disclosure is a stupid idea - injury cases can run into millions of £'s.