Car insurance and court attendance

eddddy

AlanF wrote: »

...and to confirm that they are refusing to compensate her for the wronged loss of NCB if the end result is that the accident was deemed not her fault.
...

Hi AlanF

You need to find out more details, for example:

The insurer may not be contesting fault (i.e. they are still agreeing that your step-daughter was at fault) - they may be contesting the amount of the claim at £55k.

i.e. the repair costs were inflated, the car hire charges were inflated, the loss of earnings was inflated, and/or the severity of the whiplash was exaggerated.

So, for example, the claim might reduce from £55k to say £5k - but it would still be a fault claim, and hence a lost ncd.

Perhaps the insurance company feel they have enough evidence to show the claim was inflated, but don't have enough evidence to show it was fake.

Atidi

AlanF wrote: »

...She has told them it's a long time ago, she can't remember any details other than what she made in her statement, and that she is reluctant to take time off work in a new job with great pressures on her. They (the company's solicitor) have been very pushy, and have told that she has to co-operate, otherwise they will attempt to claim the £55K back from her!

Standard. You have to co-operate with your insurer in their reasonable requests to recover their losses.

AlanF wrote: »

They have also told her that even if it is successful, she will not gain from this

Standard.
Insurance is purchased to protect from against financial loss against the protected perils, not to provide any financial gain.

AlanF wrote: »

- they have told her that she can't retrospectively have her no-claims adjusted,

Hmmm... worth clarifying this I think.

She will not get any refund of any past years premiums for insurance that have now expired. She was on risk, and the premium was based on the risk at that time. She agreed to pay the premium requested and the insurer indemnified her against the specified perils for the sum agreed.

However, I think if there is now a successful, full recovery of the claim she had, then the accrued NCB should be reinstated. Claims where a successful, full recovery are made do not normally affect NCB entitlement. This won't affect past years premiums, but could be of benefit in future years.
Note the claim will still need to be disclosed (e.g. if going to another insurer) but she can say a full recovery was obtained (if that is the outcome of the court case)
Unfortunately a loading may still be applied to her premium as she was involved in an claim, irrespective of whose fault that may have been.
Note: all this applies to a full recovery, including recovery of costs she incurred repairing her own car (see below)

Otherwise, it's standard to lose the NCB after such a claim (assuming it wasn't otherwise protected, for which an additional premium would have been due, if available).

AlanF wrote: »

nor be repaid the costs of repairing her own car (she was TPF&T).

Standard. She paid no premium to cover any costs relating to the repair of her own vehicle (but see below)

AlanF wrote: »

They have also said that they won't cover any expenses she incurs, including lost pay.

Standard. The insurer does not cover this type of expense.

Any pre-hearing meetings should ideally be local to her, or perhaps the insurer would be prepared to do these over the phone? I'm sure they will pay for the call if necessary.
Try to negotiate a convenient time for such meetings/calls i.e. outside of working hours, during a lunch break (particularly if done over the phone) etc.

Regarding attendance at court, then it would be usual for the successful party to ask the judge for expenses and that should cover the reasonable travel costs to & from court and loss of actual earnings in attending the court hearing.

You should ask the insurer to consider making such a request. Ultimately, on such request, the judge will decide and where such expenses are awarded, I would have thought she would be entitled to receive them.


Claiming reasonable repair costs to own car
As I explained, under TPF&T, these costs were never covered under the policy your step-daughter decided to purchase.

However, she could bring a claim of her own against the third party, and if the insurer wins their claim, then I'm pretty sure she would probably win hers too. And if the insurer thinks the third party are going to cough up £55k, then it sounds like the third party are not short of a bob or two.

If your step daughter wishes to make a claim of her own (probably after the successful claim of the insurer) then I would suggest she seeks independent legal advice first. This may even initially be in the form of a FREE 30 minute chat with a local solicitor who may even suggest she does her own claim in the small claims court (dependent on the value of the losses she actually incurred)

Atidi

AlanF wrote: »

...I've suggested that she asks their solicitor to confirm in writing that they will take action against her if she refuses to attend court on their behalf,...

I would be very cautious of even asking such a question.

It would demonstrate the possibility, even positive consideration, that your step-daughter is not willing to co-operate with the reasonable requests of the insurer over the claim.

I think that could effectively null, void, cancel, suspend, or revoke the cover (hence why the insurer may come after your step-daughter for the losses they have incurred) and she won't want that as it will make getting any future insurance (for anything!) very difficult and even if possible, very expensive.

magpiecottage

Atidi wrote: »

I would be very cautious of even asking such a question.

It would demonstrate the possibility, even positive consideration, that your step-daughter is not willing to co-operate with the reasonable requests of the insurer over the claim.

I think that could effectively null, void, cancel, suspend, or revoke the cover (hence why the insurer may come after your step-daughter for the losses they have incurred) and she won't want that as it will make getting any future insurance (for anything!) very difficult and even if possible, very expensive.

I doubt very much an insurer would attempt a stunt like that as it would be a clear breach of FCA Principle 6 - particularly if instead she makes a complaint as I have suggested.