Help appealing against Insurance Claim

Aretnap

anotheruser wrote: »

If the OP was stationary, they are in the wrong again. While I don't believe it is against the Highway Code, it is common sense and common courtesy to NOT pull on to a mini-roundabout if your exit isn't clear, surely?

So it's not against the law on the Highway Code, but the OP's at fault if he did something which you personally don't think he should have done?

In any event, someone who hits a stationary car will nearly always be 100% liable, even if the car was stopped where it shouldn't have been. You're not one of these people who doesn't look where you're going, drives into someone and then says "that was your fault - I wasn't expecting you to be there" are you?

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

The OP didn't come on here to be judged on whether he is at fault or not, he wants advice on how to appeal against the decision.

I'm not attempting to judge him, I'm giving him practical advice - a complaint is unlikely to make any difference unless he can come up with a good reason why he wasn't at fault. Helping him isn't the same as telling him what he wants to hear.What reason do you think he should give for appealing against a decision which on the face of it sounds correct?

Presumably there are statements from the witnesses that back up the OP's version of events.

If his version of events is that he was hit from the right at a mini-roundabout he could have as many witnesses as he likes back him up and still be found liable.

Aretnap

SimonSays wrote: »

Whats fully comp?

Do you mean comprehensive. Depending on the risk TPO (Third Party only) is cheapest.

Personally I've never found TPFT to be cheaper than comp, but I've often found TPO to be more expensive than either. Last time I looked into it my cheapest quotes came out as something like comp £175, TPFT £135, TPO £250. I was happy to let the senior sailor pay me £75 to let him cover my own vehicle.

SimonSays

In motorcycle it works that comp is the most expensive.

Although. Crazily on most brokered Aviva schemes if they are cheapest on TPO they'll often be exactly the same price on TPFT

Explaining you can get more cover for the same cash is often a hard task to customers who just want TPO

I have found though on a 10 year old bike often TPO is the most expensive with Aviva/ERS/KGM but quote on comp/TPFP you get dirt cheap ageas schemes quoting sometimes cheaper than the others.

I do fear we will soon loose Ageas Opitma single vehicle policies that gave good low premiums.

paddedjohn

SimonSays wrote: »

In motorcycle it works that comp is the most expensive.

Although. Crazily on most brokered Aviva schemes if they are cheapest on TPO they'll often be exactly the same price on TPFT

Explaining you can get more cover for the same cash is often a hard task to customers who just want TPO

I have found though on a 10 year old bike often TPO is the most expensive with Aviva/ERS/KGM but quote on comp/TPFP you get dirt cheap ageas schemes quoting sometimes cheaper than the others.

I do fear we will soon loose Ageas Opitma single vehicle policies that gave good low premiums.

My bike insurance has always been cheaper for fully comp rather than third party/third party fire and theft, as has my car and van policy's

SimonSays

I've never heard of fully comp. What is this cheap level you speak off.

dacouch

SimonSays wrote: »

I've never heard of fully comp. What is this cheap level you speak off.

Why do you keep posting this, you know exactly what the poster means.

The poster is correct in that in most instances for the average customer for a car or van comprehensive cover would be cheaper than Third Party Twist and Bust or TPO.

You seem to be posting with regards to your experience with motorbike insurance

Parking_Trouble

Aretnap wrote: »

I'm not attempting to judge him, I'm giving him practical advice - a complaint is unlikely to make any difference unless he can come up with a good reason why he wasn't at fault. Helping him isn't the same as telling him what he wants to hear.What reason do you think he should give for appealing against a decision which on the face of it sounds correct?

If his version of events is that he was hit from the right at a mini-roundabout he could have as many witnesses as he likes back him up and still be found liable.

"On the face of it" there isn't enough information about who is to blame. The OP clearly believes the other driver is at fault and wants advice on how to take it further. Insurers are tight and lazy when it come to fighting on behalf of their customers so worth complaining to gee them up.

Given your judgment that the OP is banged to rights it is somewhat strange that the insurance companies (who presumably have more detail than you) don't see it as clear cut and cannot apportion the blame that you have from your keyboard, your honour.

SimonSays

dacouch wrote: »

Why do you keep posting this, you know exactly what the poster means.

Because there is no such thing as fully comp.

Might aswell ask for a fully tpo policy

Its a contradiction of terms.

dacouch

SimonSays wrote: »

Because there is no such thing as fully comp.

Might aswell ask for a fully tpo policy

Its a contradiction of terms.

You're just being a pedant, everyone including you know exactly what cover the poster was referring to when they said "Fully comp".

My old boss used to insist on correcting people who asked for fully comprehensive. Everyone just thought he was a !!!!!! of which he was one a first class one

paddedjohn

SimonSays wrote: »

I've never heard of fully comp. What is this cheap level you speak off.

Be a pedantic tw4t if you want to, you know exactly what I mean as does everyone else on here.