Void insurance policy trying to reclaim money

JimmyTheWig

Glenn_Lambert wrote: »

Perhaps i could have a claim with the policy being cancelled/voided however at the time as the other driver was not following up the claim (as there was no damage) i thought it best to just cancel the policy to avoid further complications and i had had enough with dealing with the insurance company!

At _what_ time?
Did the accident occur within 1 day of starting the new policy?

[Corss-posted with various above, sorry]

Glenn_Lambert

InsideInsurance wrote: »

You rear ended them and so you are at fault for the accident unless it can be proven the accident is staged but on the basis your insurers have settled they clearly dont believe that to be the case.

Surely they would have contacted me for the details of the accident though, at least hear my account?

Glenn_Lambert

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

At _what_ time?
Did the accident occur within 1 day of starting the new policy?

[Corss-posted with various above, sorry]

The policy had been taken out 3+months before the accident. The guy said at the time of the accident he was not going to persue any claims as there was no damage it was a minor knock, i contacted my insurance company as a precaution when all this palaver began, the policy was voided, couple of months later i was told the claim was closed. Then receive a letter saying i owed them money

marleyboy

Surely they would have contacted me for the details of the accident though, at least hear my account?

Your account is, they slammed on and you rear ended them as a result. effectively that you hit them. It would be argued that you should have allowed enough room to brake without hitting the car in front, who could have slammed on because a child jumped out in front of them, a car in front of them slammed on etc, its irrelevant why they braked suddenly, as you should have been prepared for emergency braking.

Glenn_Lambert

marleyboy wrote: »

Your account is, they slammed on and you rear ended them as a result. effectively that you hit them. It would be argued that you should have allowed enough room to brake without hitting the car in front, who could have slammed on because a child jumped out in front of them, a car in front of them slammed on etc, its irrelevant why they braked suddenly, as you should have been prepared for emergency braking.

Hi i am not trying to argue the fault here, more a case of they haven't contacted me for details of the incident, yes i am aware a rear collision will always favour the driver in front but without collecting any statement from myself or witness one can only assumer they are judging the decision solely on the third party, which seems absurd right?

JimmyTheWig

Whether or not they should have contacted you is a bit of a moot point, I'm afraid.
If they had contacted you, your story would have agreed with the third party's story and you would be in the same position now.

Even if you took the insurance company to court and a judge agreed with you that they should have contacted you, you wouldn't be awarded any damages as you haven't actually lost out by them not contacting you.

Fair enough to raise it as a customer service point with the insurance company, but it's up to them whether they take it on board or not.

JimmyTheWig

Glenn_Lambert wrote: »

The policy had been taken out 3+months before the accident.

Ah, so when you said

Glenn_Lambert wrote: »

This was back in January and the policy was voided the day after.

you meant that the policy was voided by the insurance company the day after the accident, not the day after taking out the policy?

Glenn_Lambert

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Ah, so when you said

you meant that the policy was voided by the insurance company the day after the accident, not the day after taking out the policy?

Yes that is correct, sorry if the message became ambiguous

rs65

Glenn_Lambert wrote: »

more a case of they haven't contacted me for details of the incident

Your first post suggests that you contacted them after the accident.

pvt

Glenn_Lambert wrote: »

The responsibility over the accident in question is debated

Glenn_Lambert wrote: »

Hi i am not trying to argue the fault

That's clear then...