Accidental damage claim?

System

But if you fail to ensure that your car is roadworthy before driving and that un-roadworthiness then causes damage to your vehicle then that would not be covered

jimjames

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

So you don't actually want thoughts, what you want is for us to tell you that you can and should claim?


Personally I think that would be madness, but it's up to you; if that's what you want to hear then I think you should be able to claim and that's what you should do.

Totally agree.

I'd do everything in my power to avoid claiming after previous not at fault claim - and this one is an AT fault claim.

jimjames

pickingausernameistough wrote: »

With any years above 5y not counting towards the no claims discount, then the maximum change to my no claims discount would be from 5 years to 3 on a c£250-300 insurance premium vs a potential £1,500 bill. But i don't know if i have a valid claim.

£1500 repair bill? What car is it?

I've had new bonnet bought, sprayed and fitted for £230.

notanewuser

pickingausernameistough wrote: »

With any years above 5y not counting towards the no claims discount, then the maximum change to my no claims discount would be from 5 years to 3 on a c£250-300 insurance premium vs a potential £1,500 bill. But i don't know if i have a valid claim.

So you currently get 70% off your premium, implying a base premium of around £1k. The fault accident may add 20-30%, so let's call it £1250. Reduction of NCB (protection probably wouldn't have cost any more, btw) to 50%. New premium £625.

Assume premium drops slightly to £1200 the next year and no more claims. 4 years NCB worth around 60%. New premium £480.

Premium drops to £1100 in year 3. Now back to max NCB of 70%. New premium £330.

With no doubt an excess to pay as well, do you still think it's worth claiming, OP?

arcon5

!!!!!! wrote: »

No, incidents involve negligence. An accident involves no negligence, however there is no such thing as an accident as there is always a cause

What an absolute load of rubbish.

Something can be an accident and also involve negligence!

If I crash my car in to you, it can be down to me being negligent/complacent/whatever and it still have been an accident IE I didn't mean for it to happen.

System

I wonder why they are now RTCs and not RTAs.

mcjordi

what car is it op? you may find a breaker with a bonnet in the same colour have it fitted for probably less than your excess..

Aretnap

!!!!!! wrote: »

No, incidents involve negligence. An accident involves no negligence, however there is no such thing as an accident as there is always a cause

An acident is simply an unintended event - look in any dictionary. It may or may not involve negligence. I once damaged my car by driving into a pillar in a car park. It was negligent, in the sense that had I been more careful it would not have happened. It was also an accident, in the sense that I didn't intend to drive into the pillar. My insurer repaired the car under the accidental damage section of my policy.

If you don't think there's such a thing as an accident then you need to ask insurers who offer cover against accidental damage (ie all of them) why they're charging for insuring against a peril which doesn't exist.

It's true that some road safety campaigners object to the term accident because they think it somehow implies blamelessness. Maybe it does, but only to people with a tenuous understanding of the English language.

notanewuser

If the OP had hit something while the bonnet was up and impeding his view, I suspect the claim would be paid.

System

Aretnap wrote: »

Maybe it does, but only to people with a tenuous understanding of the English language.

Oh dear, do I now have a tenuous understanding of English.

Well you live and learn.