Car insurance advice

straighttalker

maddogb wrote: »

write them a nice letter reminding them that blackmail for financial gain is a criminal offence, then also request an upfront payment to allow you to take legal advice on this matter.
Punitive punishment of the type they are threatening you with is probably illegal as it constitutes a fine, companies do not have the power to fine you.
As far as I know if they become insistent you can be called to testify by the judge but again it would be best if you were legally advised.

What a load of rubbish. Check the terms and conditions of your policy. It will contain a term which states that you have a duty to help your insurer in making any recovery, this includes attending Court to provide witness evidence to support your case. If you don't they can refuse indemnity and go against you personally for any financial outlay they have made.

Richard53

Aretnap wrote: »

Must say, I do like the phrase "punitive punishment".

Which implies there is non-punitive punishment. Lovely idea. but ...

maddogb

neilmcl wrote: »

Don't do this, the advice is complete nonsense.

You can put a dress on a pig, it's rumoured there are even countries you can marry it, this does not make it beef
I'm a northern lad and up here we call a spade a spade.
but really the bottom line is (if you feel uncomfortable )get legal advice, complete nonsense?

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Where is the blackmail for financial gain here?

They have threatened him to make him comply, if he doesn't do what they want, he will face punitive action.
They have done this to try and recover alleged loses, money.
In what world does this not constitute blackmail?
In a civilised society, they would send a letter simply informing him it would be most beneficial
for them if he kindly attended and answered any questions he may be asked.
They might even wish to make a small gratuitous offer of compensation for this inconvenience.
They might also point out some statistics showing how insurance rates drop when there is less cost to insurers thus benefiting many members of society including his friends and families.(rofl)

Aretnap wrote: »

Must say, I do like the phrase "punitive punishment".

Comedy value is the only good thing about this post, however.

lol talk about a fraudian slip, well spotted! a bad combo of awkward typing position, impassioned outrage! and a couple of other factors.
I'll leave that there for entertainment but should have read either a or b
a punitive action
b (just plain) punishment

I am working on my communication skills but it's hard working round a crushing hatred of humanity

Richard53 wrote: »

Which implies there is non-punitive punishment. Lovely idea. but ...

ah but was that implied or inferred, that is the question, A man after my own heart


In the interest of fairness the OP did not state who was at fault in the accident, I took it to read that he had fully comp yet the other party was at fault.
Otherwise there would be no sense to this post or to rudekid48 who seems to imply they were doing him some sort of favour despite the fact the OP was probably paying a handsome premium for this cover..
Lets not forget it shows what an honest person I am when it never crossed my mind that anyone would think I don't remember" is not an acceptable response.

rocksteadyeddy

Thank you to all who posted replies, I really do appreciate your time and effort. A couple of points, which may provide clarity. Firstly, I should have said, this took place in Scotland where the law differs in a number of ways.
I believe that the other party was at fault, but with the passage of time I have diffiulty being 100% certain on this matter, as did the witness who was in the car with me. However after 27 months it is difficult to recall events. I could make it up and say "they did it", go along with the Insurance company, but Im not that dishonest, as I genuinely can't recall.
At the time of the accident, I was alerted by a friend , that the other party had gone on a Facebook page, right after the accident, giving 'her version' of the alleged events. Some people offered to say they saw the accident 'for a fee'. I took screenshots and passed these on to the Insurance company.
I am happy to help the Insurance company in any way they want, but I do not feel comnfortable providing testimony, in a court, to events which I cannot recall after 27 months. I think if this had been done in a reasonable timeframe I would have felt more inclined ( and able) to say what happened.
I take issue with an Insurance company threatening my NCB, or asking for money due, because they couldn't do their job and investigate the claim at the time. Once again many thanks for your time.

rs65

rocksteadyeddy wrote: »

I am happy to help the Insurance company in any way they want, but I do not feel comnfortable providing testimony, in a court, to events which I cannot recall after 27 months. I think if this had been done in a reasonable timeframe I would have felt more inclined ( and able) to say what happened.
I take issue with an Insurance company threatening my NCB, or asking for money due, because they couldn't do their job and investigate the claim at the time. Once again many thanks for your time.

You have to help them - its a condition of the policy. The timeframe is not unusual. Presumably they have been investigating and pursuing and its now got to the stage of possible court - again not unusual.

It doesn't matter if you cannot recall exact circumstances. Your testimony can be that you gave the insurers accident details including the screenshots at the time.

George_Michael

maddogb wrote: »

They have threatened him to make him comply, if he doesn't do what they want, he will face punitive action.
They have done this to try and recover alleged loses, money.
In what world does this not constitute blackmail?

In the world of contracts where it's almost guaranteed that the OP would already have agreed to assist their insurers in any court action resulting from any claim made on or against their policy.

Car_54

maddogb wrote: »

They have threatened him to make him comply, if he doesn't do what they want, he will face punitive action.
They have done this to try and recover alleged loses, money.
In what world does this not constitute blackmail?

Blackmail is "an act, often a crime, involving unjustified threats to make a gain (commonly money or property) or cause loss to another unless a demand is met." The emphasis is mine.

There is nothing unjustified about the insurance company's request - they are merely asking the OP to fulfil his contractual obligations. They are not threatening "to make a gain", just pointing out that they might seek to recover that to which they would be entitled if he reneges on his contract.

forgotmyname

Usually they settle before court anyway and all you need to do is answer any questions to the best of your knowledge/memory.

bigjl

Aretnap wrote: »

Must say, I do like the phrase "punitive punishment".

Comedy value is the only good thing about this post, however.

Check out his other posts.

Comedy gold.

maddogb

Car_54 wrote: »

Blackmail is "an act, often a crime, involving unjustified threats to make a gain (commonly money or property) or cause loss to another unless a demand is met." The emphasis is mine.

There is nothing unjustified about the insurance company's request - they are merely asking the OP to fulfil his contractual obligations. They are not threatening "to make a gain", just pointing out that they might seek to recover that to which they would be entitled if he reneges on his contract.

Are you really sure that is in his policy? sounds fishy to me.


And I love how out of all the free online dictionaries from Cambridge and Oxford you go with wikipedias definition because it suits your argument, even if it is incorrect.


Some people/companies think making money no matter what the morals or legalities of the situation is "justifiable" and I personally include some(maybe even many) insurance companies in that.