do i have to notify accident if no claim has been made yet.

rs65

jobdone1 wrote: »

However it has been mentioned the driver had an accident a week previous so both imoi need looking at. For example is both claims attached with personal injury claims ? Crash for cash ?

It could well be but each accident is looked at in isolation when determining liability.

ricardoduarte

Well i am not sure if she was looking for money or not, until now i havent been contacted by my insurance company regarding her claim. Its been a month. Maybe its just she was shaken by previous hit (most of the panels in the side of her car were damaged), and that caused her to be extra careful.

I am not disputing my blame, I am just wondering what number ncb should i provide when i renew my insurance as different departments in my insurance company say different things.

My renewal with them gives me 3years ncb, other department says i have 5ncb. I have to renew my insurance in 15days and all this is a bit of a mess.

The renewal department doesnt know why they gave 3years ncb as they said they dont know if there is a claim or not. They just see an incident.

rs65

ricardoduarte wrote: »

My renewal with them gives me 3years ncb

If the renewal notice shows 3 years, then that is the evidence you have for any new insurer.

Crazy_Jamie

jobdone1 wrote: »

For all you posters that say 100% at fault yes in the eyes of the insurance correct. However it has been mentioned the driver had an accident a week previous so both imoi need looking at. For example is both claims attached with personal injury claims ? Crash for cash ?

This is not a crash for cash. The circumstances as you have described them are simply not the circumstances in which that occurs. Crash for cash generally occurs at moderate speed when the distance between the vehicles is sufficient so that the rear vehicle is unlikely to be able to stop and is also going to be travelling sufficiently quickly to cause vehicle damage and personal injury. A person moving one metre from stationary and then braking to bait the vehicle behind is unlikely to result in vehicle damage or personal injury, and it would therefore be unnecessarily risky for someone to try to induce an accident in such a situation because it provides the insurer with additional avenues of defence, namely that the collision was a low velocity impact where injury could not have occurred.

Furthermore, the fact that the other driver had a non fault claim a week before also makes it unlikely that this was a crash for cash, because there would be causation issues between the two accidents as to which accident caused what injury. That would not only put the spotlight on both accidents and make insurers suspicious, but it would limit the amount that the lady would be able to recover. That is a further reason why this is unlikely to have been an induced accident.

The cause of this accident was you watching the road at a junction rather than ensuring that the vehicle in front of you had moved off. It is one of the most basic things that you are taught when you learn to drive. You had a lapse in concentration and made a mistake. It is not the end of the world, but it is pointless attempting to deflect blame by hypothesising about the accident being crash for cash when the circumstances would make that extremely unlikely.

jobdone1

:Tfair point thanks:beer: