XS direct sending £2300 claim

teddysmum

If there was not total disclosure to Tesco, I imagine that the new policy with them will be void, as the new premium was based on incorrect information.

Sathish

I spoke to One call and they informed XS Direct is the underwriter of my insurance. I knew it only now. I was always thinking one call is my insurance provider....I am so stupid..


Third party insurance provider is AXA.


So it is my underwriter (XS direct) is sending me the letter




section of the letter :-(


"
We are obliged to remind you that your policy carries an all sections excess of £3000. This means that you, the
Policyholder are potentially liable for any costs incurred in settling or defending any third party claim(s) made against
you up to the value of your excess. We require your full cooperation in this matter."

Aretnap

Right, that makes sense. XS Direct will have paid for the other guy's repairs, and will then send you a bill for your £3000 excess, or the full value of the claim if it is lower.

Unfortunately you're probably going to have to pay this - or agree on some sort of payment plan if you can't afford to pay all at once.

I had a look through some Financial Ombudsman decisions to see if there was an angle by which you could argue the toss, but they do tend to uphold insurer's right to charge an all sections excess in cases like this. One faint silver lining is that when you repay the money in full they should (a) reinstate your no claims bonus and (b) record the claim as "notification only" rather than "fault", because you will have paid the full cost of the claim. This might at least help keep your premiums down in future. See this case http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=108251

Quentin

Try and pay it all off immediately if you can so that your premium based on the NCD you had when moving to Tesco is not affected by the incorrect NCD

teddysmum

Aretnap wrote: »

One faint silver lining is that when you repay the money in full they should (a) reinstate your no claims bonus and (b) record the claim as "notification only" rather than "fault", because you will have paid the full cost of the claim.

I doubt this would have much effect, as some insurers even put up premiums for no fault accidents, where they have incurred no expense and their client is blameless.


I this case,although the insurer will have recouped their loss, the OP was actually at fault by causing the accident.


No fault cases are penalised on the basis that, they reckon that statistically a no fault driver is more likely to have a fault accident in future, so ,surely the chances are higher for an actual fault.

Quentin

You are mixing up the use of "fault/no fault" by insurers with the normal use of the word to indicate "blame".


Insurers use the word "fault" when they have had to pay out themselves (irrespective of whether or not any blame by their client is involved)


So you can be blameless and still have a fault claim registered against you (eg when your car is damaged by an unidentified third party)


When the OP pays his debt the claim will be marked as "no fault".

Aretnap

teddysmum wrote: »

I doubt this would have much effect, as some insurers even put up premiums for no fault accidents, where they have incurred no expense and their client is blameless.

Some do, some don't. Those that do tend not to increase premiums for no fault claims as much as they would for fault claims. Ergo having it marked as no fault is a good thing.

Plus the no claims bonus will be restored, which will help bring the premium down independently of any loading for the accident itself.

I this case,although the insurer will have recouped their loss, the OP was actually at fault by causing the accident.

No fault cases are penalised on the basis that, they reckon that statistically a no fault driver is more likely to have a fault accident in future, so ,surely the chances are higher for an actual fault.

As above, claims are classed as fault or no fault on the (objective) basis of whether the insurers incurred an expense themselves, not on the (rather subjective) question of whether the driver was to blame for the accident. It's a slightly confusing piece of industry jargon and arguably it would be better if insurers used a different term, but they don't so there we go.

In the majority of cases "fault" does roughly correspond to "blame", as the insurer of the driver who is to blame for the accident generally tends to end up paying, but it does lead to some oddities here and there. Like the OP's accident being recorded as "no fault" (or "notification only") and therefore having less of an effect on his premium that that of someone who had a tree fall on his car and ended up with a "fault" claim. C'est la vie - no system can be perfect from every point of view.

Sathish

Thanks all for your inputs. To be honest I am still searching for my Insurance renewal document to see that it is written somewhere of £3000 all section excess ...I don't remember seeing that £3000 in my policy document.. I will come back to you ......Thank you

Sathish

Hi All
I got the renewal insurance policy document from "One call" Insurance broker
I see that Compulsory excess says £3000.


The insurance underwriter is XS Direct . I don't know how come for 2nd year they can again put Compulsory excess £3000


It's my bad..

rs65

Sathish wrote: »

The insurance underwriter is XS Direct . I don't know how come for 2nd year they can again put Compulsory excess £3000

Simply, that is what they offer. If you want normal insurance with a normal excess, go elsewhere.