Car insurance claim - odd situation questiion

garyw73

Hi all,

We're in a bit of a quandary about an insurance claim we have going through and would welcome any advice you may have.
My wife (who was a childminder) was involved in car accident, other party have admitted liability so all good there. There were 3 kids in the car at the time all in car seats, which obviously need replacing, but we aren't going to be needing the replacement seats as my wife is no longer going to be doing the aforementioned childminding.
The insurance co want us to order like for like replacement seats and show proof of purchase for them to reimburse, which is all fine and dandy, but what can we do with the seats once they have reimbursed? Can we ( for example) send them back to the supplier as we don't need them any more? Sell them on ebay? The seats are maxi cosi seats so not cheap.
We obviously don't want to be committing insurance fraud or getting into any trouble with the insurance co!
Thanks in advance!

rs65

You say they need replacing but you don't need them. Take it you just want cash?

Is there not consumer law that allows you to return online purchases for any reason?

Ms_Chocaholic

Is it John Lewis who have a 90 day return policy. Can you order the seats online, claim the refund from the insurance company and return them to JL. I'm sure the insurance company aren't going to come round and check you still have them.

Stevie_Palimo

Still if the insurance is being used and the kids seats were in the car that should in effect be replaced even if they are not going to be used as the insurance is there for a reason to put you back in the same position as before the accident, I'd get the seats and then sell on privately prior to opening up the boxes.

You have a claim being processed already so having these refunded as well will make no difference on the renewal policy.

paddyandstumpy

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

the insurance is there for a reason to put you back in the same position as before the accident, I'd get the seats and then sell on privately prior to opening up the boxes.

If the seats are replaced and then sold unused; the OP is in a better position pre loss. Betterment is not a right under insurance.

The right thing to do would be to not claim for something you don't need. Ultimately that's insurance fraud, which pushes premiums up for everybody. Sorry to be the naysayer on the forum!

Stevie_Palimo

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

If the seats are replaced and then sold unused; the OP is in a better position pre loss. Betterment is not a right under insurance.

The right thing to do would be to not claim for something you don't need. Ultimately that's insurance fraud, which pushes premiums up for everybody. Sorry to be the naysayer on the forum!

And if you believe that we would ever get cheaper premiums then you are on another planet, The OP had car seats paid for had an accident and is offered them as a replacement so why not take them as they did pay out when they needed them, There is no way on earth that premiums will ever reduce and even if no crashes or stolen cars happened again we'd still pay the same to line the greedy insurers pockets.

Quentin

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

......The right thing to do would be to not claim for something you don't need. Ultimately that's insurance fraud, which pushes premiums up for everybody. Sorry to be the naysayer on the forum!

This is MSE!


Ignore this OP - MSE does attract pulpit thumpers from time to time!


How is it insurance fraud to make a claim for something damaged by a negligent third party?


The OP is the innocent party here!

paddyandstumpy

Quentin wrote: »

How is it insurance fraud to make a claim for something damaged by a negligent third party?

Because he plans to sell them as unused - which is better than the position he was in pre-loss. I'm not saying don't do it, I fully appreciate this is MSE; I'm simply highlighting that it is technically fraud.

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

There is no way on earth that premiums will ever reduce and even if no crashes or stolen cars happened again we'd still pay the same to line the greedy insurers pockets.

Is that a fact is it? Given that rates reflect the cost of insuring the market, in fact less than the cost of insuring the market, as most major insurers run Motor books at a COR over 100%. But OK. :T

Stevie_Palimo

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

Because he plans to sell them as unused - which is better than the position he was in pre-loss. I'm not saying don't do it, I fully appreciate this is MSE; I'm simply highlighting that it is technically fraud.


It is not fraud if they are claiming back an item that was damaged, It is solely there own choice to either keep and or sell it on, Nobodies business but there's.

Is that a fact is it? Given that rates reflect the cost of insuring the market, in fact less than the cost of insuring the market, as most major insurers run Motor books at a COR over 100%. But OK. :T

There was a ban brought in referral fee's from a cmc to solicitors and all the insurers argued that we would get lower premiums, The ban has been in place for referral fee's for a long time and I have yet to see a decrease in my policy, FACT.

Quentin

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

...... I'm not saying don't do it, I fully appreciate this is MSE; I'm simply highlighting that it is technically fraud.....

No.

You (wrongly) "advised" the op that as he didn't need the seats the " right" thing to do is not to make a claim and to do so would be "fraud"

paddyandstumpy

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

There was a ban brought in referral fee's from a cmc to solicitors and all the insurers argued that we would get lower premiums, The ban has been in place for referral fee's for a long time and I have yet to see a decrease in my policy, FACT.

I take that point, however thats not the only thing happening in the market. A steady increase in PI claims is more than offsetting any reduction in CMC costs to an insurer.

Quentin wrote: »

No.
You (wrongly) "advised" the op that as he didn't need the seats the " right" thing to do is not to make a claim and to do so would be "fraud"

No I didn't, I said that he was being put into a better position by having new and unopened seats to sell, rather than used ones. Claim embellishment is a form of fraud.