Not at fault but renewal premium ridiculous

slipperhero

Hi folks.
Bit of a saga this, but I'll be as brief as I can. We were involved in an accident back in July - four of us including our two kids. We came round a bend on a country lane to find another car reversing at speed. With no chance to stop, we collided. Young driver accepted fault at the scene and asked not to go through insurance. We were hundreds of miles from home and more interested in getting the bairns checked out at hospital so we just left it. We decided we ought to go through the insurance - didn't trust the lad to pay if the bill was high. Once insurance was notifird, he changed his story and said he was stationary. Luckily, there was a witness, as it could have ended up being our fault! Anyway, his insurance co had accepted his liability so we thought it would be straight forward from then on.
Sadly, we were deluded. There has been one fiasco after another - mainly from our insurer - and they've already paid us two lots of compensation for their errors. The car was a cat D write off butbi bought it back to keep me on the road until we sort out a replacement. This whole thing has dragged out so much that my renewal has come up, and because the case is ongoing, my renewal premium has come in at £900, though they will refund any difference once it's all sorted out, though they say they can't tell me what the premium would be, so it looks like I'm not even in a position to haggle.
I guess my question is, do i have any options in this rather odd situation? Despite their incompetence, I feel like they have me over a barrel. Many thanks for your time (and patience, if you managed to read through to this point!)

Quentin

You could try speaking to your chosen insurer and explaining the situation and asking that if/when the claim is concluded as a no fault claim that they will amend your premium and refund the difference back to you.


If they agree then get it confirmed back to you in writing

Geodark

Have to say, and not trying to be funny or dodgy here, but it doesnt sound clear cut to me, if you couldn't see round the bend then they could argue that you were driving too fast for the road. (just playing devils advocate here). If they have already admitted liability though then great.

pappa_golf

Geodark wrote: »

Have to say, and not trying to be funny or dodgy here, but it doesnt sound clear cut to me, if you couldn't see round the bend then they could argue that you were driving too fast for the road. (just playing devils advocate here). If they have already admitted liability though then great.

one would expect to see stationary or moving red lights , or even white front lights when going around a corner , NOT red lights reversing towards you

Joe_Horner

pappa_golf wrote: »

one would expect to see stationary or moving red lights , or even white front lights when going around a corner , NOT red lights reversing towards you

Or a flock of sheep (usually with no lights), or a horse with / without rider, or a cyclist, or jogger, or.....

As Geodark says, potentially anything but clear-cut. Helpful that the other insurers have accepted liability but still worth thinking about why thy couldn't stop - would they have been able to stop better if the other guy had been coming forwards towards them?

Head_The_Ball

Geodark wrote: »

Have to say, and not trying to be funny or dodgy here, but it doesnt sound clear cut to me, if you couldn't see round the bend then they could argue that you were driving too fast for the road. (just playing devils advocate here). If they have already admitted liability though then great.

slipperhero wrote: »

...We came round a bend on a country lane to find another car reversing at speed. With no chance to stop, we collided.

It is reasonably clear cut. The car reversing at speed around a bend was at fault. It is little or no different to a car driving forwards on the wrong side of the road.

Common sense prevails. If drivers always had to expect a reversing car on bends, no driver would be able to make much progress.

Drivers are expected to be able to stop within the distance they can see and anticipate possible obstructions. A rapidly reversing car, or a car on the wrong side of the road, is a moving obstruction that cannot reasonably be anticipated on every bend.

My opinion. Feel free to disagree.

dannyrst

Not sure about others, but if I were stopped just around a bend on a country road with no visibility my hazard lights would be on.

Joe_Horner

Head_The_Ball wrote: »

It is reasonably clear cut. The car reversing at speed around a bend was at fault. It is little or no different to a car driving forwards on the wrong side of the road.

Common sense prevails. If drivers always had to expect a reversing car on bends, no driver would be able to make much progress.

Drivers are expected to be able to stop within the distance they can see and anticipate possible obstructions. A rapidly reversing car, or a car on the wrong side of the road, is a moving obstruction that cannot reasonably be anticipated on every bend.

My opinion. Feel free to disagree.

Except it was a country lane, so pretty unlikely that there's a clear-cut "right" or "wrong" side of the road because many are too narrow to have central lines.

foxy-stoat

slipperhero wrote: »

Anyway, his insurance co had accepted his liability

If they have now accepted liablility then it will get settled non fault once you have recovered your excess, maybe even before.

Get the number of claim free years and find another insurer if your not happy with the £900 renewal premium which will be lowerd and refunded once their claims department tell the underwriters. You should be able to work out how many years you will get once the claim has been settled.

Head_The_Ball

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Except it was a country lane, so pretty unlikely that there's a clear-cut "right" or "wrong" side of the road because many are too narrow to have central lines.

If the Police had got involved I am fairly sure they would blame and perhaps consider for prosecution the driver who was 'reversing at speed' rather than the driver who was driving forwards.

Perhaps the OP will tell us how wide the road was.

missile

.... and who his current insurer is? The cheapest is rarely the best.