We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Small accident with a friend Need advice

Hi there,

Going to keep this short, but me and my friend had a accident last night! I rear ended him, at around 5mph so i know that is is my fault. However, he didn't originally want to clam on his insurance, but he feels he needs to do it so he can get a car again. My question is, if he claims do i have to pay anything? Or will it just be my premium going up in march? I'm not wanting to claim on my insurance as ive only got light bumper damage/ wing. Nothing mechanically wrong with my car.
Hope to seek some advice Thank you
«1

Comments

  • Quentin
    Quentin Posts: 40,405 Forumite
    There is normally no excess to pay for claims against you (but check your policy wording as there is an exception!)
  • csgohan4
    csgohan4 Posts: 10,600 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    your premiums will be higher next time round as you have a fault claim to you.
    "It is prudent when shopping for something important, not to limit yourself to Pound land/Estate Agents"

    G_M/ Bowlhead99 RIP
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 11,085 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    He will also have a higher premium for 3+ years after having been involved in an accident even though it wasn't his fault.

    You should in theory both report the accident to your insurers

    Whether it's financially worth it vs paying for the repair directly is up to you

    Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness: 

    People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.

  • You both have had an accident so it is normally a requirement to report, if you rear ended him your fault, however if there is no claim from either party it may not effect your NCD as there isn't a claim and you settle it yourselves . I doubt his insurance will increase if your fault
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 11,085 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    You both have had an accident so it is normally a requirement to report, if you rear ended him your fault, however if there is no claim from either party it may not effect your NCD as there isn't a claim and you settle it yourselves . I doubt his insurance will increase if your fault

    Insurers will put up premiums for any fault if they wish to, regardless of fault because their "analysis" suggests people who have been in an accident are more likely to be in another

    Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness: 

    People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.

  • Nasqueron wrote: »
    Insurers will put up premiums for any fault if they wish to, regardless of fault because their "analysis" suggests people who have been in an accident are more likely to be in another

    If their "analysis" about propensity to claim didnt show that statistically those who have had an accident are more likely to have another; they wouldn't load for it.
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 11,085 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    If their "analysis" about propensity to claim didnt show that statistically those who have had an accident are more likely to have another; they wouldn't load for it.


    I know why they do it but being parked at say a red light and some chump doesn't brake in time and runs into you doesn't in any way shape or form make you more or less likely to have another no fault accident.

    Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness: 

    People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.

  • As I said, stats show someone who has had an accident is more likely to have another one, so I disagree with your comment above.

    You may think it's not right or fair, but prior performance shows it's an indicator, therefore rateable.

    Insurers do this not to penalise those who have had a claim (fault or non fault), but to allow lower premiums for those who haven't had a claim.
  • Quentin
    Quentin Posts: 40,405 Forumite
    Insurers do this not to penalise those who have had a claim (fault or non fault), but to allow lower premiums for those who haven't had a claim.
    But insurers don't just do this to those who have had a claim!


    They do it to those who (in line with the policy conditions)disclose incidents where no claim was made!
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 11,085 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    As I said, stats show someone who has had an accident is more likely to have another one, so I disagree with your comment above.

    You may think it's not right or fair, but prior performance shows it's an indicator, therefore rateable.

    Insurers do this not to penalise those who have had a claim (fault or non fault), but to allow lower premiums for those who haven't had a claim.

    Care to present stats that show that? I suspect it is just a blanket stat that if you have a non-fault accident in general they put the premium up, rather than classify them based on situation.

    Provide one statistical reason why someone sat at the traffic lights in dry weather, perfect visibility, is somehow more likely to claim because a random person wasn't paying attention and ran into the back of them.

    Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness: 

    People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.

This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.6K Life & Family
  • 259.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.