My Cat D car has been hit by another driver - how to claim?

mapcr77

Hello,

Last year, my car was shunt on the back by another driver, a minor bump, yet it ended up being written off by the insurance company as uneconomical to repair. After several frustrating months of dealing with insurers, third party companies and so forth, I ended up being paid by the insurance company and "buying back" my own car. So now I'm the proud owner of a Category D car.
This morning, once again I was hit on the back by another car. Question is, should I try and make another claim? I don't understand how it would work as a Cat D car? Doubt the insurance would pay me again?
Should I settle with the other driver directly? (something tells me they may not have insurance!)
I just want an easy and fair solution, and avoid bureaucracy as much as possible.
Any advice?

Quentin

You can find out if the other party is insured at askmid.com


(Use a mobile phone and it's FOC)


Then take it from what you discover


If insured then claim off their insurer!


(There's always unavoidable bureaucracy when involved in an accident/repairs/insurance unless you can get cash off the third party painlessly)

Tom99

Since you will have to declare this accident to your insurance co anyway I would just make a claim via them in the normal way.
If your car is written off again you would get its current value ie as a Cat D.

Quentin

Tom99 wrote: »

Since you will have to declare this accident to your insurance co anyway I would just make a claim via them in the normal way.
If your car is written off again you would get its current value ie as a Cat D.

The "usual way" isn't to claim off your own policy in cases like this!

Whenever you are involved in an incident where the third party is clearly to blame then there are good reasons to pursue your claim against the third party rather than claim against your own policy (you have to if you don't have comprehensive cover)


The reasons include no excess to pay and subsequently have to pursue the third party for/your NCD is untouched/much easier to choose your own repairer/a replacement car provided by the third party FOC

Aretnap

Whether you claim through your own policy or through the third party the fact that your car is a cat D doesn't prevent you making a claim. It might however affect the amount that you can claim.


You'd be entitled to the car's current market value. If you got it repaired to a reasonable standard then its current value shouldn't be too far below that of a similar car which hasn't been written off - though the insurance company would still be entitled to make some deduction to reflect the fact that the Cat D marker would reduce it's value. (IIRC in the past the Financial Ombudsman has suggested figures in the region of 20%).


Of course if you didn't get it repaired and you've been driving it ever since with a big dent or you've bodged it up with gaffer tape then its market value would be lower - probably not far off whatever you bought it back for after the original accident.


(This assumes that it would not be economical to repair the car again of course... which seems like a reasonable assumption if it was written off for a minor shunt some time ago)

Dangermac

Quentin wrote: »

The "usual way" isn't to claim off your own policy in cases like this!

Whenever you are involved in an incident where the third party is clearly to blame then there are good reasons to pursue your claim against the third party rather than claim against your own policy (you have to if you don't have comprehensive cover)


The reasons include no excess to pay and subsequently have to pursue the third party for/your NCD is untouched/much easier to choose your own repairer/a replacement car provided by the third party FOC

There are many reasons why it may seem like a good idea to claim directly from the negligent 3rd party or their insurer.

Please do, however, bear in mind that this comes with many risks.

If the 3rd party insurer messes up the claim (which can happen), you will have no complaints recourse against them and you will not have access to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

I can see that, in this specific claim, there are reasons why I would personally consider claiming directly from the 3rd party insurer, however, if the claims goes wrong, it can sometimes be difficult to put right if the 3rd party insurer are not helpful/co-operative

Claiming direct from the 3rd party insurer comes with many risks and a degree of uncertainty and should not be done without understanding the potential issues.

DM

lisyloo

Dangermac wrote: »

If the 3rd party insurer messes up the claim (which can happen), you will have no complaints recourse against them

i think you mean you have no contractual relationship with them.
You do have legal recourse, for example if they messed up a repair or damaged your car.
it might be that you need to take actions via the courts at your own cost or (as in my case) use seperate legal cover, but I don't think it's correct to say you have no recourse.
You have legal recourse, but not customer/contractual relationship.


On the bright side for balance, many insurers are quite keen to deal with innocent 3rd party claims (to control costs) and offer a good service as they would rather claimants did this.
I am not saying there are never issues, but that for balance the 3rd party insurer is incentivized to provide a good service.

Quentin

Dangermac wrote: »

Claiming direct from the 3rd party insurer comes with many risks and a degree of uncertainty and should not be done without understanding the potential issues.

DM

Well....apart from not having the FOS to turn to in the event of a complaint (ie one "risk", heavily outweighed by getting a replacement car from the outset (automatic if you need one!), taking your car to your choice of repairer, no excess to pay, so no need to pursue the third party for it after paying it up front, no NCD affected - which causes big issue if your renewal comes due whilst you have an open claim etc) - what are these "many" risks?

Dangermac

Quentin wrote: »

Well....apart from not having the FOS to turn to in the event of a complaint (ie one "risk", heavily outweighed by getting a replacement car from the outset (automatic if you need one!), taking your car to your choice of repairer, no excess to pay, so no need to pursue the third party for it after paying it up front, no NCD affected - which causes big issue if your renewal comes due whilst you have an open claim etc) - what are these "many" risks?

Over this past 12 months, I have seen many claims which clients have routed directly through the 3rd party, for the reasons that you mention

However, when things go wrong (complaint regarding quality of work, replacement vehicle permitted days etc), the client is often too far down the rabbit hole to change direction back to safety of his/her own insurer, with whom the client has a contractual relationship.

With the greatest of love and respect, bearing in mind that the majority of your posts advise posters to contact the FOS when things go wrong, I'm surprised that you seem to attribute so little value in this process.

Anyway, regardless of contrary opinions, anyone using a 3rd party insurer directly needs to be aware that there are pros and cons. But in the event of a problem it can often be a sticky mess which is difficult to resolve in the absence of a contractual relationship, complaints process and access to the FOS

DM

Dangermac

lisyloo wrote: »

i think you mean you have no contractual relationship with them.
You do have legal recourse, for example if they messed up a repair or damaged your car.
it might be that you need to take actions via the courts at your own cost or (as in my case) use seperate legal cover, but I don't think it's correct to say you have no recourse.
You have legal recourse, but not customer/contractual relationship.


On the bright side for balance, many insurers are quite keen to deal with innocent 3rd party claims (to control costs) and offer a good service as they would rather claimants did this.
I am not saying there are never issues, but that for balance the 3rd party insurer is incentivized to provide a good service.

Yes, there is always legal recourse, but in reality how many individuals will take an insurer to court?

However, there is no complaints process available.

I have personally used 3rd party insurers without issues. What I would say is that repairer service levels and quality of work seems to be patchy at the moment (downward pressure on pricing and less available bodyshops). In the event of an issue, there is no complaints process and no access to the free complaints service that is the FOS.

Im not saying that this method should never be used, but it should be done with great caution and with eyes open.

DM

lisyloo

Yes, there is always legal recourse, but in reality how many individuals will take an insurer to court?

It's extremely rare I agree, but you claimed there was no legal recourse and now you've gone back on that as it isn't true (BTW - some of us have standalone legal insurance, so advice and costs covered if required).



thanks for your advice, but I think most people would value not losing their NCD and no excess to pay over the lack of FOS.

Personally I think youre over-egging it, most innocent 3rd party claims depts are falling over themselves to deal with the claim (to retain control of costs), but I think we can now cnosider everyone amply forewarned about the risks.