Insurance Refusing to settle

Aylesbury_Duck

FaizanKhan wrote: »

Hi

The main keys were both used to drive which were handed to the insurance and they are saying they werent used apparently.
Garage bill was paid in cash, hence the good deal they done for the repair.

Right now the only thing they have against me is the key data, they cant prove anything else apart from assumptions based on what they think.

Proof isn't needed. They can deny your claim based on the evidence they hold as the balance of probability is in their favour at the moment. Unless you can provide some genuinely impartial evidence that the car was roadworthy and being driven around between January and August, the balance of probability stays in their favour. Family and friends telling them it was driven is probably not good enough.

SHAFT

facade wrote: »

The only thing they have is timestamps from the keys that show the car has not been driven since the date of the accident, and the only evidence you have is the word of relatives and friends.


Insurers use the timestamps from the keys to deny claims, as some people claim their car was stolen at a particular time, and key data shows the keys were used to drive it after the time they said it was stolen. It would appear to be an accepted practice.


You need to look for concrete irrefutable evidence that the car was in use - parking tickets with the reg number on, an MOT certificate, timestamped security camera footage etc.


Or you could find out exactly how the timestamping works, to see if you can cast doubt that the clock was right when the keys were timestamped.

Back office data from the ANPR would do it if the police were prepared to release it.

Arklight

Based on what we know, it looks most likely that the timestamps say the car wasn't driven because it wasn't driven. Very little of this story adds up and pertinent facts have been drip fed. Almost like they've just been thought of in response to what people are asking.

I'm far from convinced and without some concrete evidence otherwise I doubt the insurer will be. If the second service receipt is indeed genuine, that is probably the OP's best bet.

I personally can't help feeling like I'm being asked to help the OP invent some story to fool their insurers so that's my last contribution here.

Eatmybogbrush

Both keys were used and both have no time stamps from Jan to Aug, is a little suspect, and when some one takes the car and is not insured this means he will be reported for taking the car without the owners consent in which case he would be prosecuted as you say.....but if you knew and authorised the use of the car as you say you did you should have got the same fine and points because you knowingly let him drive it without insurance.

What I don't really understand is the fact you let a in your words "a bunch of Europeans fix it" your pride and joy that was badly damaged.......I am not surprised they won't pay out, just how well was the repair anyway.


I wouldn't even let my garage touch my pride and joy!


If that is the information you have given the insurance company......sorry but not a hope in hell of a payout.

George_Michael

When you finally got round to insuring the car, did you tell them about the crash that your sibling caused? and were they made aware of the points and fine that they received?
If not, these alone could be sufficient reason for them to deny paying out for the theft of the car.

SHAFT

George_Michael wrote: »

When you finally got round to insuring the car, did you tell them about the crash that your sibling caused? and were they made aware of the points and fine that they received?
If not, these alone could be sufficient reason for them to deny paying out for the theft of the car.

Go on then refresh my memory why they'd refuse to pay out. I thought theft and accidents were in relation to an insured vehicle or is it a general question about theft?

FaizanKhan

No i did not mention the crash the sibling had as we got it repaired privately didnt feel the need to. It wasnt repaired to perfection there was still electrical faults within the car. But it was enough for us to drive it until we could afford to get the rest fixed professionally.
I have a genuine receipt from service after the accident. There are people that can provide witness to the car being driven.
The only evidence they have it the timestamps on key which is an electronic device and can be faulty.
I will be seeking legal advice, im just shocked the way they worded the response, accusing me of fabricating the claim. Denying a claim is 1 thing and it can be dealt with (sibling that caused this mess can cough up) but accusing us is another level and will need to take it furthee

George_Michael

SHAFT wrote: »

Go on then refresh my memory why they'd refuse to pay out. I thought theft and accidents were in relation to an insured vehicle or is it a general question about theft?

Possibly because the vehicle was involved in a crash caused by a member of their family, a crash that caused severe damage to the vehicle and a crash for which the sibling was not insured and for which they received points and a fine.

I didn't state that this would allow the insurers not to pay out, I stated that it could.
I think we all know that many insurers will use any clause in their T&C's to avoid paying out so it makes sense to try to minimise this happening by giving as much info as possible when taking out a policy.

Penelopa.Pitstop

When you get legal advice, ask if it's possible to get any ANPR data showing your vehicle was on the road. After all, cameras are everywhere. If you remember any place where you parked and reg plate is provided, you can contact the operator of car park and try to get confirmation of that.

Owner has no idea if key is registering car movement or not. And since investigation took so long, it's difficult to get any CCTV after 3 months. I guess, having Ring doorbell could help if you could get archival material from them. What about neighbours? Anyone has CCTV and could possibly have old copies?

SHAFT

George_Michael wrote: »

[BkPossibly because the vehicle was involved in a crash caused by a member of their family, a crash that caused severe damage to the vehicle and a crash for which the sibling was not insured and for which they received points and a fine.[/B]

I didn't state that this would allow the insurers not to pay out, I stated that it could.
I think we all know that many insurers will use any clause in their T&C's to avoid paying out so it makes sense to try to minimise this happening by giving as much info as possible when taking out a policy.

I'm trying to get my head around what question when taking out a policy would cover that.

It's not a claim, accident involving the op so unless he's was putting the brother on the policy is it relevant?