Insurance Refusing to settle

FaizanKhan

Only hope now I have is chase around for CCTV/ANPR, and a few garages that Ive been to for minor things like tyres brake pads etc if they can give there word in or provide some sort of proof, been to a few local garages but they dont give receipt unless requested.
I understand the insurance wants to find any way possible not to pay, but accusing us of lying and saying theft was not real is beyond me, if such thing was planned I would have taken out GAP insurance. Im already going to be making a loss with there payout and possibility further losses if they dont even pay out!

facade

SHAFT wrote: »

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?

"Have you had any accidents, made any claims, or suffered any lossesdue to an accident ( in relation to a motor vehicle) in the past 5 years?"



Pretty standard question when you take out a policy.


No doubt if you maintain that you didn't suffer any loss because someone else crashed it, and then paid to have it repaired, they would reply that "losses" includes loss of use of the vehicle whilst it was being repaired after someone else's accident.

photome

I call bull

George_Michael

SHAFT wrote: »

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

This one perhaps: (from Admiral).

Has the driver had any accidents, losses, thefts, incidents or claims in the last 3 years (regardless of fault)?

I think it's fair to say that as the vehicle wasn't insured at the time, it doesn't count as a claim. As they weren't driving, it wouldn't be an accident but IMO, the driver (the OP) has suffered a loss and their car being driven whilst uninsured and being involved in an accident sounds like an incident to me.

Robisere

FaizanKhan, please stop posting here, you just appear to be digging deeper and more confusing holes. That just makes us all more suspicious about your story, or should I say several stories. If you are really innocent and believe that you have a case against the insurance company concerned, go get proper legal advice, but please compose your thoughts and collect as much evidence as possible before seeing a solicitor. Just stop trying to imagine possibilities here, face reality. If a solicitor tells you that you have no chance, accept it and move on.

SHAFT

FaizanKhan wrote: »

Only hope now I have is chase around for CCTV/ANPR, and a few garages that Ive been to for minor things like tyres brake pads etc if they can give there word in or provide some sort of proof, been to a few local garages but they dont give receipt unless requested.
I understand the insurance wants to find any way possible not to pay, but accusing us of lying and saying theft was not real is beyond me, if such thing was planned I would have taken out GAP insurance. Im already going to be making a loss with there payout and possibility further losses if they dont even pay out!

You're wasting your time with any cctv that's over 30 days old. Slim to no chance on getting that. The police will have anpr records on all hits on your vehicle but whether they provide them is another matter.

shaun_from_Africa

FaizanKhan wrote: »

No i did not mention the crash the sibling had as we got it repaired privately didnt feel the need to.

I do hope that your sibling doesn't feel the same if/when they take out a policy in their own name.
Also, if your sibling is a named driver on your policy, you must declare the accident even though it was repaired privately.

SHAFT

facade wrote: »

"Have you had any accidents, made any claims, or suffered any lossesdue to an accident ( in relation to a motor vehicle) in the past 5 years?"



Pretty standard question when you take out a policy.


No doubt if you maintain that you didn't suffer any loss because someone else crashed it, and then paid to have it repaired, they would reply that "losses" includes loss of use of the vehicle whilst it was being repaired after someone else's accident.

Is that how you interpret a loss or is there something to support that?

facade

SHAFT wrote: »

Is that how you interpret a loss or is there something to support that?

That is my interpretation, a loss doesn't have to be financial

SHAFT

facade wrote: »

That is my interpretation, a loss doesn't have to be financial

Be interesting to see something from the insurance industry to define loss because I suspect insurance fraud on top of his current problem.