Third party claiming

Klssm55

My son had accident which was his fault his insurance company have settled the claim,but now he has received without prejudice letter from the third party saying that his insurance premium has now gone up and if he claiming it off my son,if he doesn’t pay he will take him to court.
Any views on this please.

Keep_pedalling

I would not engage with the chancer, file his threat in the recycling bin.

AdrianC

Pass it to the insurer - it's part of the claim.

(They won't get anywhere)

Car_54

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

I would not engage with the chancer, file his threat in the recycling bin.

Don't do that. He is obliged to pass it, unanswered, to his insurers. He's paying them to deal with these things.

foxy-stoat

Klssm55 wrote: »

My son had accident which was his fault his insurance company have settled the claim,but now he has received without prejudice letter from the third party saying that his insurance premium has now gone up and if he claiming it off my son,if he doesn’t pay he will take him to court.
Any views on this please.

I tried this after the third non fault accident in 2 years, I got nowhere. Apparently it is not a "Head of Claim", I would of put it as an uninsured loss but its a consequence of a material fact, the fact that the material fact is not my fault is irrelevant.

If anything I should have to pay higher premiums as the rear of my car must have a target or the roads I travel are full of people who do not know how to stop in time in stationary traffic thus making me a higher risk driver.

Reminds me of a friend years ago....he put 6 fog lamps in the rear window wired to his brake lights as someone crashed into the back of him as they didnt see his brake lights come on.....probably blinded more people than he should of done.

Jumblebumble

foxy-stoat wrote: »

I tried this after the third non fault accident in 2 years, I got nowhere. Apparently it is not a "Head of Claim", I would of put it as an uninsured loss but its a consequence of a material fact, the fact that the material fact is not my fault is irrelevant.

If anything I should have to pay higher premiums as the rear of my car must have a target or the roads I travel are full of people who do not know how to stop in time in stationary traffic thus making me a higher risk driver.

Reminds me of a friend years ago....he put 6 fog lamps in the rear window wired to his brake lights as someone crashed into the back of him as they didnt see his brake lights come on.....probably blinded more people than he should of done.

To be fair if you have had 3 non fault accidents and you have been loaded as a result why should the latest insurance company be responsible for compensating for the loading which may be more going from 2 to 3 compared to 1 alone