gas-lighted by HastingsDirect insurance

motorbikestruth

In January a taxi driver alleged that by partner had clipped / scraped his front right bumper as she parked our golf on the LHS of the road ahead of his car (to attend a puppy class). My partner and 12yr old daughter are confident no impact occurred. He was angry and intimidating, dark Winter's night etc. There was no convincing mark on either car. Photos were taken to try to de-escalate the situation with the agreement that insurance companies should be informed, if in daylight, there was evidence of permanent damage.
We spoke to the local police via 111 the same evening and they advised informing our insurer = HastingsDirect. The other driver started texting over next 48hr trying to extort money for 'repairs' - but would not provide a written quote. We suspected it was an attempt to extract money on false pretenses.
I checked the wording of our insurance which said we should inform them of any alleged incident within 48hr. We then did this explaining that we suspected it was a fraudulent claim and we disputed the other driver's version of events. I specifically asked them to record this as a incident and not a claim and not to contact the other driver's insurer. Hastings immediate response was to say they would 'reachout' (exact words) 'to the other driver insurer and offer to cover all costs'. It was bizarre. I barely managed to contain my apopleptic rage.
Subsequently an assessor visited in February and verbally stated there was no damage to our vehicle (17yr old Golf TDI 'work horse') to suggest an impact had occurred. This was in keeping with our expectations.

Yesterday I received a email from Hastings stating they have determined:
"We've carefully reviewed all the information and what the likely outcome would be if your claim was presented before a judge. As the evidence isn't strong enough to support your case, we'll be accepting full liability to the third party, using our right as your insurer to settle any claim on your behalf. You can find more details about what this means in the 'General Conditions' section of your policy documents.

How we've reached this decision

We have had both vehicles inspected and engineer has confirmed that the damage to both vehicles is consistent, thereore without any further evidence from yourself we will have to deal as a fault claim as we would be unable to defend the claim should it go to court.

What happens next

We'll communicate with the third party to settle the costs. They'll have three years to present a claim for injury and six years to claim for any property damage."

From the first interaction with Hastings it appears, by their use of language alone, that they were minded to side with the fraudulent other driver even in the absence of evidence or based upon version of events. I can see that this is a job creation scheme for the entire insurance industry and many people have had their bit of the pie in relation to this dubious alleged event by another driver who was simply trying it on to get a bit of quick easy cash hoping we would not go to the insurance company direct.

So my question is: what to do now?
I honestly believe the other driver and the insurance company are acting dishonestly.
My partner and I are both NHS consultants working in the midst of the Corona virus pandemic and as a result I don't have much energy to devote to this (perceived) injustice, even though it offends me to the core. In relative terms it really isn't important. We are not poor and can absorb the costs of higher insurance premiums.

However .... it is the principle that is gnawing away at my internal organs - if Corona doesn't get me I may well stroke out from from my fury induced hypertension!

Please advise. Do I:
1) do nothing
2) take it to a consumer champion eg Guardian
3) go via complaints procedure with Hastings Direct
4) ask to see the engineer's reports - do I have a right to do so?

Thanks for your time.

Grabs39

You do nothing.  The insurers know it’s cheaper to pay out, than potentially go to court.  So they pay out.

Not ideal but that’s how it works.

MovingForwards

Do 3 and ask for 4 within your complaint, provide all the evidence you have.

Car insurance is based on the balance of probabilities.

No point getting yourself worked up into a tiz over this, you have enough going on in your life.

davidmcn

It is a general principle of insurance that you let the insurers run the show. So if they want to settle a claim (where you wouldn't have), it's up to them - it's their money they're handing over, after all - why would they pay out if they thought the other party was a chancer?

Conversely, they're entitled to defend a claim to the death (and seek your co-operation in doing so) even if you think they don't have a chance of winning.

TELLIT01

The problem for the OP is that by settling the claim with the OP 'at fault' the NCD will be affected.  Unfortunately, as said, insurers are more interested in minimising their costs than in contesting comparatively small claims.

csgohan4

was it on dashcam by any chance, if not would be useful to have one in future

motorbikestruth

Thanks all for your comments. It seems the consensus is that it's not worth my time to contest. I am left with the feeling that 'no good deed goes unpunished' as we debated not informing our insurer on the basis that the issue would have gone away if not given the oxygen of informing our insurer. Live and learn. Next time I'll do things differently.

In response to davidmcn it is not the 'insurers' who 'pay for this' - it is definitely the insureds like me and every other properly insured driver. This is a profit making industry that never loses. I lose my NCD and my premium goes up. I pay for their dubious  decision. Paying out may be cheaper for the insurer than contesting it but definitely not cheaper for me - and they are supposed to be acting on my behalf and not theirs. The process is flawed and arguably corrupt. 

However  the consensus decision is likely to correct one overall for life sanity.

In response to csgohan4 - yes he had a dascam and 'it was off'.  One hypothesis we suggested was that he was actually just setting off from a parked position, without lights yet turned on, and that is how the (alleged) contact may have occurred. My partner said the gap was generous and there was no conceivable way she would have hit him if he was stationary.

 

davidmcn

motorbikestruth said:

Paying out may be cheaper for the insurer than contesting it but definitely not cheaper for me - and they are supposed to be acting on my behalf and not theirs.

"Acting on your behalf" meaning that they take over the defence of the claim, not that you have any right to veto how they handle it. Chances are that it says explicitly in your policy that they are entitled to settle any claims.

dunstonh

In response to davidmcn it is not the 'insurers' who 'pay for this' - it is definitely the insureds like me and every other properly insured driver.

Actually, it is the insurers that pay for this.  They pay it first and then recover costs in the premiums.    

If you wanted the insurers to argue every case to court where one party felt aggrieved, premiums would increase massively.  Its not ideal for sure but commercial reality for both consumers and insurers means that insurers do often have to take the course of least cost.

In response to csgohan4 - yes he had a dascam and 'it was off'.  One hypothesis we suggested was that he was actually just setting off from a parked position, without lights yet turned on, and that is how the (alleged) contact may have occurred. My partner said the gap was generous and there was no conceivable way she would have hit him if he was stationary.

A hypothesis does not work when you are in a profession that has to go by the four truths principle.  i.e. what you say happened. What the other side says happened.  What actually happened.  What the available evidence suggests happened.    In most cases, all four things will be different yet all presented as the truth.

Potentially, the camera was not turned off but the evidence on the camera doesn't support the other party. So, they just said it was turned off/inactive.

Plus, playing devil's advocate, your partner would say that.   However, what evidence is there to suggest that was the case.  
It isn't pleasant when it happens to you and you have good morals.  There isn't much you can do about it though apart from protect yourself in future by having your own dashcam.

motorbikestruth

Thanks all for your input. The insurance / legal world is a different one for me - and I am learning.
I spoke to a friend's hubby (= barrister on lock down, why not?). His advice aligns with the info on here but delivered in super smooth legal-ese. He opened the discussion stating that my friend told him to ring me and 'save her from herself' - she knows me well.
I will ask for the engineer's reports to appease my own curiosity. And likely leave it there - notching it up to life experience.

Cheers.