insurance dispute

mattyprice4004

fred246 said:

This sort of accident illustrates why it is often correct that an accident increases your insurance premium even though it isn't deemed to be your fault. Lots of accidents can by avoided by better driving from the 'innocent' party. If he's got no vehicle tax and bald tyres he's probably speeding too. Serial criminal.

I am in awe at the continued lunacy in your posts - it's quite incredible. There's absolutely no evidence that he was speeding, and no link between the offences you've mentioned. 

Most untaxed, bald-tyre sheds I've cast my eyes on have been outside the local school - Zafiras / Galaxys where the 'yummy mummy' usually expects 'these kind of things to be checked at MOT' and no other time. 

mattyprice4004

Back to the topic at hand, the amount of people I've had pull out right in my path from a side road over the last year is bonkers - I'm not sure if people just don't care any more, or if they all have a death wish.

Without any evidence to the contrary, your partner has just pulled out into the path of someone else - and while it's admirable you wish to be the white knight, we all make mistakes and this is one she's just going to have to swallow unfortunately. 
As you only have the information 2nd hand from her, it's entirely possible she was just another 'plenty of room...' person in her own bubble that didn't care there was oncoming traffic, and she's playing the story up to you. 

AdrianC

desktop said:

fred246 said:

This sort of accident illustrates why it is often correct that an accident increases your insurance premium even though it isn't deemed to be your fault. Lots of accidents can by avoided by better driving from the 'innocent' party. If he's got no vehicle tax and bald tyres he's probably speeding too. Serial criminal.

I had three claims at one time on my insurance which increased my premiums and for which I wasn't at fault:

1. Wife driving car, my policy, I wasn't there.  Written off by third party who accepted liability.

2. Guy crashed into the back of us while we were stationary at a roundabout.  Third party accepted liability.

3. Old guy trying to park ripped off my front bumper and damaged the wing.  Did a runner. We came back to the car to find the mess. Luckily, a witness had seen the accident and took the car details down.  Police traced, liability admitted.

It's really annoying to get penalised for other drivers being idiots, especially when you're not even there!

But, of course, at least one of those three, possibly two, maybe all three, could easily have ended up as costing your insurer money... And that's the bit insurers don't like.

Some years back, my cars were hit parked outside my suburban house several times in relatively quick succession, with a couple of close misses. Sometimes roll-aways from up the hill, sometimes people reversing out of the drive opposite without looking. (Next door's was punted into a lamp post and written off, one free-range car ended up upside-down in a garden)
The only one that ended up as insurance went on the other person's - despite their best efforts to claim it absolutely wasn't their fault, and they couldn't possibly have been expected to see the parked car straight behind them... Youngish and fairly entitled mother, sprogbus full of screaming brats... It was only when I pointed out that if my car hadn't been there, she'd have been through our wall, and gawd help anybody pushing a pushchair along the pavement at the time, that she agreed that perhaps it wasn't the fault of the stationary, locked, car for simply being parked in a legal parking place on a straight piece of residential road... We've moved now. The most likely thing to damage our car in our drive is a runaway sheep from next door. That's a far lower risk of costing our insurers money. Our premiums have reduced. Simples.

[Deleted User]

AdrianC said:

"But, of course, at least one of those three, possibly two, maybe all three, could easily have ended up as costing your insurer money... And that's the bit insurers don't like."

But they didn't.  They still meant that my insurance increased quite a bit, through no fault of my own.  My experiences were as a counter argument to fred246's post.  "Simples" - Que??

George_Michael

desktop said:

AdrianC said:

"But, of course, at least one of those three, possibly two, maybe all three, could easily have ended up as costing your insurer money... And that's the bit insurers don't like."

But they didn't.  They still meant that my insurance increased quite a bit, through no fault of my own.  My experiences were as a counter argument to fred246's post.  "Simples" - Que??

They didn't but the important thing is that they could have done and it is this ""could have" that makes you a higher risk than someone who hadn't had any accidents.
Even though you weren't at fault, the simple fact that you were involved in 3 incidents in a short space of time could mean that there was a lack of situational awareness by you or your wife and this is something that the insurers will take into account when providing cover for you.

[Deleted User]

I appreciate and understand why the ins co's would consider us higher risk due to a run of 3 none faults.  What's annoying is the lack of police action in all 3:

Guy smashes into the back of you while you are stationary at a roundabout - surely driving without due care and attention?

New, inexperienced driver loses control on the motorway, spins the car and wipes my wife off the road- careless driving?

Old guy damages my car, stops, looks at the damage then drives off - surely failing to stop, failing to report and driving without due care and attention? The police took no action against him.

I would suffer the increased premiums more easily if there was some penalty for their bad driving, beyond their own deserved higher premiums. Very lucky in 2 of them that nobody was badly hurt.