Hit & run

little_green

2 years ago there was a hit & run in my car when it was parked outside. A neighbor witnessed the whole thing and was extra helpful both in providing the police with information & the insurance company. As it was a hit and run I had to make the claim on my policy. The police dragged their heels but initially saying the couldn't trace the driver however they had hit my car whilst trying to park for work ( a shop ok the same street) thus I kindly told police I know their exact location. Eventually months later the police advised driver had been charged. However I spoke to my insurance who said the claim had been abandoned due to asking police for more info & them stating they had none to pass on. 
Anyway I'm now trying to get insurance on a new car & 2 insurers have refused me because I've had 2 claims in 2 years stating that as the claim was made on my policy they both go down as at fault claims. 
I have protected no claims which I pay extra for but the insurers don't seem interested in that it's literally oh 2 claims in 2 years no. 

Any help? 

neilmcl

So have you had 2 (declarable) claims in 2 years then or not?

The simple answer really is to use the comparison sites and shop around or use a broker.

AdrianC

little_green said:

2 years ago there was a hit & run in my car when it was parked outside. A neighbor witnessed the whole thing and was extra helpful both in providing the police with information & the insurance company. As it was a hit and run I had to make the claim on my policy. The police dragged their heels but initially saying the couldn't trace the driver however they had hit my car whilst trying to park for work ( a shop ok the same street) thus I kindly told police I know their exact location. Eventually months later the police advised driver had been charged. However I spoke to my insurance who said the claim had been abandoned due to asking police for more info & them stating they had none to pass on.

That's one.

The simple way that insurers look at fault is who ends up paying.
If your insurer ended up paying, then it goes on your record as at-fault.
If your insurer ended up with all their costs covered by the other driver, then it goes on your record as not-at-fault.

Whether the police charge the other driver is irrelevant. Their insurer may or may not view that as a relevant factor in determining liability... always assuming they had an insurer, of course...

Anyway I'm now trying to get insurance on a new car & 2 insurers have refused me because I've had 2 claims in 2 years stating that as the claim was made on my policy they both go down as at fault claims. 
I have protected no claims which I pay extra for but the insurers don't seem interested in that it's literally oh 2 claims in 2 years no.   

Insurers are, of course, free to decline business from whoever they like so long as they don't do so based solely on any of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act.

There are a LOT more than two insurers out there.

Yes, your insurance may end up costing more than without these two claims... That's because insurers know that people with two claims in two years are more likely to cost them money than people without.

little_green

AdrianC said:

little_green said:

2 years ago there was a hit & run in my car when it was parked outside. A neighbor witnessed the whole thing and was extra helpful both in providing the police with information & the insurance company. As it was a hit and run I had to make the claim on my policy. The police dragged their heels but initially saying the couldn't trace the driver however they had hit my car whilst trying to park for work ( a shop ok the same street) thus I kindly told police I know their exact location. Eventually months later the police advised driver had been charged. However I spoke to my insurance who said the claim had been abandoned due to asking police for more info & them stating they had none to pass on.

That's one.

The simple way that insurers look at fault is who ends up paying.
If your insurer ended up paying, then it goes on your record as at-fault.
If your insurer ended up with all their costs covered by the other driver, then it goes on your record as not-at-fault.

Whether the police charge the other driver is irrelevant. Their insurer may or may not view that as a relevant factor in determining liability... always assuming they had an insurer, of course...

Anyway I'm now trying to get insurance on a new car & 2 insurers have refused me because I've had 2 claims in 2 years stating that as the claim was made on my policy they both go down as at fault claims. 
I have protected no claims which I pay extra for but the insurers don't seem interested in that it's literally oh 2 claims in 2 years no.   

Insurers are, of course, free to decline business from whoever they like so long as they don't do so based solely on any of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act.

There are a LOT more than two insurers out there.

Yes, your insurance may end up costing more than without these two claims... That's because insurers know that people with two claims in two years are more likely to cost them money than people without.

Yes but one was non fault so 2 claims in 2 years is really 1 at fault accident in 11 years of driving

scrappy_returns

little_green said:

AdrianC said:

little_green said:

2 years ago there was a hit & run in my car when it was parked outside. A neighbor witnessed the whole thing and was extra helpful both in providing the police with information & the insurance company. As it was a hit and run I had to make the claim on my policy. The police dragged their heels but initially saying the couldn't trace the driver however they had hit my car whilst trying to park for work ( a shop ok the same street) thus I kindly told police I know their exact location. Eventually months later the police advised driver had been charged. However I spoke to my insurance who said the claim had been abandoned due to asking police for more info & them stating they had none to pass on.

That's one.

The simple way that insurers look at fault is who ends up paying.
If your insurer ended up paying, then it goes on your record as at-fault.
If your insurer ended up with all their costs covered by the other driver, then it goes on your record as not-at-fault.

Whether the police charge the other driver is irrelevant. Their insurer may or may not view that as a relevant factor in determining liability... always assuming they had an insurer, of course...

Anyway I'm now trying to get insurance on a new car & 2 insurers have refused me because I've had 2 claims in 2 years stating that as the claim was made on my policy they both go down as at fault claims. 
I have protected no claims which I pay extra for but the insurers don't seem interested in that it's literally oh 2 claims in 2 years no.   

Insurers are, of course, free to decline business from whoever they like so long as they don't do so based solely on any of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act.

There are a LOT more than two insurers out there.

Yes, your insurance may end up costing more than without these two claims... That's because insurers know that people with two claims in two years are more likely to cost them money than people without.

Yes but one was non fault so 2 claims in 2 years is really 1 at fault accident in 11 years of driving

little_green said:

AdrianC said:

little_green said:

2 years ago there was a hit & run in my car when it was parked outside. A neighbor witnessed the whole thing and was extra helpful both in providing the police with information & the insurance company. As it was a hit and run I had to make the claim on my policy. The police dragged their heels but initially saying the couldn't trace the driver however they had hit my car whilst trying to park for work ( a shop ok the same street) thus I kindly told police I know their exact location. Eventually months later the police advised driver had been charged. However I spoke to my insurance who said the claim had been abandoned due to asking police for more info & them stating they had none to pass on.

That's one.

The simple way that insurers look at fault is who ends up paying.
If your insurer ended up paying, then it goes on your record as at-fault.
If your insurer ended up with all their costs covered by the other driver, then it goes on your record as not-at-fault.

Whether the police charge the other driver is irrelevant. Their insurer may or may not view that as a relevant factor in determining liability... always assuming they had an insurer, of course...

Anyway I'm now trying to get insurance on a new car & 2 insurers have refused me because I've had 2 claims in 2 years stating that as the claim was made on my policy they both go down as at fault claims. 
I have protected no claims which I pay extra for but the insurers don't seem interested in that it's literally oh 2 claims in 2 years no.   

Insurers are, of course, free to decline business from whoever they like so long as they don't do so based solely on any of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act.

There are a LOT more than two insurers out there.

Yes, your insurance may end up costing more than without these two claims... That's because insurers know that people with two claims in two years are more likely to cost them money than people without.

Yes but one was non fault so 2 claims in 2 years is really 1 at fault accident in 11 years of driving

You've informed them of two, they are gonna record 2 and price accordingly.

GrumpyDil

But as stated it's two claims, irrespective of fault.

Insurance companies see your scenarios as two claims, both settled as at fault. It may feel unfair but it's how it works. 

neilmcl

little_green said:

AdrianC said:

little_green said:

2 years ago there was a hit & run in my car when it was parked outside. A neighbor witnessed the whole thing and was extra helpful both in providing the police with information & the insurance company. As it was a hit and run I had to make the claim on my policy. The police dragged their heels but initially saying the couldn't trace the driver however they had hit my car whilst trying to park for work ( a shop ok the same street) thus I kindly told police I know their exact location. Eventually months later the police advised driver had been charged. However I spoke to my insurance who said the claim had been abandoned due to asking police for more info & them stating they had none to pass on.

That's one.

The simple way that insurers look at fault is who ends up paying.
If your insurer ended up paying, then it goes on your record as at-fault.
If your insurer ended up with all their costs covered by the other driver, then it goes on your record as not-at-fault.

Whether the police charge the other driver is irrelevant. Their insurer may or may not view that as a relevant factor in determining liability... always assuming they had an insurer, of course...

Anyway I'm now trying to get insurance on a new car & 2 insurers have refused me because I've had 2 claims in 2 years stating that as the claim was made on my policy they both go down as at fault claims. 
I have protected no claims which I pay extra for but the insurers don't seem interested in that it's literally oh 2 claims in 2 years no.   

Insurers are, of course, free to decline business from whoever they like so long as they don't do so based solely on any of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act.

There are a LOT more than two insurers out there.

Yes, your insurance may end up costing more than without these two claims... That's because insurers know that people with two claims in two years are more likely to cost them money than people without.

Yes but one was non fault so 2 claims in 2 years is really 1 at fault accident in 11 years of driving

That's not how it works. Insurers ask for previous claims/accidents regardless of fault.