Car insurance doubled!! Help!! Please??

BB78

My car insurance is due for renewal on the 17th and my premium has almost doubled.
Talking to a Broker I found out it’s because of previous claims reducing my no claims bonus. In 2005 a cyclist hit my car, I was stationary and he was on the wrong side of the road coming downhill, he didn’t have plastic covers on his handle bars so with the speed he’d built up coming down hill he caused £600 worth of damage to my car.
I had an independent witness and the cyclist admitted responsibility. I told my insurance company and they told me it would be a non-fault claim on my policy, wasn’t happy with this as the insurance company had the opportunity to recoup their loses from the cyclist but thought as it’s none fault and I’ve got protected no claims it won’t affect my policy and got sick of dealing with the hassle.
2006 insured with someone else, had full no claims bonus & protected it again, no problems.
2007 took out a policy with different company and was told I had 2 claims in 2005! Explained I only had 1 which was non-fault & they said no I had 2 fault claims! Contacted 2005 insurer argued over fault/non-fault claim involving cyclist and they said because they didn’t recover their lose it becomes a fault claim! On the 2nd claim they paid out £178 to a third party, I told them 2nd claim must be fraudulent as I know nothing about it and had there been a claim I had an excess on the policy so why wouldn’t they have asked me to pay it if I was at fault and why was I never contacted. They never answered these 2 questions and I wrote letters and complaints but never got an answer.
The Broker has just told me there is nothing I can do about the fault element of the first claim but could go to the Financial Ombudsman for the fraudulent claim as Insurer didn’t answer and try and get it removed that way or I could repay the insurer the £178, they then have to remove the claim & reinstate my full no claims bonus, I then need to go to my current insurer with this to get them to reinstate my full no claims and give me proof of it so I can then get decent quotes for my renewal.
I was going to do this until I phoned my current insurer! In November (2007) someone parked a car in my allocated parking space forcing me to park in my neighbours space, that night their car was set alight and by the time the Fire Brigade put it out it had caused damage to my car! I phoned my insurance company and they said I would have to take it as a fault claim on my policy, not happy with that because I am the innocent victim I told them I wasn’t going to claim so its information only. I’ve now found out that they have put it down as a claim! Just called them and they said any damage or loss sustained has to be reported and even if I don’t claim and tell them I am not claiming they still register it as an open fault claim!
This is ridiculous!! I’m being penalised for things that aren’t my fault!!

So a few questions now that I’m hoping any insurance experts out there can help with:

1) Can a previous insurer add claims to your file 2 years after the “accident” took place if they never contacted you about it in the first place?
2) Why are cyclists treated as the innocent party when they are involved in an accident on the road that they caused? Car drivers have to pass a test, pay tax and have a valid MOT and insurance! Why is this claim suddenly my fault?
3) Can I do anything about the fire damage to my car? It was reported and I have a crime reference number, the Police have told me it was a revenge attack on the owner of the other car but he’s not insured and is wanted by the Police so won’t contact them in relation to his car! I’ve done nothing wrong, my car is alarmed and immobilised I parked with my neighbours permission, locked my car and went inside. I’ve done everything I can to protect my car, I’ve even got a security light in the garden shining down on mine & my neighbours spaces. He shouldn’t have been parked where he was, yet as the innocent victim I have either now got to pay my excess (£300) and take a hit on my insurance, losing my no claims discount or fix the car myself!
4) If I don’t make a claim for the fire damage to my car why is it being treated as a claim?

My renewal quote has gone from £400 last year to £900 this year!! :eek:

I can’t sell the car and try and find something cheaper to insure because of the damage, currently I can’t afford to fix the car or pay my excess to get it fixed, but if I am going to be penalised for notifying my insurance of the damage then I might as well claim & be penalised, but if I claim I don’t think it will matter what car I get my insurance will still be unaffordable! I’m waiting for surgery on my knee so can’t walk far & can’t cycle, I can’t use public transport because I am at risk because of an illness I suffer from and I can’t afford taxi’s everywhere so without a car I’ll be basically housebound.

Is there ANYTHING I can do because I’m feeling really hard done by and Insurer’s are thieving b*******s!!
:mad: :mad:

doubleh_4

there are lots of competitors in the insurance business and all of them want your money....you need to spend some time on the phone and tell these guys that you have a lot of choices and you don't feel that you have been treated fairly.....don't speak to anyone who doesn't have to authority to help you get the results that you won't.....you are not being unreasonable, so they should work with you.....and if they don't then you should move on to some company that will take care of you.

raskazz

BB78 wrote: »

1) Can a previous insurer add claims to your file 2 years after the “accident” took place if they never contacted you about it in the first place?

Anyone can claim against anyone else up to 6 years after the event. Do you know for sure whether they did not attempt to contact you? I am certain that they would at the very least have sent one letter (if not more when they did not get a respone to the first) when the third party registered the claim. Also it is important to remember that excesses are not payable on third-party claims, only own damage claims.

BB78 wrote: »

2) Why are cyclists treated as the innocent party when they are involved in an accident on the road that they caused? Car drivers have to pass a test, pay tax and have a valid MOT and insurance! Why is this claim suddenly my fault?

You have to remember that when insurers describe a claim as fault or non-fault they are not using the term in the normal sense. A claim is fault if the insurer settles but does not recover its outlay. A claim is non-fault if the insurer either pays nothing or recovers its outlay from another party. Proving liability is difficult. Pursuing the third party for recovery would probably cost more then the sum in question, so it is a simple matter of economics. Should an insurer pay £000's to reclaim a £600 outlay?

BB78 wrote: »

3) Can I do anything about the fire damage to my car? It was reported and I have a crime reference number, the Police have told me it was a revenge attack on the owner of the other car but he’s not insured and is wanted by the Police so won’t contact them in relation to his car! I’ve done nothing wrong, my car is alarmed and immobilised I parked with my neighbours permission, locked my car and went inside. I’ve done everything I can to protect my car, I’ve even got a security light in the garden shining down on mine & my neighbours spaces. He shouldn’t have been parked where he was, yet as the innocent victim I have either now got to pay my excess (£300) and take a hit on my insurance, losing my no claims discount or fix the car myself!

You neighbour is not liable in any way so the fact that his car is uninsured is irrelevant to your situation. So In short, no, you can't really do anything about this unless you can find the guilty party. Even if you did, are you willing to fork out for the relevant legal advice to pursue him? Is he likely to have any money to pay you for the damage anyway?

BB78 wrote: »

4) If I don’t make a claim for the fire damage to my car why is it being treated as a claim?

Because it presents a higher risk then if the incident had not happened. You are a higher risk than before because someone in your area goes around vandalising cars, and worse, appears to have a grudge against your neighbour, whose car will presumably always be parked near yours.

Obviously it is not your fault but many things that are outside your control affect the risk. Your age, your gender, incidents in the area around your address for starters.

Many underwriters would decline to cover you at all if they knew the full details of the fire incident, especially if there has been a spate of similar attacks in the area.

As far as I can see, you can only really take issue with the claim that was apparently bogus. All you can do is raise a complaint with the relevant insurer and take things from there.

Iamthesmartestmanalive

You dont' half seem to have a lot of accidents which arent your fault

Im not surprised your premiums have rocketed evil

BB78

raskazz wrote: »

Anyone can claim against anyone else up to 6 years after the event. Do you know for sure whether they did not attempt to contact you?

They definitely didn't contact me. I knew nothing about the claim until late Jan last year when my new insurer told me there was a claim on the motor insurer’s database dated May 2005 which I hadn't disclosed. I didn't disclose it because I knew nothing about it!

raskazz wrote: »

A claim is fault if the insurer settles but does not recover its outlay. A claim is non-fault if the insurer either pays nothing or recovers its outlay from another party. Proving liability is difficult.

But you get penalised for a fault claim. I can't do anything about someone damaging my car if I'm stationary and it’s not my fault if they aren't insured or don't have to have insurance. I had an independent witness and the cyclist admitted liability. The quote I saw for the repairs was over £1,000!

raskazz wrote: »

You neighbour is not liable in any way so the fact that his car is uninsured is irrelevant to your situation. So In short, no, you can't really do anything about this unless you can find the guilty party.

Because it presents a higher risk then if the incident had not happened. You are a higher risk than before because someone in your area goes around vandalising cars, and worse, appears to have a grudge against your neighbour, whose car will presumably always be parked near yours.

This wasn't my neighbour’s car that got set alight, its someone known and wanted by the Police who parked in my allocated space in a residential parking area. He doesn't live in the street, he shouldn't have parked there and I certainly didn't give him permission so I was forced to park in my neighbours space as she doesn't have a car so doesn't use it.

Insurance companies write into their policies that you have to inform them of all lose/damage whether you are claiming or not. If you claim they put your insurance up so why if you don't claim are they allowed to put your insurance up by considering you a higher risk? surely this constitutes an unfair clause, you're damned if you claim & your damned if you don't? By not claiming you have effectively saved them money as you are covering the cost of repairs over and above your excess yourself. If you don't tell them about something because you aren't going to claim you are not being honest & have invalidated your policy.

raskazz wrote: »

Many underwriters would decline to cover you at all if they knew the full details of the fire incident, especially if there has been a spate of similar attacks in the area.

Why would underwriters decline to cover me? I was trying to park in my parking bay, my car is alarmed and immobilised and I have taken the extra precaution of security lighting. If my alarm hadn't gone off no-one would have noticed the fire till something exploded as it happened gone midnight.

This was a one off event; I've been parking my car in my space for almost 2 years without problems. A wanted criminal parks one night, the Police tell me its a revenge attack implying they know who did it but aren't following it up and I'm the innocent party landed with a huge repair bill and without claiming, inflated insurance premiums! And I had to clear up the mess left behind once they towed the car! How can that be fair??

BB78

Iamthesmartestmanalive wrote: »

You dont' half seem to have a lot of accidents which arent your fault

Im not surprised your premiums have rocketed evil

Cyclist hits my car riding on the wrong side of the road when I am stationary, how is that my fault??!!

Another claim I know nothing about, how is that my fault??!!

A known criminal parks his car in my parking bay and someone who wants revenge on him sets his car alight, how is that my fault??!!

sassybird

Well, I cannot give you any advice on what to do about the insurance side of things, but you have my sympathy on a run of sh*tty luck that you have been experiencing.

I hope you can get a cheaper quote and that life starts to take an upturn for you - keep doing the lottery! :rolleyes:

dunstonh

fault means that they havent been able to recover the losses from another party. In your case, you have had a few of those. Plus, the number of occurances in a short period dont help you either.

It may not be your fault but no-one elses insurance is covering it so it is classed as a "fault" claim.

wanted criminal parks one night, the Police tell me its a revenge attack implying they know who did it but aren't following it up and I'm the innocent party landed with a huge repair bill and without claiming, inflated insurance premiums! And I had to clear up the mess left behind once they towed the car! How can that be fair??

Its not fair. Many things in life are not. However, you ar still better off because your insurance paid for the repairs which is why you have insurance. However the "no claims" discount will be reduced because you made a claim where the blame could not be passed on to someone else.

lisyloo

Ignore the comment from Ianthedumbestmanalive.

As already mentioned on this thread a "fault" claim does not mean you are at fault in the normal sense.
It simply means that the claim is recorded against you because your insurance had to pay (rather than someone else's insurance).
The insurance company don't care who is at "fault" but they really care about who pays.

It's a bad bit of wording.
It should be stateed that you have had a claim that had to be "paid" not a "fault".

Cyclist and pedestrians do not have to have any third party insurance.
Perhaps they should, but currently they don't.
There ARE ways to legally pursue individuals. They can be taken to court and if they have assets or a job there are ways of forcing them to pay (by balliffs or aking money directly from their income).
The problem is that solicitors work at £125 per hour, so this is unlikely to be done for a few hundred quid.

That's the way the world is I'm afraid and we just have to live with it.
Perhaps console yourself with the fact that you had insurance to pay and didn't have to pay directly yourself.

You have my sympathy but the fact is that insurance companies have to make practical decisions sometimes rather than fair ones.

In general cyclist don't cause a huge amount of expensive damage to 3rd parties because they ar as hard and don't go as fast as cars and lorries.
Maybe they should be forced to have insurance but then do you force ALL road users e.g. every pedestrian to have insurance as well?
In general it's such a small problem that it's not thought worthwhile to force everyone to have it.

raskazz

BB78 wrote: »

They definitely didn't contact me. I knew nothing about the claim until late Jan last year when my new insurer told me there was a claim on the motor insurer’s database dated May 2005 which I hadn't disclosed. I didn't disclose it because I knew nothing about it!

Well you should certainly chase this up with the relevant insurer then. But they are not just going to remove it from your claim history without an investigation.

BB78 wrote: »

But you get penalised for a fault claim. I can't do anything about someone damaging my car if I'm stationary and it’s not my fault if they aren't insured or don't have to have insurance. I had an independent witness and the cyclist admitted liability. The quote I saw for the repairs was over £1,000!

You get 'penalised' for fault and non-fault claims actually. Again, you need to understand the definition of 'fault' in insurance matters, and that no insurer is going to spend £1000's to recover a £600 outlay. It makes no economic sense for them to do so.

BB78 wrote: »

This wasn't my neighbour’s car that got set alight, its someone known and wanted by the Police who parked in my allocated space in a residential parking area. He doesn't live in the street, he shouldn't have parked there and I certainly didn't give him permission so I was forced to park in my neighbours space as she doesn't have a car so doesn't use it.

OK, that is clearer now. But still, what more do you think your insurer can do for you on this particular claim?

BB78 wrote: »

Insurance companies write into their policies that you have to inform them of all lose/damage whether you are claiming or not. If you claim they put your insurance up so why if you don't claim are they allowed to put your insurance up by considering you a higher risk?

Because you ARE a higher risk. If you were an insurer, would you offer the same terms to person A and person B, despite the fact that person B suffered an incident such as the fire damage but person A did not? No you wouldn't, because person B is higher risk, whether they claim for that particular incident or not.

BB78 wrote: »

surely this constitutes an unfair clause, you're damned if you claim & your damned if you don't?

Hundreds of years if insurance law says it's not an unfair clause. It's not really a 'clause' anyhow, merely a method of rating a material fact.

BB78 wrote: »

By not claiming you have effectively saved them money as you are covering the cost of repairs over and above your excess yourself. If you don't tell them about something because you aren't going to claim you are not being honest & have invalidated your policy.

Yes, which is why the premium increase for a non-fault, no payout incident is a lot less than the increase for a fault incident.

BB78 wrote: »

Why would underwriters decline to cover me? I was trying to park in my parking bay, my car is alarmed and immobilised and I have taken the extra precaution of security lighting. If my alarm hadn't gone off no-one would have noticed the fire till something exploded as it happened gone midnight.

is this not obvious? Insurers are naturally wary of proposals where cars in the area where you park have been firebombed.

BB78 wrote: »

This was a one off event; I've been parking my car in my space for almost 2 years without problems. A wanted criminal parks one night, the Police tell me its a revenge attack implying they know who did it but aren't following it up and I'm the innocent party landed with a huge repair bill and without claiming, inflated insurance premiums! And I had to clear up the mess left behind once they towed the car! How can that be fair??

Life's a !!!!!, but this is nothing to do with your insurers.

BigSaver_2

raskazz wrote: »

Anyone can claim against anyone else up to 6 years after the event.

Hi,

What is the source of this statement? Why is it six years?

Thanks