Loss of NCD after accident

steffiraf

Hi,

Am looking for some advice please if i may? In April i was hit by a stolen vehicle whilst stationary at a junction and the driver ran off. The police attended and although the vehicle wasn't showing as stolen, all the signs pointed to it being nicked. I informed my insurance straight away from the scene however after 6 weeks the insurance company for the other vehicle decided that it was stolen at the time of the RTC so weren't going to pay out and it was passed to my underwriters(AXA) who took their time(3.5 months) in declaring my car a write off. They have paid me out for the car but i have now been advised that as they couldn't claim from the other party, the crash is going down as my fault which would affect my NCD. I have queried this but am just told thats the way it is when they have no-one to claim from even though i paid extra on my policy to protect my NCD. My insurance is due next month and as a result my premiums have now more than doubled. Can they do this? It hardly seems fair when i am the victim and have suffered as a result of something that wasn't my fault in any way whatsoever. 

Can i challenge this at all? AXA are being less than helpful.

Thanks

daveyjp

That's how insurance works.  You were insured for an event which happened and with no one to claim from its a claim against your policy.

Shop around for insurance. Protecting NCB is a marketing trick.

steffiraf

NCD obviously does something as with my current no claims the cheapest is £454 and the cheapest with no NCD its £854. The only thing different is length of no claims. To say i'm fuming is an understatement!

MyRealNameToo

steffiraf said:

Hi,

Am looking for some advice please if i may? In April i was hit by a stolen vehicle whilst stationary at a junction and the driver ran off. The police attended and although the vehicle wasn't showing as stolen, all the signs pointed to it being nicked. I informed my insurance straight away from the scene however after 6 weeks the insurance company for the other vehicle decided that it was stolen at the time of the RTC so weren't going to pay out and it was passed to my underwriters(AXA) who took their time(3.5 months) in declaring my car a write off. They have paid me out for the car but i have now been advised that as they couldn't claim from the other party, the crash is going down as my fault which would affect my NCD. I have queried this but am just told thats the way it is when they have no-one to claim from even though i paid extra on my policy to protect my NCD. My insurance is due next month and as a result my premiums have now more than doubled. Can they do this? It hardly seems fair when i am the victim and have suffered as a result of something that wasn't my fault in any way whatsoever. 

Can i challenge this at all? AXA are being less than helpful.

Thanks

If you have NCDP then the NCD would only go down if you have had other claims in recent years and therefore already exhausted the NCDP.

"Fault" as far as insurance companies are concerned is simply based on if at the end of the claim they have a net payout or not. Had the car not been stolen they could have recovered their outlay from the third party or their insurers and the file would have been closed as non-fault as they arent out of pocket. 

NCD is simply a discount, there is no promise that your premiums won't go up as a result of a claim even if you have NCDP - typically they will but then the discount is still applied and so you arent as bad off as you'd have been had you lost all your NCD or had none to start with. 

I haven't done Motor for many years, this is certainly how we would have dealt with a claim. With the driver unknown and the owner not complicit in the matter there is no one to issue proceedings against and so can't get a judgement so cannot force the vehicles insurance to deal with it as RTA insurer. I have heard some rumours that some have managed to get court orders but it sounds highly doubtful to me and probably just people talking rubbish but cannot say definitively one way or the other. 

As to fairness? Unfortunately life sucks sometimes, we were burgled a few times in a couple of years and Home insurance premiums increased as clearly they saw us as higher risk and then storms damaged the roof. Again not "our fault" but unfortunately you cannot sue god. On the plus side we had insurance which paid out promptly each time and premium increases were very modest compared to the claims settlements. 

steffiraf

This is taken from my renewal invite emailed to me on Sat 8th Nov. The letter sent from AXA is dated 30th Oct so which do i believe? This is the first claim i've made in over 30 years.

Car_54

OP, have you pointed out to them that you have paid for NCD protection?

steffiraf

Car_54 said:

OP, have you pointed out to them that you have paid for NCD protection?

Yes numerous times

Mildly_Miffed

With protection, your 9+yr NCD stays 9+yr. You still get 35% discount off the base premium.

The base premium, however, has gone up because you have an at-fault claim on your record.

Any claim where your insurer's hand finishes up in their pocket is an at-fault claim.
It would be not-at-fault if the other insurer had paid - but their liability stops when the car is stolen. They pay their policyholder the value of the car.

You may have a claim against the thief, if you can find them... and if they have enough assets to pay, since they won't have an insurer to cover your damage.

steffiraf

MyRealNameToo said:

steffiraf said:

Hi,

Am looking for some advice please if i may? In April i was hit by a stolen vehicle whilst stationary at a junction and the driver ran off. The police attended and although the vehicle wasn't showing as stolen, all the signs pointed to it being nicked. I informed my insurance straight away from the scene however after 6 weeks the insurance company for the other vehicle decided that it was stolen at the time of the RTC so weren't going to pay out and it was passed to my underwriters(AXA) who took their time(3.5 months) in declaring my car a write off. They have paid me out for the car but i have now been advised that as they couldn't claim from the other party, the crash is going down as my fault which would affect my NCD. I have queried this but am just told thats the way it is when they have no-one to claim from even though i paid extra on my policy to protect my NCD. My insurance is due next month and as a result my premiums have now more than doubled. Can they do this? It hardly seems fair when i am the victim and have suffered as a result of something that wasn't my fault in any way whatsoever. 

Can i challenge this at all? AXA are being less than helpful.

Thanks

If you have NCDP then the NCD would only go down if you have had other claims in recent years and therefore already exhausted the NCDP.

"Fault" as far as insurance companies are concerned is simply based on if at the end of the claim they have a net payout or not. Had the car not been stolen they could have recovered their outlay from the third party or their insurers and the file would have been closed as non-fault as they arent out of pocket. 

NCD is simply a discount, there is no promise that your premiums won't go up as a result of a claim even if you have NCDP - typically they will but then the discount is still applied and so you arent as bad off as you'd have been had you lost all your NCD or had none to start with. 

I haven't done Motor for many years, this is certainly how we would have dealt with a claim. With the driver unknown and the owner not complicit in the matter there is no one to issue proceedings against and so can't get a judgement so cannot force the vehicles insurance to deal with it as RTA insurer. I have heard some rumours that some have managed to get court orders but it sounds highly doubtful to me and probably just people talking rubbish but cannot say definitively one way or the other. 

As to fairness? Unfortunately life sucks sometimes, we were burgled a few times in a couple of years and Home insurance premiums increased as clearly they saw us as higher risk and then storms damaged the roof. Again not "our fault" but unfortunately you cannot sue god. On the plus side we had insurance which paid out promptly each time and premium increases were very modest compared to the claims settlements. 

I have come to terms with the fact its going down as my fault, there's nothing i can do about that. What i'm mad about is that i've paid extra to protect my NCD and have only had this one claim in over 30 years. According to the screen shots posted above, i should keep my NCD and not as they have said and i quote....
 'Good afternoon,

Please be noted as we were not able to recover the accidental cost from third party/third party insurer,

Hence the claim has been closed as fault claim, as we were unable to trace third party and because of the the NCD has been disallowed due to unsuccessful recovery.' 

By them not honouring the protection it is going to cost me twice the price for the next 9 years which to me is a double punishment for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Fair? Absolutely not

steffiraf

Mildly_Miffed said:

With protection, your 9+yr NCD stays 9+yr. You still get 35% discount off the base premium.

The base premium, however, has gone up because you have an at-fault claim on your record.

Any claim where your insurer's hand finishes up in their pocket is an at-fault claim.
It would be not-at-fault if the other insurer had paid - but their liability stops when the car is stolen. They pay their policyholder the value of the car.

You may have a claim against the thief, if you can find them... and if they have enough assets to pay, since they won't have an insurer to cover your damage.

So why are they saying my NCD has been disallowed?

daveyjp

Having been in this situation 25 years ago when my car was hit by a stoeln vehicle, I can assure you your insurance won't cost twice as much for 9 years.   The market is too competitive.  After the claim my existing insurance company  wanted silly money for many years, but other companies were happy to insure me for less than I had paid before the claim.