Don't understand how this is an At Fault Claim, and why Insurance didn't try to recover costs (Car)

TryingToBeSmarter

This claim was in 2023, but it still significantly impacts my insurance costs. This is partly because there was another separate act of vandalism, stealing my driver's side mirror unit just before Christmas, presumably to sell. They were not caught, and I had to claim for that in the same year as below (it was a few months apart). 

• One of the people on our street had a bad day and decided to smash up 7 cars (including mine) and hold a knife up to someone. They were caught, and they went to Jail. 
• I had a company car, and was instructed to go through my company's insurance for windscreen repair as that was all they had damaged of my car before they were tasered. It was recorded as malicious damage, so apparently the windscreen cover thing doesn't apply.... (MIB report helped me a lot after a lot of pain!)
• I gave my insurance the crime number at the very beginning and got the car repaired. 
• The claim now shows as At Fault - My understanding is that this is a VERY broad term for "my insurance paid for repair without cost recovery" .... but I don't get why insurance did not attempt to recover the costs... 

Was I supposed to do something else for it to be a non-fault claim? How would I have known this? Does it say this somewhere in the paperwork that I missed, or anywhere else? 

What on earth is one supposed to do here?

If it were a non-Fault (or changed to), would it impact my insurance costs much anyway? 

I drove for work, 2-4 hours a day, 3-4 days a week for 9 years, as well as my own personal driving. Only ever had one accident at the very start (new driver), no speeding tickets, one accidental parking fine that I paid quickly..... None of that matters.

I wouldn't have had NCB (company cars)... the second claim I reluctantly accept as Fault because there was no person to claim from/no cost recovery (which is still ridiculous), but this one I just don't understand. If it has to be malicious damage, and they caught the person, how is this still a Fault claim (I know technically, but really?), and/or WHY did the insurance company not go for cost recovery?

I feel screwed over. Two random incidents in one year, which had nothing to do with me, have meant I've paid more in increased insurance costs than the MIB stated repair costs of BOTH incidents!! 

  

MyRealNameToo

If only the glass was damaged you would normally be able to just submit a glass claim. Whilst this would still be considered "fault" the weighting applied to glass claims is significantly less. Generally with Glass claims your insurers arent involved, their appointed glass firm validates the policy deals with the whole matter and sends your details along with hundreds of others to the insurer as block on a bordereau

The cost of a glass claim would be tiny, it's likely that the efforts to recover the outlay would cost more than the money they are due back. In many cases these would be unallocated claims costs and so cannot be recovered - there is no point spending £300 to try and get £100 as if you succeed you are £200 out of pocket, if you fail you are £400 out of pocket and doing nothing leaves you £100 out of pocket. People in jail dont tend to have much money to pay for claims against them. 

MattMattMattUK

MyRealNameToo said:

If only the glass was damaged you would normally be able to just submit a glass claim. Whilst this would still be considered "fault" the weighting applied to glass claims is significantly less. Generally with Glass claims your insurers arent involved, their appointed glass firm validates the policy deals with the whole matter and sends your details along with hundreds of others to the insurer as block on a bordereau

The cost of a glass claim would be tiny, it's likely that the efforts to recover the outlay would cost more than the money they are due back. In many cases these would be unallocated claims costs and so cannot be recovered - there is no point spending £300 to try and get £100 as if you succeed you are £200 out of pocket, if you fail you are £400 out of pocket and doing nothing leaves you £100 out of pocket. People in jail dont tend to have much money to pay for claims against them. 

It is my understanding that glass claims in the way you are talking about them are only for accidental damage, not a deliberate criminal act which is what this was, as such it is does not come under the same glass policy. 

Aretnap

MattMattMattUK said:

MyRealNameToo said:

If only the glass was damaged you would normally be able to just submit a glass claim. Whilst this would still be considered "fault" the weighting applied to glass claims is significantly less. Generally with Glass claims your insurers arent involved, their appointed glass firm validates the policy deals with the whole matter and sends your details along with hundreds of others to the insurer as block on a bordereau

The cost of a glass claim would be tiny, it's likely that the efforts to recover the outlay would cost more than the money they are due back. In many cases these would be unallocated claims costs and so cannot be recovered - there is no point spending £300 to try and get £100 as if you succeed you are £200 out of pocket, if you fail you are £400 out of pocket and doing nothing leaves you £100 out of pocket. People in jail dont tend to have much money to pay for claims against them. 

It is my understanding that glass claims in the way you are talking about them are only for accidental damage, not a deliberate criminal act which is what this was, as such it is does not come under the same glass policy. 

Can you point to an insurer whose glass policy differentiates between accidental and malicious damage? The three I've just checked (Direct Line, Admiral and Hastings) all just say that they will cover damage to glass/windscreens - no restrictions on how it is caused.

(Other than the general exclusions of course ie you can't claim for a windscreen that you deliberately damaged yourself etc).

saajan_12

TryingToBeSmarter said:

I wouldn't have had NCB (company cars)... the second claim I reluctantly accept as Fault because there was no person to claim from/no cost recovery (which is still ridiculous), but this one I just don't understand. If it has to be malicious damage, and they caught the person, how is this still a Fault claim (I know technically, but really?), and/or WHY did the insurance company not go for cost recovery?

I feel screwed over. Two random incidents in one year, which had nothing to do with me, have meant I've paid more in increased insurance costs than the MIB stated repair costs of BOTH incidents!! 

  

Identifying the person is one thing, but actually reocvering money is another. If they're in jail or barely earn enough to cover expenses, they aren't going to be paying any time soon. Usually when car insurers recover costs, its an accident with another vehicle and they're getting money from the other person's insurer. 

Two indicidens in a year could be a coincidence, or it could signify you live in a high crime area where this is likely to happen frequently. Regardless of it being your fault, its costs they end up covering as vandal damage is rarely recoverable, so hence they up the premiums. 

MyRealNameToo

MattMattMattUK said:

MyRealNameToo said:

If only the glass was damaged you would normally be able to just submit a glass claim. Whilst this would still be considered "fault" the weighting applied to glass claims is significantly less. Generally with Glass claims your insurers arent involved, their appointed glass firm validates the policy deals with the whole matter and sends your details along with hundreds of others to the insurer as block on a bordereau

The cost of a glass claim would be tiny, it's likely that the efforts to recover the outlay would cost more than the money they are due back. In many cases these would be unallocated claims costs and so cannot be recovered - there is no point spending £300 to try and get £100 as if you succeed you are £200 out of pocket, if you fail you are £400 out of pocket and doing nothing leaves you £100 out of pocket. People in jail dont tend to have much money to pay for claims against them. 

It is my understanding that glass claims in the way you are talking about them are only for accidental damage, not a deliberate criminal act which is what this was, as such it is does not come under the same glass policy. 

Every policy book I have read simply says broken glass, there is no term about how the glass broke. Most will even cover damage to the bodywork caused by the broken glass. 

It was a common discussion in my claims days when someone has smashed the window and stolen a handbag on the seat etc. Given the difference in excess and the fact that personal effects were only covered up to £100 at the time it was better to claim as a glass claim and not impact your premiums significantly than claim it as theft which did mean the bag would be paid out for but the excess and claim history impact means you got less. 

TryingToBeSmarter

I initially thought it should just be a glass claim. Another insurer said it was likely put that way as it was a criminal case, but literally all that happened was Insurance passed me to Autoglass, they collected the car, replaced the windscreen, and I picked it up. The cost from the MIB report was around £560.

Maybe they decided it wasn't worth their time to recover... but that still feels wrong given that I will end up paying more for a fault than non-fault, and for malicious intent rather than a windscreen repair... significantly more as well! (over £500 more just in the first year).

I'd rather have the option to just pay the insurance company back, considering a) they already get the insurance premiums paid to them and b) it will cost me more over 3-5 years of insurance than the cost of BOTH of the claims. I get it is a "just in case you write off your or other cars" but again - this was nothing to do with any other cars, is a fraction of the cost of a car and will cost me more than both claims combined in increased insurance (i.e the difference between what it would have been and what it is because of the claims).

I could even just about understand if it needed to be a malicious damage claim, but I cannot fathom it being a Fault claim when, unless there was something else I should have done, which I don't know about, I did everything I should have, they know exactly who it was, and I can't help if they didn't decide to recover for whatever reason. How is it a fault still? (don't care about technically, they didn't claim it back, that was on them to decide, not me) 

The fact that I have to legally have insurance that can't even distinguish criminal damage as not my fault and therefore be able to charge me more than if they registered it as a non-fault claim is utterly ridiculous, isn't it? 


Rant aside, it would be interesting to know if it was input incorrectly, and/or if I can contest it (or if it is even worth it...) 

TryingToBeSmarter

I forgot to also say thank you for the replies up to now, I appreciate the time taken to reply and help me understand this somehow (on a moral/right/wrong level as well as technically)

TryingToBeSmarter

I don't know if this makes a difference, but it happened on a weekend, so the insurance company was closed, and I ended up at Autoglass through the automated menu system rather than talking to my insurance first, I believe they got all the details initially to arrange the repair (and had to somehow remind them I can't drive a car with a smashed windscreen....).

MyRealNameToo

TryingToBeSmarter said:

I don't know if this makes a difference, but it happened on a weekend, so the insurance company was closed, and I ended up at Autoglass through the automated menu system rather than talking to my insurance first, I believe they got all the details initially to arrange the repair (and had to somehow remind them I can't drive a car with a smashed windscreen....).

Glass claims are always dealt with a provider like Autoglass, they batch load the claims with the insurer at a later date.

dunstonh

TryingToBeSmarter said:

I don't know if this makes a difference, but it happened on a weekend, so the insurance company was closed, and I ended up at Autoglass through the automated menu system rather than talking to my insurance first, I believe they got all the details initially to arrange the repair (and had to somehow remind them I can't drive a car with a smashed windscreen....).

I wonder if the cost of recovery is a reason it's not showing as glass only.  (Autoglass will repair/replace at the roadside in many cases).