We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Not at fault but "at fault"! The BARE-FACED CHEEK of insurers
Comments
-
Thanks everyone for the feedback here. Although I am willing to 'move-on' can't help but think I (along with thousands of others) are the victim of a scam.
I am looking at renewal with another company. One of the questions asks about this claim, "Was the driver at fault"? A 'Yes' or a 'No' makes a £130 difference to my premium. I am entitled to the normal everday interpretation of the word 'fault' surely. Would appreciate comments on this.
Insurance companies aren't very interested in the fact that it wasn't your "fault", what they care about is whether or not the costs were recovered from a third party.
If you didn't want to be at fault then you could have chosen to get the car repaired yourself. But you chose to claim knowing that the costs wouldn't be recovered, so this makes you a higher risk in the future.0 -
That's because, in English, they're the same thing!paddyandstumpy wrote: »You're confusing blame and 'fault'.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/at-fault
at fault
phrase
If someone or something is at fault, they are to blame or are responsible for a particular situation that has gone wrong.
Only in insurance-speak do they have different meanings, which is stupid of the insurance industry IMO.0 -
I agree, it's quite a misleading term to use. When I worked in insurance, about 20-30 years ago, we would not have called this a "fault" claim, we would have just called it a claim and because the costs could not be recovered the insured would lose some or all of their NCD. We would not have implied that they were themselves at fault in any way. I sometimes think that these terms have become common because they have been coined by people who have a poor grasp of the English language, for whatever reason that may be.Clifford_Pope wrote: »I'm not arguing with the definitions and their meanings, but I do wonder why insurance companies don't change their wording in order to improve their public estimation.
The general public has a pretty poor regard to the honesty of insurance companies, and this misuse of the ordinary usage of the word "fault" is one that particularly rankles.
Why don't insurance companies care what the public thinks of them? All other organisations go to great pains to try to simply their technical language and to allay public mistrust.Retired at age 56 after having "light bulb moment" due to reading MSE and its forums. Have been converted to the "budget to zero" concept and use YNAB for all monthly budgeting and long term goals.0 -
what ever the OP wants to call it, they will probably paying back the money they got for fixing their car through premiums hike and more"It is prudent when shopping for something important, not to limit yourself to Pound land/Estate Agents"
G_M/ Bowlhead99 RIP0 -
I had a true non-fault claim, and had recovered my excess, so at renewal I put non-fault claim on the application.
Insurers then rang me to query this answer, as it didn't match the insurers database, as the claim hadn't been fully settled off and was still showing as FAULT.
After a bit of ringing around and chivvying along, I was able to get the TP insurers to update their records and the database, which satisfied my new insurers.
So if you say NO to having made a "fault" claim, then they will rumble you.
I agree that FAULT is maybe the wrong word for them to use....but " a loss for which you have made a claim but unable to make a recovery" is a bit long winded!How's it going, AKA, Nutwatch? - 12 month spends to date = 3.24% of current retirement "pot" (as at end December 2025)0 -
There is no fault in the OP's incident, by any reasonable real-world definition of the word "fault"; they were driving along a road as normal and something flew through the air and hit their car.
The insurer using the term "at fault" is just playing the game.0 -
Their not 'playing the game', they have paid out and not recovered their loss, which makes the claim a 'fault' claim!0
-
It's not a scam - it's just a way of classifying claims. There's a certain logic to classifying them according to whether your insurer made recovery from someone else rather than according to "blame". Blame is a somewhat nebulous and subjective concept - two people can have very different opinions on who was to blame for an accident, but whether or not your insurer made recovery from the other side is an objective fact, which is easily checked.Thanks everyone for the feedback here. Although I am willing to 'move-on' can't help but think I (along with thousands of others) are the victim of a scam.
If you don't like this rather binary approach and would prefer something that takes the specific circumstances of your own accident into account then there are options available. You could go to Lloyds of London, sit down for tea and biscuits with your underwriter, chat to him in detail about your accident and see whether he thinks that it marks you out as a higher risk. However you would inevitably have to pay extra for that sort of bespoke service - probably a lot more than the £130 that your insurer's computer wants to charge you - so in practice nobody does it.
I don't actually think that's an absurd argument, and I do agree that the use of the term "fault" is potentially misleading, and insurers should clarify what they mean by it rather than expecting consumers to understand industry jargon. However given that the consequences of a declined claim can be devastating, it's not an argument that I'd want to (literally) bet my house on for the sake of £130. Especially as in your case you evidently know what the jargon means, so can't honestly claim to have actually been confused by it.I am looking at renewal with another company. One of the questions asks about this claim, "Was the driver at fault"? A 'Yes' or a 'No' makes a £130 difference to my premium. I am entitled to the normal everday interpretation of the word 'fault' surely. Would appreciate comments on this.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455K Spending & Discounts
- 246.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards