Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • john_l84
    • By john_l84 8th Aug 18, 12:52 PM
    • 1Posts
    • 0Thanks
    john_l84
    Small claims court for increased insurance premiums?
    • #1
    • 8th Aug 18, 12:52 PM
    Small claims court for increased insurance premiums? 8th Aug 18 at 12:52 PM
    Posting on behalf of my partner here. She was hit by a bike whilst she was stationary, and as the biker is not co-operating with the insurance company she has had her premiums increased as it's considered 'at fault' until they can conclude the investigation.

    The hike is considerable - over double what she is paying now.

    Assuming her insurance company eventually do get the 'at fault' position corrected to 'no fault', can she take the driver to the small claims court to recover the cost of the increased premiums?
Page 1
    • AndyMc.....
    • By AndyMc..... 8th Aug 18, 1:05 PM
    • 2,474 Posts
    • 1,519 Thanks
    AndyMc.....
    • #2
    • 8th Aug 18, 1:05 PM
    • #2
    • 8th Aug 18, 1:05 PM
    How has she paid the new policy and what did they say about the increase should she be found not to be at fault?
    Hi there! Weve had to remove your signature. Please check the Forum Rules if youre unsure why its been removed and, if still unsure, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 8th Aug 18, 1:32 PM
    • 3,434 Posts
    • 2,097 Thanks
    Car 54
    • #3
    • 8th Aug 18, 1:32 PM
    • #3
    • 8th Aug 18, 1:32 PM
    The only way the claim will become 'no fault' is if the insurer recovers its costs from the cyclist. That seems unlikely, but if it does happen then the premium increase should be much smaller, and arguably not the cyclist's fault.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 8th Aug 18, 1:41 PM
    • 5,813 Posts
    • 3,521 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    • #4
    • 8th Aug 18, 1:41 PM
    • #4
    • 8th Aug 18, 1:41 PM
    The only way the claim will become 'no fault' is if the insurer recovers its costs from the cyclist. That seems unlikely, but if it does happen then the premium increase should be much smaller, and arguably not the cyclist's fault.
    Originally posted by Car 54
    She said "biker", it seems likely it is a motorbike. If it was a cyclist with insurance (such as BC membership that gives third party liability) then there is no reason to not co-operate as there are no premiums to be affected, just a single annual membership fee
    • foxy-stoat
    • By foxy-stoat 8th Aug 18, 2:08 PM
    • 2,815 Posts
    • 1,593 Thanks
    foxy-stoat
    • #5
    • 8th Aug 18, 2:08 PM
    • #5
    • 8th Aug 18, 2:08 PM
    Posting on behalf of my partner here. She was hit by a bike whilst she was stationary, and as the biker is not co-operating with the insurance company she has had her premiums increased as it's considered 'at fault' until they can conclude the investigation.

    The hike is considerable - over double what she is paying now.

    Assuming her insurance company eventually do get the 'at fault' position corrected to 'no fault', can she take the driver to the small claims court to recover the cost of the increased premiums?
    Originally posted by john_l84
    The insurance companies do not consider increased insurance premiums a "head of claim" even though they are a consequence of an accident. If the price has doubled then shop around.

    If you do decide to go down the small claims route then I wish you all the luck and may set a precedent.
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 8th Aug 18, 2:33 PM
    • 3,434 Posts
    • 2,097 Thanks
    Car 54
    • #6
    • 8th Aug 18, 2:33 PM
    • #6
    • 8th Aug 18, 2:33 PM
    The insurance companies do not consider increased insurance premiums a "head of claim" even though they are a consequence of an accident. If the price has doubled then shop around.

    If you do decide to go down the small claims route then I wish you all the luck and may set a precedent.
    Originally posted by foxy-stoat
    Premium increases after a non-fault accident are justified by evidence that those involved in such accidents show a higher than normal risk of having further accident(s). This is usually explained by a pattern of driving (or parking) which makes such accidents more likely.

    I would suggest that this pattern of behaviour has always been there, and the accident has simply brought it to the insurer's attention. The increased premiums are therefore not the fault of the TP.
    • AndyMc.....
    • By AndyMc..... 8th Aug 18, 4:26 PM
    • 2,474 Posts
    • 1,519 Thanks
    AndyMc.....
    • #7
    • 8th Aug 18, 4:26 PM
    • #7
    • 8th Aug 18, 4:26 PM
    The insurance companies do not consider increased insurance premiums a "head of claim" even though they are a consequence of an accident. If the price has doubled then shop around.

    If you do decide to go down the small claims route then I wish you all the luck and may set a precedent.
    Originally posted by foxy-stoat
    I didn't think you could set a precedent in County Court.
    Hi there! Weve had to remove your signature. Please check the Forum Rules if youre unsure why its been removed and, if still unsure, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 8th Aug 18, 4:59 PM
    • 12,853 Posts
    • 10,182 Thanks
    unholyangel
    • #8
    • 8th Aug 18, 4:59 PM
    • #8
    • 8th Aug 18, 4:59 PM
    I didn't think you could set a precedent in County Court.
    Originally posted by AndyMc.....
    They can be used as a persuasive precedent but they don't set a binding precedent.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 8th Aug 18, 5:32 PM
    • 3,434 Posts
    • 2,097 Thanks
    Car 54
    • #9
    • 8th Aug 18, 5:32 PM
    • #9
    • 8th Aug 18, 5:32 PM
    They can be used as a persuasive precedent but they don't set a binding precedent.
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    AFAIK small claims hearings are not reported, and so can't be used as a precedent of any description.
    • Nobbie1967
    • By Nobbie1967 8th Aug 18, 6:22 PM
    • 804 Posts
    • 881 Thanks
    Nobbie1967
    Premium increases after a non-fault accident are justified by evidence that those involved in such accidents show a higher than normal risk of having further accident(s). This is usually explained by a pattern of driving (or parking) which makes such accidents more likely.

    I would suggest that this pattern of behaviour has always been there, and the accident has simply brought it to the insurer's attention. The increased premiums are therefore not the fault of the TP.
    Originally posted by Car 54
    Harsh, but true.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 8th Aug 18, 6:38 PM
    • 12,853 Posts
    • 10,182 Thanks
    unholyangel
    AFAIK small claims hearings are not reported, and so can't be used as a precedent of any description.
    Originally posted by Car 54
    I can assure you, they can be (and are) used. However as its not binding, its wholly up to the judge hearing the case if they want to allow it, even if the facts of the case are identical.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,075Posts Today

4,533Users online

Martin's Twitter