1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Insider experience with car insurance, anyone?

Discussion in 'off topic' started by Vinny, Sep 26, 2018.

  1. Vinny

    Vinny pfm Member

    My car was written-off 4 months back - someone ran into the back of me.
    First offer from First Direct was £1880. I searched Autotrader, trade sales only, for the same model etc. within 50 miles of home and found around 20 - average £3500, lowest £2700. I did the search twice about a week apart and got basically the same figures.
    The offer was raised a couple of grand but I chose to go to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman got more - £2480 - and has said that is acceptable compared to an average of £2640 from Parkers, Glass and Cap.
    The average valuation implies that I would expect to get an average of 30% discount from a dealer on advertised price!!!!!

    Confused.com seemed more than appropriate, and they also provide detailed valuations, as do Parkers, from a registration number. Confused gave a valuation of £3200.

    I am currently threatening First Direct with Small Claims.
     
  2. Tony Lockhart

    Tony Lockhart pfm Member

    Good luck, this has been common practice since well before I started driving in '82. Unless you have a specific, agreed value, you're going to be causing yourself stress and you'll be wasting your time. When buying from many dealers now, new or used, there's sometimes the offer of 'Gap Insurance' that covers the gap between the price you paid for the car and whatever your car insurance pays out. Perhaps that might have helped, if it was available.

    Most insurance is a great big con.
     
  3. JensenHealey

    JensenHealey pfm Member

    GAP insurance used (almost essential) on new or nearly new cars. Not really any good after about 4 years.

    We claimed on GAP once for a written off BMW and it worked brilliantly. I have it on my current car, but when it runs out after 3 years it shall lapse.

    You can argue a bit with insurance about valuation - after that you are on a hiding to nowt. And your insurance premiums will likely go up too - regardless of 'no fault'. Underwriters / computer program will look at 'risk' not 'fault'. Anyone having an accident is a higher risk in their world.
     
  4. SteveS1

    SteveS1 I heard that, pardon?

    Most insurance is not a con. Much of it protects individuals from events that would otherwise cause a much bigger issue and in some cases overwhelm them. So let's keep some perspective.

    I'm surprised at this Vinny, it's usually possible to get close to ideal. What was the car and was there anything that might be considered different about this situation? What was your excess and is that included in the valuation?

    GAP insurance deals mainly with new vehicles and that obvious difference in valuation the minute you buy a new car and drive it off the forecourt.
     
    Linds likes this.
  5. Vinny

    Vinny pfm Member

    The real surprise to me, is the nonsense that the Ombudsman has come up with. They are supposed to be impartial.
    I pointed out that her argument is based on my buying the cheapest car on offer within 50 miles. She just harps on about Parkers etc.
    Even more of a pisser - I was covered for a hire car until I buy a replacement, up to 2 weeks after agreed pay-out - that would have cost them 4 months hire so far, but I bought a replacement from my own pocket after 3-4 weeks.

    Car was a bog standard 5 door Focus 1.6 Zetec, 2009 (from memory). I came round a corner on a country lane to find some moron over-taking a cyclist. I slammed on the brakes, let the moron scrape past me and the cyclist, started to pull away and someone else came round the corner, at only reasonable speed, straight into my off-side.
    The moron did not stop.
     
  6. SteveS1

    SteveS1 I heard that, pardon?

    Same as your world unfortunately, it's a fact.
     
  7. SteveS1

    SteveS1 I heard that, pardon?

    To be fair, if non-fault was established then the precise circumstances won't matter a jot. The valuation issue should be a straight payment (which I assume includes your excess recovered from the third party). The Ombudsman is usually on the money for a valuation, indeed I've dealt with many claims where I feel they have been generous, so I'm puzzled by this.

    But the clue is in your post "the moron didn't stop" in which case I assume they have not been able to recover the excess. Or was it the unconnected driver who didn't stop?
     
  8. Vinny

    Vinny pfm Member

    You hit another car up the rear, you are at fault - simple legal fact of life.

    I have no excess, apart from windscreen. The police attended as it happened on a blind bend (obviously) and my car was shunted cross-wise into a ditch so could not be driven out of the way.
    They confirmed that the poor sod who had hit me was legally liable as tracing the moron was not going to happen (the lad who hit me had removed his dash cam the week before!!!!! His car was written-off as well.)

    I have to say that I have had cars written-off before and the valuation has always seemed so generous that I have never actually checked, but this time...………………….

    Another PITA - I found an online discussion between second-hand car dealers, talking valuations for the benefit of a newbie wannabe dealer who asked, and none of them used anything but experience, and completely dismissed Parkers etc.. But Parkers etc. are all that the Ombudsman has quoted.
     
  9. Rodrat

    Rodrat pfm Member

    I have always wondered whether the balance can be claimed off the other driver/insurance company as uninsured losses assuming you know who the other driver was.
     
  10. Vinny

    Vinny pfm Member

    In my case, everything was covered by my policy - hire car costs, recovery, no excess.
    Going back some years, I can tell you that if you are not at fault, ultimately, you suffer no penalty, although how easy getting excesses etc. back will depend on your policy - I have always paid the £10 or so extra each year for legal cover too, although that has been a hassle in the past, when I had to educate the lawyer that got involved!!! (Another long and tedious story about a crooked car hire company and a Canadian driver straight off a plane...………………)
     
  11. Rodrat

    Rodrat pfm Member

    Beg to differ, some idiot drove into me in the snow when their windows were covered so they couldn’t see me. I have no claims protection. At the renewal I challenged the hike in price and was told that even the the accident wasn’t my fault the risk of insuring me had gone up. I countered with what would happen if a jumbo jet crashed into my car would the same apply and sheepishly they said it would. Obviously I would be dead. Insurance is without doubt one of the most crooked business’ out there, much tighter regulation is needed to make them more transparent.
     
    Mr Cat likes this.
  12. gintonic

    gintonic 50 shades of grey pussy cats

    not true, I recently won a case that has gone on for over three years, where I hit someone in the back. I was legally represented by my insurance company, and was awarded no fault in my favour. My car was repaired; it had £9k worth of damage.

    oh and at renewal earlier this year, my premiums went down (same company)
     
  13. Cav

    Cav pfm Member

    I am intrigued. Tell us more...
     
  14. gintonic

    gintonic 50 shades of grey pussy cats

    I can't say too much, but it was primarily to do with the behaviour of the other driver whilst driving,
    the nature of the claim the other party made, and their apparent intentions.
     
  15. TPA

    TPA Trade: Tiger Paw

    It's a complete scam, they work on the basis that only x percent will challenge etc. Aside from which it matters not if it's your fault or otherwise, that does not affect what the replacement cost of the vehicle is.
     
  16. Bananahead

    Bananahead pfm Member

    People want cheap insurance. I wonder how companies can do it cheaply.
     
    Linds, Still, gintonic and 1 other person like this.
  17. SteveS1

    SteveS1 I heard that, pardon?

    You see, it's not crooked. It's based on full disclosure (often that doesn't happen) and the properly reported facts of claims (often misrepresented) beyond that, the base rates are calculated using a very thorough array of statistics based on years of claims experience and that information is more up to date than ever. When someone told you that you were statistically a slightly higher risk having been involved in a non-fault accident - they were right.

    That doesn't help you as an individual, but it remains the case. No point in paying for additional regulation that will merely confirm statistical basis for rates, what a waste of your money.

    In this case btw, it's an argument over car valuations which to be fair is often an issue with inflated trade prices and usually involves a degree of negotiation. Everyone thinks their car is worth more than they could ever get for it - the trade wants more than they should for replacement and the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
     
  18. SteveS1

    SteveS1 I heard that, pardon?

    Yep get the cheapest deal off a comparison site because that accident won't happen. Few ask - I wonder why so cheap? Selling commodity insurance on anything other than price only ever works with people who have had bad claims experience with cheap cover.
     
  19. Rodrat

    Rodrat pfm Member

    One of the reasons they are crooked is the P.I scam. Who do you think informed the PI law firms and took a back hander for doing so although they call it a ‘referral’ Fee. This was partly why there has been a big shake up in this area resulting most of the big P.I. Firms closing down. The insurance companies then put up their prices to cover the increased costs of paying out for what they had basically encouraged. The mugs being us the public.
     
  20. SteveS1

    SteveS1 I heard that, pardon?

    I'm not sure of your point here. Accident management companies began as an offshoot of legal firms with one or two (hello Direct Line and Admiral) large insurers quickly jumping on the bandwagon as a way to simultaneously reduce their claims costs and make referral income from non-fault claims to offset the cheap prices they were offering. Other insurers immediately had to react in kind or find themselves selected against as a consequence. It was a way of large companies squeezing out competition.

    This whole destructive animal has seen inflated motor insurance costs and many smaller insurance companies offering more consumer choice go to the wall.

    Everyone loved the little red telephone and still love the cheap prices - with no concern as to how this was achieved. The public have been swindling themselves through inflated claims and fraud for years with or without accident management companies. Too many of us are happy to screw each other over on the specious assumption that it's an "insurance job" therefore victimless. Well it isn't. It inflates the cost.

    All of this is without organised fraud which costs millions to keep a lid on. Crash for cash etc.
     
    Sue Pertwee-Tyr likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice