Another Insurance Topic :(

[Tom Fenton 1,541]

Bit of a contrived story this but bear with me.

 

Sept 2010, some idiot drives into the side of a trailer I'm towing on a roundabout with my Audi estate. I'm in correct lane, he cuts across. I'm confident I'm in the right and have a witness that agrees with my side of the story.

Cut to present day and this claim is STILL dragging on, even though I haven't actually claimed for any damage to anything so no money to come my way. My insurers (AXA) are sending stuff via snail mail to and from the other insurers trying to sort it.

 

However, get a renewal through today from HIC for my 205 insurance (separate policy). Its gone up which I was expecting, but they've also stung me for a £30 admin fee, and £60-odd "credit charge". Try to call them to discuss as I object to the £60 credit charge (what credit?) and also need to notify them of the claim on my seperate policy for my Audi. Spend 20min on hold getting nowhere so give up. Phone up SKY insurance for a comparison quote, they won't quote me due to the pending claim on my other policy on my Audi.

 

So basically I'm bloody stuck now, I'll have to try HIC again, but what happens if they then will not quote? I'm buggered?

 

Any thoughts.

 

A very pissed off Tom.

[Leet205 48]

Surely as the claim is still pending and the fault hasn't been decided they cant increase the premium?

 

I fell your pain with the insurance tho, I have 3 months remaining on my current policy for the astra 1.6 and they wanted an additional £100 just for the remaining 3 months. So that means I can expect my insurance to go up £400 at renewal, and they say its down to post code! more like they are using that as an excuse to cover up the recent increase.

 

they are nothing but a bunch of money grabbing bastards.

 

Edit - is the credit charge for paying monthly?

Edited April 20, 2011 by Leet205

[Tom Fenton 1,541]

It is two seperate policies. No doubt my Audi insurance will also skyrocket in August when that comes up for renewal. God knows what HIC will do as they won't let you damn well speak to anyone on the phone.

[james_pug 26 1 Cars]

As the claim is only pending do actually have to tell them now?

[SurGie 54]

Yes they always ask during quote time if there is a pending claim in process iirc.

 

It seems that the insurance knows you are less likely to get a quote when a claim is in process which means then they can charge you more because of this.

 

Any chance to get more money out of us.

 

 

My classic renewal has only gone up £30 today of which includes higher admin fee and more for credit, so ill pay it in full this year. The insurance its self has only gone up around a tenner this year.

[feb 47]

As the claim is only pending do actually have to tell them now?

 

As I understand you have had an accident not made a claim so it is the accident you have to declare and not a claim.

Edited April 20, 2011 by feb

[Baz 421]

This is a common problem when in the middle of a claim, even if it's non-fault.

 

I'd give them a ring, obviously preparing yourself first with the info you may need to hand, keep issues seperate and calm, outlay your gripes to them, taking your time and mention 'Insurance Ombudsman' and your 'unpleasant experience with them' and that 'fee' will likely disappear.

 

Another tact is, blow everything up out of all proportion, whinge more than necessary and make them feel pain the same way they cause you, whilst remaining calm(ish) but more importantly diplomatic and mature, the telephone operator will just want an easy life whilst doing their job understandably, so hopefully will eventually do whatever it takes to get you off the phone... as they're generally not allowed to end the call until you're happy to!

[Bogsye 22]

Tom - I know the pain of this!!

 

The claim for my S2000 dragged on for 3 months. I got the majority of the money quite quickly, but wanted a further £400 to match with the Glass' guide value.

 

Obudsman is the correct way to go, but before they will entertain a complaint you generally need to submit a formal compalint to the CEO's office of the insurer.

With this burning brightly and making no mistake that I was going to the Ombudsman next I found this worked well, and wrapped things up quicker. My broker also worked hard to try and draw the matter to a conclusion.

 

Good luck!!

 

Brian

[Tom Fenton 1,541]

Thanks for the replies Gents.

 

Some good news, after another mammoth session on hold I managed to actually speak to a real human being at HIC, a very helpful one at that. In the end even after declaring the pending non fault claim, she managed to get the price DOWN from what they had quoted on the renewal by about £50 to sub-£400. Still expensive in my eyes for a 3000 mile a year policy on a garaged 3rd car, but hey ho.

 

I'm now going to go into bat seriously with AXA though, this has now dragged on far too long, they can certainly get ready as I'm not happy. To add insult to injury, a couple of months ago they actually sent me a copy of the statement of the guy that hit me (not sure they really should have done that!) and the shirt-front has lied through his bloody teeth, as it turns out he was in a hire car, so I'm assuming he didn't buy the damage waiver, so is trying to get liability pinned on me so he doesn't have to pay £500 or £1000 or whatever his excess is on the hire car.

[SurGie 54]

As you have witness's of the event & with that in mind can you not say, well he's got far more to lose than me so he must be lying in a far more sophisticated way ?

[Tom Fenton 1,541]

I don't really get what you are saying Surgie. He says I changed lanes into the side of him. I say and the witness says that he tried to take the exit I was going past from the inside lane. Hopefully that will be sufficient.

[GLPoomobile 958]

Tom

 

I remember you talking about the accident when it happened, and your lovely colourful diagram of the roundabout To me it's seems pretty clear cut, that the other driver is a f***ing mong. I think it's bordering on criminal that they could possibly consider that you're in any way wrong and that the claim hasn't been settled yet.

 

If you can get claims like this against you, what next? You're parked legally at the side of the road and somebody drives past and clips off your wing mirror, and then claims against you for damage to their car? Different circumstances but equally as ridiculous? Insurance in the UK seems to achieve nothing but the exact opposite of what it's there for

Edited April 22, 2011 by GLPoomobile

[Tom Fenton 1,541]

The trouble is Steve, he is saying that I moved across from my lane and into the side of him. As far as the insurance companies are concerned both scenarios are technically possible so how do you decide who is the lying bstrd?

 

Hopefully the witness statement will be sufficient, but it is SO frustrating to know that basically the other guy is lying through his teeth, and there is nothing I can do about it. (and really, if I didn't have a witness, I'd be forced to accept 50-50)

[GLPoomobile 958]

Fair point, but the fact you've got a witness does make it inexcusable. It should be case closed.

[SurGie 54]

I cant understand why they would be dragging their feet with regards to this, its not like you are claiming.

[Baz 421]

No offence meant Tom at all and forgive me if i'm wrong, but essentially you were going round a roundabout in the outside lane, blocking his path to the exit he wanted to take? Of course not your fault, he shouldn't have hit you, full stop!

 

This is exactly why i disagree with the road-rules on roundabouts though, IMO like it used to be; the left lane should be for turning left, 12 o'clock or before, no further. Inside/right lane for straight on or right, common sense says this would make sense and then roundabouts would work properly, events like this wouldn't happen in theory, as you're never in the outside lane unless you're taking the next exit, getting off the roundabout/out of the way... You also can't turn right straight away on a roundabout, so indicating right when joining a roundabout is unnecessary, just indicate your path off it, which again wouldn't be needed should the old rules be back in place as if you're in the outside lane, you're exiting...

 

This used to be the way of the road, no idea why they changed it, it doesn't work, causes more hold ups and issues etc.

 

Yes he shouldn't have hit you anyway, but if the rules weren't so stupid it shouldn't have happened, but then this country sucks at driving anyway.

 

No i don't wish to cause a stir, just noting a point!

[Baz 421]

 

If you can get claims like this against you, what next? You're parked legally at the side of the road and somebody drives past and clips off your wing mirror, and then claims against you for damage to their car? Different circumstances but equally as ridiculous? Insurance in the UK seems to achieve nothing but the exact opposite of what it's there for

 

Yes!!

 

This has actually happened to me a couple of times, i live in a fairly busy road and cars, particularly mirrors get twatted outside fairly often, again proving how inept most people ae at driving when they don't even know the size of thier car.

 

I have a couple of cases at the moment, one lad driving down the middle of the road smashed a mirror on my car as he passed it as i watched, but claims it wasn't his fault; 'car's badly parked sitting away from the kerb' because of cases like this they're always up against the kerb and the mirrors partially or completely folded in, yet he wants to claim for his mirror through his insurance, i walked away at this point knowing full well it'd hurt my pocket, not worth pursuing for at most a £50 mirror, so i'll have to shell out for something that got broken my absolutely no fault of my own, f***ing insane and makes my blood boil.

 

Secondly, a brewery truck caught the bumper of the same car recently, left their details so gave them a call and offered to get it fixed on the cheap, i can get a bumper cheap and have it painted cheap, but no, despite the fact it'd probably be cheaper than their excess alone, they want to go through insurance... obviously this is then classed as a claim for me and will hit me in the pocket, not interested whatsoever, f***ing frustrating but it's cheaper and easier for me to bae the brunt myself rather than go through weeks/months of crap with insurance companies and take a premium hit for a non-fault accident, when i wasn't even in the bloody car. Ridiculous.

[Tom Fenton 1,541]

No offence meant Tom at all and forgive me if i'm wrong, but essentially you were going round a roundabout in the outside lane, blocking his path to the exit he wanted to take? Of course not your fault, he shouldn't have hit you, full stop!

 

This is exactly why i disagree with the road-rules on roundabouts though, IMO like it used to be; the left lane should be for turning left, 12 o'clock or before, no further. Inside/right lane for straight on or right, common sense says this would make sense and then roundabouts would work properly, events like this wouldn't happen in theory, as you're never in the outside lane unless you're taking the next exit, getting off the roundabout/out of the way... You also can't turn right straight away on a roundabout, so indicating right when joining a roundabout is unnecessary, just indicate your path off it, which again wouldn't be needed should the old rules be back in place as if you're in the outside lane, you're exiting...

 

This used to be the way of the road, no idea why they changed it, it doesn't work, causes more hold ups and issues etc.

 

Yes he shouldn't have hit you anyway, but if the rules weren't so stupid it shouldn't have happened, but then this country sucks at driving anyway.

 

No i don't wish to cause a stir, just noting a point!

 

Yes you are wrong.

 

The roundabout in question has traffic lights. I pulled up in the outside lane, as I wasn't taking the immediate next exit from the roundabout, but the one after it (so straight on if you like).

 

Lying toerag pulled up in the inside lane.

 

Lying toerag then attempted to drive across the back of my car to take the exit immediately after where we had stopped.

 

Whichever way you view the rules, you DO NOT exit a roundabout from the inside lane. Clear cut as far as I'm concerned, and I'm willing to bet clear cut as far as lying toerag is concerned, which is clearly why his twisted version of events makes no reference to him trying to leave the roundabout, and instead lies about me moving into the right hand lane into his path.

 

Unfortunately for me, lying toerag failed to see the trailer attached and covered in lights behind my car. So he didn't hit my towcar, but instead turned left into the front of the trailer.

 

At this point in the driving seat of the tow car I was a cars length in front of him, and could do absolutely nothing to change the outcome.

 

As you will probably know if you tow trailers about, me being in the inside lane and then attempting to exit at the "straight ahead" exit of the roundabout also would not of happened, due to the rest of the dimwitted motoring public who take no notice of you indicating your intention to move lanes, and will happily leave you stuck in no mans land. Hence no real option but to do as I did, and more to the point as I have done in the same spot probably a thousand times without a trailer on, and probably in the hundreds WITH a trailer on.

[Tom Fenton 1,541]

I cant understand why they would be dragging their feet with regards to this, its not like you are claiming.

 

I'm not no, in actual fact I am wishing I had and may look into doing so with the crap that has ensued. I took the stance as Baz describes of just fixing the trailer ourselves to get away from the hassle, and a new unit is probably far less than the excess anyway.

 

However unfortunately lying toerag was in a 10 plate hire car Mondeo, which will have needed a bumper, wing and door as a result of him driving into the trailer, so whether I like it or not, his insurance company are trying to pin the blame on me, so that my insurance co have to fork out.

[Baz 421]

Ahh fair enough Tom understood, & i thought as much tbh. I really can't see why it's so difficul to sort out such clear cut cases and why you'd ever be liable ffs, it really doesn't take a rocket scientist does it!

 

I'm aware of the way it's supposed to be as it' how i was 'properly' taught, it's just something dad's always harped on about and it makes sense to me too, so i abide by the 'correct' rules but still disagree with it to a point!

[SurGie 54]

Long vehicles have to take a wide birth so taking a round about on the left side to go right is correct.

[Baz 421]

Until someone comes round the roundabout to take an exit the long vehicle is blocking, and causes all manner of possible outcomes/incidents. It's not common sensicle, but it is ''right'' or what's taught, doesn't mean it's correct in every way.

 

What's ther inside lane for then, answer me that? Nothing...

Edited April 25, 2011 by Baz