Son's insurance premium quadrupled! (longish)

Number One Son has just had his renewal through, for his 125 Benly. Up
from something just over £200 to £800, TPO. Eek.

Clue was the Nil NCB quoted on the renewal, and he has two years' NCB.
So I called Auntie Carole.

Back in July, he was SMIDSY'd by a woman turning right in traffic as
he was filtering. Walking pace, zero damage to him, zero damage to his
bike, scratch on the hire car she was driving. She demanded his
details, and he gave them, and then without giving any of her details,
she jumped into her car and fucked off.

And then notified Auntie Carole, and said he was to blame.

We naturally responded with: "It was her fault, the dozy bitch, and
what's more, she left the scene of an accident without giving her
details..." Plod was duly told the same, and Plod did nothing.

Anyway, it turned out that both Jamie and Dozy Bitch's hire car were
both insured with Equity Red Star, and Auntie Carole said that ERS was
hardly likely to sue itself for any damages, so it would all probably
blow over. ERS said that if they heard anything more from her, after
we'd presented our case, they'd let us know.

Fast forward five months, and the case is still outstanding. and no,
she's done nothing in the interim. My guess is that she realised she
was on a hiding to nothing, the car hire company withheld her deposit,
fixed the scratch on the car, and that was that.

ERS agrees in principle, but sdays they have to keep the file open for
12 months. OK, yes, I can understand that and the reasons for it. "But
why has the premium quadrupled if there's no claim been made? Why has
it been loaded?"

"Because a claim has been made..."

"No, it hasn't."

"Yes, she's filed a claim..."

"No, she hasn't."

"She has initiated a claims procedure...."

"But she hasn't filed a claim, has she?"

"She has initiated a claims procedure...."

"But she hasn't filed a claim."

"She has initiatied...."

(Interrupting) "But she hasn't filed a claim."

"She has..."

"But she hasn't filed a claim."

(Silence)

"OK, if she's made a claim, then what has she claimed for, and how
much is the claim?"

ERS starts to back-pedal.

Long and the short of it is that his NCB will be refunded after 12
months have passed, assuming she doesn't pop up and file a claim in
the next seven months. And the premium has been revised down to
£215.64 for the 125, and £282.26 for the CD250 I've got in the garage,
if he passes his test on 4 January.

Inscos. Cunts, all of them. Loading a premium when no claim has
actually been made. From this, I see one can totally **** up someone's
insurance record just by filing a totally spurious imaginary claim and
then leaving it to fester for a year.

 

I suppose they are in business to screw as much out of us as the market will
bear. I'm not aware of any regulation.

 

TOG@Toil wrote:

BTDT with a ped. Took me 24 months though

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 145 2.0 Cloverleaf 156 V6 2.5 S2
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

BTDTGTTS - they claimed I claimed when I didn't. It's impossible to
argue with them once they get wind of any 'incident'. What's worse is
that if you have several policies (which I do), then losing no claims on
any one of them can potentially cost you on -all- of the policies, even
though you have to build them all up individually.

Joe punter loses both ways of course :-(

 

Yeah they do this as SOP. After we got hit by the lorry on the
Motorway 4 years ago (how long), the driver claimed it wasn't his
fault and it all went to court, which took the best part of 18 months
to sort out. Meantime because I'd claimed against his insurance, he
hadn't claimed against mine as there was no discernable damage to his
lorry (the basis of his defence) my insurance got loaded as there was
an outstanding claim, even though there was no chance *my* insurers
were going to taked a hit as my cover was TPFT. Gits.

 

How about you write the insco a formal letter confirming that you will
personally deal with any claim made resulting from the incident, thus
absolving them of any responsibility.

Should get the NCD restored sharpish.
(Not a coure of action I would personally take though)

--
Dan L

Too much time to think, too little to do.


http://thebikeshed.spaces.live.com/
1996 Kawasaki ZR1100 Zephyr

BOTAFOT #140 (KotL 2005/6/7)
X-FOT#000
DIAABTCOD #26
BOMB#18 (slow)
OMF#11

 

No you did by not taking part in actions against her. You deserve to loose
your NCB for allowing her to get away with fraud.

 

Hog secured a place in history by writing:

Heh. Harsh, but fair.

 

I'd say that she only did what a lot of other skint students would do
and that is to take a chance and see if they paid out. How many people
on here could honestly claim they wouldn't do the same in her
position?

 

I never sued the leisure centre for the broken spine, I figured I should
do my own risk assessment. I can't claim I wouldn't; but I didn't, once.

 

I've not bothered to claim a couple of times when maybe I could or
should have done but that was down to laziness. If I was just starting
out at university and thought I could possibly ease my finances by
making a claim then I think I'd do it.

My attitude towards making 'dodgy' claims used to be that I wouldn't
do it but now it's so easy to do and you're not risking your own money
to pursue the claim then get on with it. If they pay out then there
must have been an element of doubt regarding blame so who's to say
you're in the wrong?

 

Well, we'd all better get down to church in case there's any doubt about
god existing. Maybe I'm all young and stupid, but as everyone knows, the
money just goes round and round. We all collectively pay for it all in
the end, and even if we end up a few grand richer as a result you can bet
some fricking lawyer ends up a few grand richer too. It's depressing and
unethical.

On the other hand, we're creating jobs and boosting the economy, keeping
the cash flowing in otherwise difficult times in the money markets...
hurrah!

As an aside, if some dozy bint (other than me) ran in front of my car,
I'd be more than likely counter claiming for the damage her heels made
sliding over the bonnet and the light she broke with her hip. Was that
option not available to the OP?

 

Out and out fraud? shirly not.

Who would volunteer to take the stand in a courtroom and have to drum up a
convincing pack of lies to a judge, possibly a Jury? especially with the
chance of ending up in the Chancery court in front of some big guns. Hard
enough to face it trying to keep your head straight on the facts telling
straight truth.

No fucking thankewe.

 

It was NI?

Premiums there are substantially higher because claims fraud is so
prevalent, particularly for fake whiplash according to Tullyhubbert.

Didn't the Ins Co offer to cover your expenses as a witness? probably not I
suspect, they are complicit in the whole mess as it doesn't cost *them*
anything.

 

The insurance company paid so they must have thought she had a case
against them.

18 years old, just started at university, spend years paying off my
overdraft or have a chat with a solicitor to see if the claim was
worth pursuing?

Someone must have decided that Monkey was partly to blame so you think
she should have gone for the debt option?

She played the system but that doesn't make her a criminal.

 

See my other comments, in NI Insewrance Companies roll over easily. A key
reason for that is the hideous court waiting lists. It can take 18 months to
bring it to court, years if multiple hearings are involved and the legal
expenses go through the roof.

It doesn't? **** that's where I've been going wrong ;o)

 

At the risk of offending the clique, "did she..?"

 

If she lied in court then she'd be a criminal, the insurers deciding
there was enough blame attached to Monkey for them to pay out isn't an
offence.

You'd said she commited fraud before you knew where the accident
happened so coming out with the bollocks that they paid because of
court backlogs in NI isn't relevant.

 

Nah, it's just cheaper for them to do it than getting it thrown out.

Utter short-termism, because it just increases the number of times people
try it on.

 

I wouldn't.