Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
A while ago I got hit by a drunk driver. He was arrested, charged and sentenced accordingly in court.
The car was damaged and the repairs were £600, which were duly paid for by the insurance company.
The car is my mum's and I am a named driver on her policy.
Upon renewing her insurance recently, we were shocked to find that it had increased for both of us. We contacted the insurance company and they admitted that it had increased because I had been "involved" in a claim.
Are they allowed to do this?
It was a non-fault claim, and that's even more impossible than usual to deny, seeing as the driver who caused it was suspended from driving and fined heavily as a result. And even if my premium increased, why should my mum's? This is grossly unfair on both of us. Suffice it to say though, we just switched insurers and the new insurer didn't increase the premium because of the non-fault claim.
I had always been led to believe that if you make a claim for an accident that was completely not your fault, your premium is not affected. This is obviously not the case.
"no fault" claim is a bit of a misleading term, and I wish insurers would stop using it. The main thing ot the insurance company is whether or not they recover their costs. If they don't, it is classed as a fault claim, regardless of actual negligence.
It is something that is not seen as fair, an whether it is or not is a matter of opinion. But the company has acted lawfully.
I have lost all respect for the insurance industry - not just car insurance but all types. You pay them obscene amounts of money, you are falsely led to believe that you are protected and have nothing to worry about, and then when you have a legitimate claim they almost always refuse to pay up based on some fabricated mitigating factor. They should all be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
A family friend of mine was involved in a coach accident on holiday and became 98% blind in one eye. She was insured by her travel insurance for becoming blind in an eye as a result of an accident. They refused to pay because 98% wasn't "completely" blind in one eye (even though she can't see a thing out of that eye). She took it to the Ombudsman and won the case.
I have lost all respect for the insurance industry - not just car insurance but all types. You pay them obscene amounts of money, you are falsely led to believe that you are protected and have nothing to worry about, and then when you have a legitimate claim they almost always refuse to pay up based on some fabricated mitigating factor. They should all be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
I think this is an unfair view. I think most members of the public don't realise how much insurance companies actually spend on claims. People complain about premiums being "obscene" but in reality, insurance companies do spend almost all of their premiums on claims and operating costs, particularly in motor, where a lot of the money is spent on third party personal injury claims.
If you have a legitimate claim, then in the vast majority of cases it will be paid without too much hassle.
I won't defend my industry for bad things (I wouldn't be helping out on this forum otherwise). But if you make sweeping generalisations about the whole industry, I will speak out and tell you the truth.
A family friend of mine was involved in a coach accident on holiday and became 98% blind in one eye. She was insured by her travel insurance for becoming blind in an eye as a result of an accident. They refused to pay because 98% wasn't "completely" blind in one eye (even though she can't see a thing out of that eye). She took it to the ombudsman and won the case.
Now that really is bad, and the ombudsman was correct to overturn the decision. If someone can't see out of their eye, they should be considered to be blind in that eye. I actually found this on the fos website - it is a case very similar to your family friend's claim. Maybe it even is theirs! : Travel Insurance - case studies
I can see that this must have been very upsetting for you and your friend, but don't let it put you off insurance - the majority of insurers really want to help people.
Looking back at the first paragraph of my post, I put my hand up and apologise as it was a quite harsh. I never mean to make sweeping statements especially because, being a young driver, I am myself constantly victim of one of most common sweeping statements that exists in society.
I do maintain though that there are a lot of mitigating factors that seem unreasonable; ridiculous excuses that some companies make to try to not pay out; and the extent to which some companies will go to avoid paying a seemingly legitimate claim is almost laughable.
I find it quite hard to believe that insurance companies don't make a large profit. In car insurance, the clear majority of drivers do not make a claim in any given year. There are always some who do, and so the company pays out some money, sometimes quite large amounts, but there are so many policyholders that never actually claim that the companies must rake in a lot of money. I imagine it's even more so with travel insurance - very few people ever have a need to claim, so the companies are earning a lot of money from people who never actually need to use the insurance.
On TV a couple of months ago there was a programme about the insurance industry, following a well-known company around tracking people. I think it gave the company in question a negative image because it appeared to treat every single client as "guilty until proven innocent", when it should be the other way round. Companies should not treat their customers as if they were suspects.
The link you gave leading to the other case - it wasn't my friend (she was in Italy), but it didn't surprise me that there are other similar cases out there, and it's sad to see, although I know it's only a small minority of insurance companies that are like that.
Its the nature of th business. You are paying a company a couple of hundred pund a year to cover liability that stretches potentially into the hundreds of thousand of pounds. the premium charged is a statistical (and now impersonal) reckoning of that liability. An event resulting in such liability may never happen, but that is the price of piece of mind.
In terms of your friends blindness claim, that is a fault of the insurers training policy (usually call centres). They usually teach the bare minimum and do not often teach the basic principles of insurance to their staff (had they have done so they would realise teh naure of the insurance contract and would have paid out).
But insurance is a complex and much misunderstood world - even amongst those who work in the industry. Things are (or were) getting better. Your friend was a victim of some overzealous staff who knew no better. You were probably the victim of the same thing but on a more general scale.
I have lost count of the number of times I hear what I term "myths" of insurance - such as if a claim is made and its not your fault, or if you have NCD, then the premium wont increase. The insurers themselves are responsible for most of this. They know sales people say these things but do not do anything about it (except give staff a 1% reduction in their call audits because, after all, they did use your name three times and asked if there was anything else they could help with).
Slightly off topic, but just picking up on something gyzmo said regards to the industry getting better...
Most major insurers now have their base of operations in a call centre, some in the UK, others Overseas but all are regulated by the FSA.
I've spoke about this before, in the days of the GISC (General Insurance Standards Council) most insurers could pretty much say or do as they pleased. Now that the FSA has taken over, things are a lot tighter and stricter. The calls are usually recorded and monitored now. Where i work, we get regular feedback from our line managers about any comments we've had logged against us, we have random calls monitored and fed back each month and we're harshly marked for any breaches of our scripts and if we consistently get it wrong then we're looking at action contracts, disciplinary action and potentially dismissal. So things are definitely changing for the better.
In regards to Tom87's comment about profit...without sounding too patronising, all i can say is insurance is a business, its always about profit, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Thats why you always get offered legal cover/rescue cover/personal injury cover etc when you call in to your insurer. Its so they can make more money from you before you leave at renewal.
Anyway, I've rambled on enough. I agree with gyzmo that unless a full recovery is made from the TP, this will still be classed a fault claim. I'd also like to point out that you may want to amend your new policy with this info as it sounds like you've told them that this claim is non-fault, which isn't the case and could affect your premiums or jeopardise any future claim.
DA
If you find the advice I give is useful, then please feel free to click the scales
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"
To be honest I don't know. It was the first time anything like that had ever happened to me so my mum sorted out most of the paperwork as I was unsure of the procedure. But I shall find out.
Looking back at the first paragraph of my post, I put my hand up and apologise as it was a quite harsh. I never mean to make sweeping statements especially because, being a young driver, I am myself constantly victim of one of most common sweeping statements that exists in society.
It's OK, I forgive you! I don't blame you, as an individual, for having a dim view of the insurance industry, especially given what your friend went through. I think it's the media's fault, as they portray an unbalanced view. For example, you often read in the papers about insurance companies/agents mis-selling policies or denying claims etc. Fair enough, those practices most definitely need to be exposed. However, they rarely ever write about the good things that insurance companies have done for individuals and for society as a whole. So it's no wonder that much of the public view the industry with disdain.
I know it can be a problem that premiums are much higher for young drivers as they present a higher risk. It is difficult to know what could be done about it, as if the premiums were reduced for younger drivers, older ones would have to pay more. They probably wouldn't be very pleased if they had to subsidise younger drivers. However, I do think that recent initiatives such as pay as you drive insurance could be helpful for certain young drivers.
I find it quite hard to believe that insurance companies don't make a large profit.
They do, but it is mainly from the investment income (ie when premiums are invested), not from the actual premiums themselves. In motor insurance, typically 80% of the premiums are spent on claims, the other 20% is spent on operational costs (including staff salaries) and the insurance company gets to keep the investment income.
On TV a couple of months ago there was a programme about the insurance industry, following a well-known company around tracking people. I think it gave the company in question a negative image because it appeared to treat every single client as "guilty until proven innocent", when it should be the other way round. Companies should not treat their customers as if they were suspects.
I know exactly which programme you're talking about! The claims investigators in the special investigations unit are only sent out to a customer's home if the original claims handler has a suspicion about the claim. They are not used on every single client. I personally don't think the programme gave the company a negative image, as I think the vast majority of honest customers would be glad to know that the dishonest ones are dealt with appropriately. We must remember that car insurance fraud can result in innocent people being maimed or even killed. Not only that, but it increases the premiums for other customers. It is unfair that honest customers have to pay higher premiums in order to pay for the fraudulent claims.
Unlawful car insurance claim increase?
Reply With Quote
I don't blame you, as an individual, for having a dim view of the insurance industry, especially given what your friend went through. I think it's the media's fault, as they portray an unbalanced view. For example, you often read in the papers about insurance companies/agents 