Car set on fire....not happy with insurance offer

[jcl]

My car set on fire rang insurance to inform them, it took them over a week to collect by which time it had been moved, so took another week for it to get to company insur using, 1st offer rejected so was second so told it had to go to 2 assessment ( or something like that), had offer and I still not happy really it's 250 pounds short of what I want. I was told to submit list cars for sale like mine which I did after searching the internet, they varied but average was 3,000, not sure what to do now as never claimed before also there was personnal items in car cd's soft disney teddies, and Tax had just been renewed.

Any advice appreciated

jcl

[crem]

You haven't give us any idea what they have offered and what you have it valued at in your mind. I think personal items can be listed and claimed for within your claim. Tax disk should be refundable for any complete unused months so not an "insurable loss".

[jcl]

Hi crem,

1st offer was 1,700 2nd offer was 2,600 and now its 2,750.

I had hoped to get 3,000 going off the average of the price people are asking for same car, age & miles.

someone told me I need Tax disc to re-claim it but it went up with the car.

[crem]

someone told me I need Tax disc to re-claim it but it went up with the car.

 

Normally yes, but they have special arrangements using form V33 when the disk is lost or stolen (or in your case destroyed). See on this DVLA page about half way down.

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowToTaxYourVehicle/DG_10012526

[alistair.long]

If I was you I would accept that offer, as they would have had to take into account the £150 recovery charge by the Police, and also £25 storage per day.

 

Insurance companies are being tight so Im surprised they've offered you anything.

[mightymouse_69]

 

Insurance companies are being tight so Im surprised they've offered you anything.

 

What on earth are you talking about?

[alistair.long]

What on earth are you talking about?

My job involves me always talking to Solicitors, since the recession more and more solicitors are saying that the insurance companies are delaying payments, and in most cases saying fraud, or other tactics to give them more time before having to pay.

That is the basis for my reply that the insurance companies are being tight and not wanting to pay out.

[MARTIN3030]

My job involves me always talking to Solicitors, since the recession more and more solicitors are saying that the insurance companies are delaying payments, and in most cases saying fraud, or other tactics to give them more time before having to pay.

That is the basis for my reply that the insurance companies are being tight and not wanting to pay out.

 

I dont think you can say this as a statement of fact.

Obviously in a recession there will be greater needs to investigate claims,but they will be processed and settled by virtue of entitlement,and based on the information that is available in support a valid claim.

To try and generalise or suggest that Insurance Companies are failing to settle claims because they are tight or looking for Fraud incidence,is frankly incorrect.

[mightymouse_69]

My job involves me always talking to Solicitors,.

 

This explains a lot...

 

I agree with Martin here. While claims may be settled with more caution, the insurance companies have obligations to their client. They cannot escape these by false accusations of fraud etc.

[alistair.long]

I dont think you can say this as a statement of fact.

To try and generalise or suggest that Insurance Companies are failing to settle claims because they are tight or looking for Fraud incidence,is frankly incorrect.

 

I stand by the remark because insurance companies are delibratley saying "fraud", this in the long run makes them loose out a furthur £3k but nevertheless insurance companies are doing it more and more often.

There is a Irish insurance company who is located in Manchester, because the company is in adminstration it is cheaper to say "fraud" and hope that the Solicitor stops acting on the claimants side. As a claim in the county court when lost will have to be paid, and nobody wants to take on a case that may loose.

Other cases I have seen in the local county court.

A rear ended driver, hire charges of £13k, repair bill of £2k, insurance said "the claimant drove at speed undertook and then slammed on his brakes" but judge said pay up.

A car was driven by the claimant, in court the insurance company said that the driver was infact the passenger who was a lady, who was also insured but the insurance company did not know she wasn't saying she was driving, judge rules that she was in the car and not driving and insurance was ordered to pay.

A car crash on the motorway, 2 cars, the claimant and defendants live within 10 miles of each other. insurance say fraud but judge ordered the payout.

A driver was claiming whiplash, the insurance company said fraud, court case was reajurned with medical expert, and engineer present, claimant got paid out.

 

Inevitabally like "mightymouse_69" said "They cannot escape these by false accusations of fraud etc. " which I take to mean that if I say fraud at court the judge will may a judgement based on the evendance presented.

 

The sad thing is that I would prefer the insurance companies think about their actions, if they have no evidance to not accuse fraud. The effect of their actions are noticed in the increase of insurance. This year the increase was 30%, the escuse was that 30% more people are making claims, but I say its because they take silly claims to court.

An example of a silly claim.

A minor car crash, damages of only £450. Why not pay the person £450 instead of instructing a Solicitor if you are going to win or loose, when you can pay the £450 and save £3k.

[MARTIN3030]

insurance companies are delibratley saying "fraud"

 

Here you go again-what evidence do you have to support this ?

 

this in the long run makes them loose out a furthur £3k

 

How can it be 3k in all cases or are you giving an estimate/average ?

 

 

There is a Irish insurance company who is located in Manchester, because the company is in adminstration it is cheaper to say "fraud" and hope that the Solicitor stops acting on the claimants side

 

You are making assumptions again-there needs to be more than hope.

A Solicitor is there to defend or fight cases not abandion them on uncertainties.

 

nobody wants to take on a case that may loose.

Other cases I have seen in the local county court.

 

Of course they dont,but Court cases will always involve some elements of risk.

Inevitabally like "mightymouse_69" said "They cannot escape these by false accusations of fraud etc. " which I take to mean that if I say fraud at court the judge will may a judgement based on the evendance presented.

 

I think mightymouse was making the point that if there is evidence of fraud then of course it has to be proven,and also that irrespective of whether fraud is suspected,cases are dealt with on the supporting facts and evidence at hand.

 

The effect of their actions are noticed in the increase of insurance. This year the increase was 30%, the escuse was that 30% more people are making claims, but I say its because they take silly claims to court.

An example of a silly claim.

 

It is a simple case of economics.

Yes premiums have risen as claims have risen.

Rising costs of raw materials and manufacturers increases mean the costs of replacement parts are higher.

As profit margins suffer,then prices go up or else shareholders are asked for money.

In case you have not noticed,in the last 12 months just about everything has increased in price-many things far more than 30%

Its up to the motorist to shop around for the best deal.