Car bumped me, no damage should I report to insurance?

[Haggisman]

To report a non-fault non-claim bump for the next 5 years?

What if someone dings my door in the shopping centre, do you want me to report that too?

Depends:

Do you think the shopping trolley ding is likely to have caused hidden structural damage to your car?
Do you think they are likely to claim on their insurance for damage to the shopping trolley?

If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then of course you should.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Depends:

Do you think the shopping trolley ding is likely to have caused hidden structural damage to your car?
Do you think they are likely to claim on their insurance for damage to the shopping trolley?

If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then of course you should.

We're talking cross purposes. I said to inform insurance of the incident for the same reasons you outlined above.

What I am reading above is people preaching legal terms and conditions and obligations for the next 5 years

 

[Haggisman]

We're talking cross purposes. I said to inform insurance of the incident for the same reasons you outlined above.

What I am reading above is people preaching legal terms and conditions and obligations for the next 5 years

"people"... as in a single poster?

 

[Deleted User 298457]

"people"... as in a single poster?

I count 3. But more than 0 is enough. Epitome of the little man fighting the billionaires battles.

 

[Hades]

lol didn't realise we had so many insurance police man on here.

I think the point being made is that once there is a record of the incident, whether that's with the police or an insurance company, then any future insurance company might be able to find it out. Answering "no" to the question about accidents or claims regardless of fault could then be used as a reason for declining a future payout.

 

[Haggisman]

I count 3. But more than 0 is enough. Epitome of the little man fighting the billionaires battles.

Only a single one saying report it because you have to legally, everyone else is saying report it to cover your own bum (either in case there is hidden damage, or in case the other party does so, leaving you in the ****)

 

[Arsonist]

My initial instinct was don't let it bother you, but as others have said, don't leave yourself open to potential risk. Let your insurers and the police know. Get it checked by a garage just in case (as much for your own safety - cars are designed to crumple now instead of taking obvious physical damage on the outside). If she then reports it, you've pre-empted anything she might say.

 

[Yaayuh!]

My initial instinct was don't let it bother you, but as others have said, don't leave yourself open to potential risk. Let your insurers and the police know. Get it checked by a garage just in case (as much for your own safety - cars are designed to crumple now instead of taking obvious physical damage on the outside). If she then reports it, you've pre-empted anything she might say.

My exact thoughts, too.

 

[omnomnom]

To report a non-fault non-claim bump for the next 5 years?

What if someone dings my door in the shopping centre, do you want me to report that too?

It’s only non-fault when you have an admission of liability btw.
If you have been bumped you should report it. It isn’t rocket science.

 

[[TW]Fox]

One thing that you have to bear in mind is that if her car suffered some damage, she could have taken your number and said that you reversed into her then drove away.

And which sane insurance company is going to accept that account at a set of traffic lights?

 

[Yaayuh!]

And which sane insurance company is going to accept that account at a set of traffic lights?

"They reversed into me and drove off at speed in a fit of rage"

I'm sure they'd accept a malicious cause of damage, especially if there was risk of an insurance diddling or something. Either way, insurance company wouldn't not do anything about it.

It's not worth the risk of the 3rd party turning it around on you.

 

[[TW]Fox]

"They reversed into me and drove off at speed in a fit of rage"

It works both ways you know - this is the least likely cause of a rear end accident at a set of traffic lights and would require more than just someone saying that to pass the balance of probabilities.

How many times per year in the UK does the car in front do that versus how many times does the car behind accidentally misjudge and then run into the back of a third party?

 

[Yaayuh!]

It works both ways you know - this is the least likely cause of a rear end accident at a set of traffic lights and would require more than just someone saying that to pass the balance of probabilities.

Where is the motive? How many times per year in the UK does the car in front do that versus how many times does the car behind accidentally misjudge and then into the back of a third party?

Statistically, it's unlikely of course, but it's really not worth the risk, especially if you might have damage. Better to just get there first.

As for motive? If the 3rd party gets to their destination and finds damage and want to claim it wasn't their fault.

edit - Sneaky edit!

 

[[TW]Fox]

I meant the motivation for the act in the first place.

Remember, if it goes to court the third party will need to convince them that their account is the accurate and true reflection of the events.

What's most likely on the balance of probabilities?

People, particularly dashcam owners, massively over state the risk of this sort of thing.

 

[Yaayuh!]

I meant the motivation for the act in the first place. Remember, if it goes to court you'll need to convince them.

What's most likely on the balance of probabilities?

People, particularly dashcam owners, massively over state the risk of this sort of thing.

General road rage? I don't know and I'm not really following you here.

OP got driven into and the 3rd party drove away.

You're debating OP not needing to report to police and insurance based on low probability of 3rd party screwing over OP?

 

[fezster]

The risk of not reporting to OP is that he goes on living his life blissfully unaware that the other party did report the incident (but made no claim). OP gets into an accident 3 years down the line and needs to make an insurance claim, which is then refused as he did not declare this incident.

 

[[TW]Fox]

General road rage? I don't know and I'm not really following you here.

OP got driven into and the 3rd party drove away.

You're debating OP not needing to report to police and insurance based on low probability of 3rd party screwing over OP?

I am purely replying to the point someone made, which I quoted in my first post, that the third-party could claim it was the OPs fault. Not any other aspect of the discussion.

 

[Haggisman]

I meant the motivation for the act in the first place.

Remember, if it goes to court the third party will need to convince them that their account is the accurate and true reflection of the events.

What's most likely on the balance of probabilities?

People, particularly dashcam owners, massively over state the risk of this sort of thing.

I can recall at least a couple of instances at lights where the car in front of me has (I assume accidentally) put their car into reverse instead of first and started to move, and only noticed because I've beeped.

My current car (mk2 Octavia) is also concerningly easy to put into reverse instead of first if you put slightly too much downwards pressure on the knob whilst moving it (although it's easy to notice because it beeps and the screen flicks on to the rear camera).

 

[Deleted member 66701]

If you inform the insurance regardless if you make a claim or not they still record it as a accident and your going to have to declare it for the next five years

Depends on the wording really. Last couple of times I've shopped around it's always been worded as "have you made or been involved in any claims in the last 5 years" so in this instance it would be a no. I think only one site worded it as "have you been involved in an accidents in the last 5 years".

EDIT:-

I have just checked compare the market and they state:-

Claims

Have you had any motor accidents, claims or losses in the past 5 years, no matter who was at fault or if a claim was made?

So it seems they are covering all bases at least. I would expect that to be the common statement among quote sites now.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Depends on the wording really. Last couple of times I've shopped around it's always been worded as "have you made or been involved in any claims in the last 5 years" so in this instance it would be a no. I think only one site worded it as "have you been involved in an accidents in the last 5 years".

EDIT:-

I have just checked compare the market and they state:-



So it seems they are covering all bases at least. I would expect that to be the common statement among quote sites now.

Small print goes onto say that they'll only share what insurers find relevant so I guess it depends on an insurer-by-insurer basis. E.g. I had an at-fault claim 5 years ago but Admiral only care about the last 3 years. So comparison sites will always try and mop up everything.