definition of a 'fault' claim

kwyjibo · 8 Apr 2006 at 11:27

just a simple noob question

you have TPFT insurance and your vehicle is stolen.
the insurance company pays out the market value of the vehicle minus the excess

is this a 'fault' claim?

TIA

Muncher · 8 Apr 2006 at 12:07

merlin should be able to clear this up, as I can't recall what the position is with theft claims but generally unless the insurer makes a 100% recovery the claim is a fault claim.

Ev0 · 8 Apr 2006 at 12:34

If your insurer is out of pocket then it's classed as a fault claim, windscreens normally not included.

PeterNem · 8 Apr 2006 at 12:51

Indeed, when getting a new quote often when asked if you have any fault claims, the small writing underneath will say something like "Fault being any claim from which the money paid out was not recovered from a 3rd party".

So, a theft would unfortauntely be classed as a fault claim for these purposesI think.

Mackass · 8 Apr 2006 at 15:24

Aren't all claims 'fault' claims unless your insurance can lay the blame somewhere else? If so, then a stolen car will be a fault claim, as your insurance have no-one to claim from.

merlin · 8 Apr 2006 at 23:15

Already answered but theft is fault, yes fraid so.

Tesla · 9 Apr 2006 at 10:45

I have a non-fault claim on my record now that the Mondeo was killed.

This seems to put my premium up by around £100 with some insurers. This is totally wrong.

Amps · 9 Apr 2006 at 12:43

Tesla said:
I have a non-fault claim on my record now that the Mondeo was killed.

This seems to put my premium up by around £100 with some insurers. This is totally wrong.

Yep my non fault claim puts my insurance up by a wopping £150.

Tesla · 9 Apr 2006 at 13:01

Amps said:
Yep my non fault claim puts my insurance up by a wopping £150.

It's disgusting.

Ev0 · 9 Apr 2006 at 13:34

Depends on your insurer, soem put premiums up fo rnon fault claims some don't.

The tesco group (direct line, priv etc) or insuerers as I call them don't change the premium at all for 2 non fault claims I've had, but elephant/admiral add on another 150-200!

Jonners · 9 Apr 2006 at 14:48

Sorry to jump in, but it's pontless having a thread of its own, since ones already here, I had a crash in January, and received the following mail a few week back:

Having repaired your car, we are now casing the Third Party Insurer for the outlay we paid. We are not accepting any liability for the accident. From the Claim Department's point of view, your claim has now been closed.

Could this mean I get my NCB back?

Matt82 · 9 Apr 2006 at 15:08

NCB and fault have nothing at all to do with eachother, otherwise it would be called a No Fault Bonus.

if your car gets 'stolen' and they insurance co have to pay you for a new one, it is still a claim on the policy, hence the NO claims bonus is effected because you have made a claim.

i had a file recently where the third party solicitors litigated the claim, our policyholder did not respond to the claim form and ended up with e judgement against his name.

i set aside the judgement and then we successfully defended the claim at hearing, the third party's insurer paid our outlay (repairs, recovery) and the policyholder's excess. due to the fact that his insurance company had to pay for his judgement to be set aside, it was seen as a claim against his policy and he lost his bonus anyway.

its a NO CLAIMS BONUS not a NO FAULT BONUS

Foghorn Leghorn · 9 Apr 2006 at 17:16

Matt82 said:
NCB and fault have nothing at all to do with eachother, otherwise it would be called a No Fault Bonus.

if your car gets 'stolen' and they insurance co have to pay you for a new one, it is still a claim on the policy, hence the NO claims bonus is effected because you have made a claim.

i had a file recently where the third party solicitors litigated the claim, our policyholder did not respond to the claim form and ended up with e judgement against his name.

i set aside the judgement and then we successfully defended the claim at hearing, the third party's insurer paid our outlay (repairs, recovery) and the policyholder's excess. due to the fact that his insurance company had to pay for his judgement to be set aside, it was seen as a claim against his policy and he lost his bonus anyway.

its a NO CLAIMS BONUS not a NO FAULT BONUS

You should keep your full NCB as you have claimed off the other parties insurance, not your own.

This is what happened with mine a couple of years ago, didnt pay any excess and didnt lose any NCB. Although my premium did rise about £100 the following year though. :sad:

Fog

Ps this is obviously regarding Tupacs question...

Matt82 · 9 Apr 2006 at 18:34

Foghorn Leghorn said:
You should keep your full NCB as you have claimed off the other parties insurance, not your own

but his insurance company had to pay for the judgement to be set aside, hence he lost 2 years of bonus.

pretty harsh IMO

Jonners · 9 Apr 2006 at 18:43

I paid my £175 excess whilst the 2 companies battle it out and come to an agreement.

Though I won't get the excess back as I didn't get legal protection

So providing they get their £1491 back, i'll regain the ncb?

Foghorn Leghorn · 9 Apr 2006 at 23:27

Tupac said:
I paid my £175 excess whilst the 2 companies battle it out and come to an agreement.

Though I won't get the excess back as I didn't get legal protection

You dont get your excess back?

I was involved in an RTA a couple of years ago, guy in a golf overtook me and hit another car head on. I missed both cars but my car was showered by bits of their cars. I had to claim via my insurance off the guy who caused the incident.

Initially I had to pay my excess whilst the claim was processed, but it was refunded when it was proved it was the Golf drivers fault, I didnt lose any of my no claims either.

Fog

I was with Churchill at the time.

PS Tupac, ring your insurers and ask them about your excess and NCB, they will put you in the picture. If you lose your excess and NCB through a non fault accident then that bites, I'd look for a better insurer.

Foghorn Leghorn · 9 Apr 2006 at 23:30

Matt82 said:
but his insurance company had to pay for the judgement to be set aside, hence he lost 2 years of bonus.

pretty harsh IMO

his insurance company will recover all loses/costs from the insurance company of the driver at fault surely?

Thats what Churchill told me when dealing with my claim, as you arent technically claiming off your insurance, you're claiming off the guy at fault.

Fog

Matt82 · 10 Apr 2006 at 00:07

Foghorn Leghorn said:
his insurance company will recover all loses/costs from the insurance company of the driver at fault surely?

Thats what Churchill told me when dealing with my claim, as you arent technically claiming off your insurance, you're claiming off the guy at fault.

Fog

you cant recover costs in defending small claims stuff, hence the costs of setting the judgement aside that he got against himself by default was a bill his own insurance company had to foot.... hence a claim against his policy lol

i doubt he would have been willing to reimburse them the £225 he had wasted for them

Foghorn Leghorn · 10 Apr 2006 at 00:15

Matt82 said:
you cant recover costs in defending small claims stuff, hence the costs of setting the judgement aside that he got against himself by default was a bill his own insurance company had to foot.... hence a claim against his policy lol

i doubt he would have been willing to reimburse them the £225 he had wasted for them

Fairy nuff

I can only comment on what happened to me, thought all insurers would do the same (foolish of me I know). Could it be different regarding the level of cover you have? I was FC with legal protection

Fog

Just remembered, the guy at fault in my case was also with Churchill, would that make any difference as all dealings would have been internal?

Matt82 · 10 Apr 2006 at 00:19

Foghorn Leghorn said:
Fairy nuff

I can only comment on what happened to me, thought all insurers would do the same (foolish of me I know). Could it be different regarding the level of cover you have? I was FC with legal protection

Fog

yup, most fully comp allows legal protection. put simply, if you have a shunt and its disputed all the way to Court, then they will pay the costs in defending and attending the hearing etc (barrister has to go etc)

if you didnt have that protection, its a cost that you would have to pay from your own pocket.

the fact that the insurance company provided the cover meant it was their pocket that had to fork out to sort out the judgement, hence he was claiming against his policy (allbeit the legal cover), hence it effected his NCB

a claim against the policy is simply the insurance company having to pay for something. as soon as they have to pay for something that somone else does not pay back... its a claim/deficit against your policy, hence no more NCB