First crash

Mr-White · 18 Apr 2012 at 17:09

Had my first crash this morning, a Fedex van hit me in the back while stationary on a roundabout. Damage was fairly minimal as he only caught the side, it smashed the passengers side light and left a white scuff mark accross the bumper.

His dad called me later that morning and asked what I wanted to do as he would prefer to pay him self as someone else had already had an accident on the same side, and the van was already booked in for the work. I spoke to Audi and the prices weren't cheap, they advised there could be more damage behind the bumper. They quoted nearly £200 just to replace the light and almost £1000 to replace the bumper. They sent me to their accident repair department and took both details and said they would deal with the other party and the insurance company and have arranged to collect my car and leave a courtesy car. They also advised to contact my insurance company within 48 hours of the accident, as the accident was a rear collision and I was stationary that my insurance wouldn't be affected. Obviously I would like to inform my insurance company but not if they're going to slap an increase on my policy when it renews. What should I do ?

MW

Skilid · 18 Apr 2012 at 17:47

You MUST tell your insurance company. No exceptions.

Gaygle · 18 Apr 2012 at 18:09

EliotG said:
You MUST tell your insurance company. No exceptions.

Although i could understand why one wouldn't!

I was playing around with my quote when i renewed and if i declared a "Notification only" accident they added on £200 to my quote. How is this fair in any way, shape or form?

bJN · 18 Apr 2012 at 18:21

Gaygle said:
Although i could understand why one wouldn't!

I was playing around with my quote when i renewed and if i declared a "Notification only" accident they added on £200 to my quote. How is this fair in any way, shape or form?

Because you have been involved in a "crash/accident", you are statistically more likely to have another one sooner than those that hadn't.

Crazy world eh?

Ste · 18 Apr 2012 at 18:34

It's BS if you've been rearended though, it's a totally non-fault thing

thepeteh · 18 Apr 2012 at 18:40

Ste said:
It's BS if you've been rearended though, it's a totally non-fault thing

See the post above you.

Mr-White · 18 Apr 2012 at 19:50

Just looked over my car and the exhaust is bent

MW

Brookert · 18 Apr 2012 at 22:15

Got to be insurance. Just look at the number of threads on these issues on this forum, to do with bad repair work out of insurance or not repaired at all!

Dogbreath · 19 Apr 2012 at 08:29

bJN said:
Because you have been involved in a "crash/accident", you are statistically more likely to have another one sooner than those that hadn't.

Crazy world eh?

Whilst I understand how this could be true in some cases (e.g. you regularly park in a vulnerable location) it's utter BS in many others such as being rear ended. How does someone ploughing into the back of your car on some random road (that you might not even have driven on before) mean it's suddenly more likely that it will happen again?

Of course the 'statistics' that allegedly show that you being involved in a random event makes you more likely to be involved in another one are not available for scrutiny by anyone actually buying insurance.

thepeteh said:
See the post above you.

That what he's replying to, and I agree.

ubersonic · 19 Apr 2012 at 08:40

Dogbreath said:
How does someone ploughing into the back of your car on some random road (that you might not even have driven on before) mean it's suddenly more likely that it will happen again?

Here's one better, a guy I know had his car written off by a driver who misjudged a corner and skidded into it, his premium went up due to a non fault accident, the insurance company didn't care that he was asleep in bed at the time.

MikeHiow · 19 Apr 2012 at 08:53

Dogbreath said:
Whilst I understand how this could be true in some cases (e.g. you regularly park in a vulnerable location) it's utter BS in many others such as being rear ended. How does someone ploughing into the back of your car on some random road (that you might not even have driven on before) mean it's suddenly more likely that it will happen again?

Of course the 'statistics' that allegedly show that you being involved in a random event makes you more likely to be involved in another one are not available for scrutiny by anyone actually buying insurance..

I can see why it is.

Accidents, even when they aren't technically your fault can probably quite often still be avoided by a switched on driver.

I wonder how many of these rear-enders were because someone went to go at a roundabout without looking properly and then slammed their brakes on.

Of course, you have every right to do that, but with some of these non-fault accidents inevitably being avoidable by perhaps a more careful/considerate driver, there is still some aspect that can be attributed to the driver, and thus there is a higher risk.

Of course, this isn't always the case, I know this only too well - I've been rear ended three times now

The first was a very low speed shunt, with pretty much zero damage in a **** car. I had been stopped for a good few seconds, and didn't brake sharply - the other party claimed they just mis-jusdged the distance.

The second was quite a bad one (~20mph), but I had been stopped for a good 10 seconds.

The third was probably partly my fault - I was towing, and thought I could make a gap on a roundabout. At the last minute, I changed my mind and braked heavily. Some poor kid caved in the front end of the 106 he'd been borrowing from his sister, on the back of my trailer.

Haggisman · 19 Apr 2012 at 10:52

MikeHiow said:
I can see why it is.

Me too: Insurance co: "how can we make more money by doing FA?"

My last quote saw an increase of £500 (yes, that's right £500!!!!) when answering yes to "are there any children under 16 in the household".

Not "will anyone under 16 be travelling in the vehicle", not "is there anyone under 16 in your immediate family". So if you happen to house share with a couple who have a 14 year old kid, or you have younger siblings you get bent over and shafted.

What an absolute joke. :rolleyes:

zipp0r · 19 Apr 2012 at 10:55

EliotG said:
You MUST tell your insurance company. No exceptions.

^^ dont listen to him. let the guy pay for the repair outside of the insurance

ubersonic · 19 Apr 2012 at 11:04

zipp0r said:
^^ dont listen to him. let the guy pay for the repair outside of the insurance

So you see northing morally wrong with shunning your requirement to notify the insurance company in order to fraudulently obtain cheaper renewals through deception? because that's what it amounts to.

Em3bbs · 19 Apr 2012 at 11:33

ubersonic said:
Here's one better, a guy I know had his car written off by a driver who misjudged a corner and skidded into it, his premium went up due to a non fault accident, the insurance company didn't care that he was asleep in bed at the time.

But surely that suggests at night the car is parked somewhere where it could possibly be crashed into by drivers who misjudge the corner near it. I can see the reasoning in this case rather than dogbreath's example. Not that I think your friend's example is particularly fair though.

Haggisman · 19 Apr 2012 at 12:07

Em3bbs said:
But surely that suggests at night the car is parked somewhere where it could possibly be crashed into by drivers who misjudge the corner near it. I can see the reasoning in this case rather than dogbreath's example. Not that I think your friend's example is particularly fair though.

Not really, it suggests that on that particular night, the car was parked somewhere where one particular driver at the specific time the car was parked there happened to misjudge the corner in such a way that he happened to hit the parked car.

That's all it suggests.

It could be the only time that car was, and ever will be parked in that particular location, and it could be the only time that any driver ever happens to misjudge that particular corner, however this possibility doesn't give the insurance company an excuse to get more money for nothing.

Em3bbs · 19 Apr 2012 at 12:23

Haggisman said:
Not really, it suggests that on that particular night, the car was parked somewhere where one particular driver at the specific time the car was parked there happened to misjudge the corner in such a way that he happened to hit the parked car.

That's all it suggests.

It's a fairly good assumption though, and enough for them to increase premiums. It would cost far too much to assess this kind of thing on a case by case basis, more than they would end up saving by just increasing the premium.

Like I said it doesn't mean I think it's fair though.

Haggisman · 19 Apr 2012 at 12:37

Em3bbs said:
It's a fairly good assumption though

I don't agree.

A one-off occurrence should never be enough of a basis to rip people off. Fair enough if the victim had a series of parked cars crashed into, or there was a history of people misjudging that particular corner.

Em3bbs said:
and enough for them to increase premiums. It would cost far too much to assess this kind of thing on a case by case basis, more than they would end up saving by just increasing the premium.

Well, therein lies the key.

Actually being reasonable about it doesn't make them money, using any excuse to raise premiums and rip people off does.

bJN · 19 Apr 2012 at 14:10

Haggisman said:
I don't agree.

A one-off occurrence should never be enough of a basis to rip people off. Fair enough if the victim had a series of parked cars crashed into, or there was a history of people misjudging that particular corner.

Well, therein lies the key.

Actually being reasonable about it doesn't make them money, using any excuse to raise premiums and rip people off does.

Welcome to insurance.

Mr-White · 23 Apr 2012 at 13:45

Putting this on my insurance means my renewal will cost £110 more.

My insurance claim includes a section where I can claim back where I'm out of pocket, can I include the cost of increase over the three years this is on my insurance in the claim ?

MW