insurance conundrum

[RgrWynne]

Interesting, we insure our cars through LV, because my wife is a retired member of Unison. This specific policy is ' cheaper ' because of the exact situation you describe, whereby the union covers legal expenses.  However I must now check in the light of your comments, thank you !

However this ' special ' rate on renewal, was more expensive than when I put in the same info through a search engine. I tried to barter down LV but they refused to budge.

Thanks for the info , Roger 

 

[messi]

Heres a new one for you guys. 

If your car is parked on your drive or garage over night, your vehicle insurance will go up, however if its parked on the road outside your house, your insurance comes down. This is because a person is more likely to get their car robbed from their drive or garage. Funny isnt it. My insurance came down by £200 because I told them its parked on the road as I cant park it on my drive anymore coz my sister uses the drive for her car

[Malc]

can u offer advice/explain that with multi insurance policies for different cars ( which I have ) does the " legal protection cover " on one, cover me for ALL car claims or is it really just for any claim with that specific car insured with that insurer ?  I'm thinking about multi cover for the same risk ....... should one pay it, or even, is it allowed coz I know that insurers ask if you have alternative " same " cover elsewhere should one make a claim that's NOT car related  ......  I'm thinking here about holiday lost baggage insurance where it could be covered under your household insurance policy !

Or am I barking up the wrong tree here ?

Thanks

Malc

[sorcerer]

12 hours ago, Rusty Crobar said:

@sorcerer it's always good to consider other cover you might already have but check that your union cover can be used in a total loss situation. Motor legal protection is very specific cover in that it just helps recover uninsured losses from the at fault driver such as your excess and loss of earnings. Some general legal cover won't do this for you as there is no money to be made from it! It also helps you to claim personal injury compensation, if you don't have motor legal protection then a personal injury lawyer will take up to 25% of your compensation as their fee.

But that's the point I'm making - the union (in my case the CWU) pays for the solicitor by way of my union membership so I don't need a 'personal injury solicitor' and it doesn't matter that there's no money to be made from them chasing my uninsured losses.

I don't know if all unions are the same with regard to the legal cover they offer their membership but I know that the CWU have their solicitors on their payroll, so the union members pay nothing other than their monthly subs for any kind, and any amount, of legal representation they need.

[Rusty Crobar]

@sorcerer it could be that you are fully covered then 🖒. 

[ChrisM]

On ‎23‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 4:29 PM, Malc said:

I think my concern is from a recent post here somewhere, where the guy was left stranded many miles working from home, had a slight knock, claimed on his fully comp insce and they wrote the car off ( £2500, but only slight,damage on a Mk4 DHP ) and left him carlesss with a clearly safe and driveable car other than they have taken it off the road coz they have written it off !....  and his payout could be say £300 after his excess 

working away from home with a relatively sound Mk4 DHP that sits staring him in the face knowing it's not now insured, not his to insure, otherwise driveable and repairable but not from his insce company.

had he been 3rd party etc then at least he would have the car to repair at minimal cost, certainly not £2500 .............  more like £500 maybe AND he would keep his Mk4 DHP and his decision whether to claim on anyone's insurance at all.

Seems a good case to me to think twice about fully comp insce on " old " cars where you might want to keep the " wreck " and put it back on the road ..............  I know my Mk3 is worth more to me than the probable zero payout i would get from insures after the @£350 excess !

Malc

 

That sounds like my post, I would probably have sorted it out myself had I been nearer home. Having fully comp and the extra Legal Protection certainly is probably the way to go.

It may have been a blessing in disguise as I have now replaced the LS with an RX450H SE-L, and the difference is quite outstanding even for a 7 year old vehicle with 80K on it.

It is down to horses for courses as I need something my partially disabled wife can drive, automatic. and a rear end that can hold her mobility scooter. When I am too old we can have a hoist fitted to load it.

The worst part of this write-off is I got £900 for an S reg with 194K miles and she was only just run in. I was going to take her off the road in April and redo all the suspension etc. The fun and games trying to move my private plate to another vehicle as I need V5s to do this and doesn't help working away from the home office.

 

Just like to thank every one for their help over the last 10 years of my LS400 ownership.

I shall be in RX forums but will still look in here too. 

 

Chris 

 

[Malc]

Chris, that £900  ......... was that net after they deducted your excess of ££££ ?

Thanks

Malc

[ChrisM]

56 minutes ago, Malc said:

Chris, that £900  ......... was that net after they deducted your excess of ££££ ?

Thanks

Malc

I'm afraid not, they took off my£350 excess and paid £550, they wouldn't negotiate. Will chase excess via legal firm plus 2 weeks car hire while I found another vehicle, plus £80 plate transfer fee, and about £193 cost of remainder of insurance.

Firm was of a nautical nature, not a captain though.

Their first offer over the telephone was £3020, saying it would have been more if it hadn't been a at B in the past, which I queried and he then said Oh no go that wrong and offered £900. Should have kept quiet !  

[Bluesman]

1 hour ago, ChrisM said:

I'm afraid not, they took off my£350 excess and paid £550, they wouldn't negotiate. Will chase excess via legal firm plus 2 weeks car hire while I found another vehicle, plus £80 plate transfer fee, and about £193 cost of remainder of insurance.

Firm was of a nautical nature, not a captain though.

Their first offer over the telephone was £3020, saying it would have been more if it hadn't been a at B in the past, which I queried and he then said Oh no go that wrong and offered £900. Should have kept quiet !  

They should ban the "Excess" as you are meant to be insured against any damage you cause to another persons property and that is the law, however if you have £750/£1000 excess on your policy and when it comes to someone finding themselves with a car you damaged and you have'nt got two pennies to rub together what use is insurance because to keep your no claims bonus you have to recover your uninsured losses from the person with a huge excess and not a brass farthing to pay you with. No point in taking them to court as even courts cant get blood out of a stone.  Uninsured losses means the other person to blame has no insurance for the first £750/£1000.

[Malc]

so am i right in thinking that if you hadn't claimed on your fully comprehensive insurance you would still have your Ls400 and a fairly minor bill to keep that car in fine fettle from the slight damage incurred and maybe would have cost you say £500 to fix ?

As it is you have lost your Ls400, got £550, lost the £80 plate transfer fee and the £193 remainder of your insurance...  assuming you can't recover these costs realistically !

Your claim has lost you your fine Ls400 and you have probably gained £550 - £80 - £193  Net gain £ 277   less of course your car hire 

The more i think of this insurance conundrum and their total ability to rip-off their cash donors ( their policyholders ) the more I'm thinking to go TPFT next time around !

If you just got offered £900 before the excess then I would probably be offered just enough to cover my excess £350 and walk away with no car and no compensation at all.

Am i right here or totally barking up the wrong tree ?

Malc

[ambermarine]

Malc

You are p**sing up a gum tree really because as I have already stated in this thread we are dealing with desk bound D**k Turpins.

Whichever way you try to get a decent deal these people will have already screwed somebody exactly under the same scenario and will know the script backwards.

I have come to the conclusion because of our somewhat unique situation ,owning near classic rare vehicles that are inevitably low book value the best thing to do is get the cheapest quotes, insure the car for full cover and if you are unfortunate enough to have a accident do not claim get the car fixed if possible at your cost or if it the other parties fault try to pursuade them to pay rather than going through their insurance.

The write off will then only come into play if the car cannot be repaired as to make it roadworthy,now this might sound like a nonsense but if the insurance company want to write it off for a scratch on its paintwork or similar which they will given chance,what have you got to lose? at least not the car.

[Malc]

............... so to insure Fully Comp but don't claim if there's an accident to repair the car.  Just claim for glass, personal injury and legal if you get claimed against.

Then if you don't tell them you have had an accident are you breaking your contract terms and if they find out and they can rescind your cover and they can write the car off anyway without asking you ?

OR

to insure TPFT and never claim for your own damage under any circumstances so that you always have the car in your ownership ? and the insurance cover would continue at your will, not the insurers, and you get to keep the vehicle to decide upon putting the car back into fine order and continuing driving or simply not.

It seems to me that only having TPFT gives you, the owner, far more control over the whole situation in the event of accidental damage to your vehicle.

I don't know that any one argument weighs the balance in any good direction with our " ancient " cars of negligible value

Your further thoughts

Malc

[RgrWynne]

What I do not understand in this now very deep, and confusing blog, is that the vehicle is always owned by you. Providing you do not allow the insurance company to take control of said vehicle you can choose. If you do not wish to claim, then don't and repair yourself. Nobody can force you to take any particular course of action and if the insurance offer is too low, don't accept it and do what you want. I am going to enquire about gap insurance as the probable solution.

i 

[Verbout]

I cannot understand all the fuss as mentioned above, all you are insuring a car for, apart from the law says you have to have insurance or a surety, is in case of an incident, then you get someone else i.e, the insurance company, to pay for repairs etc.

IF YOU WISH.

You take out insurance because you have to, unless you're mega rich, then you don't need to.

[ambermarine]

Malc

There is no obligation on your part to repair your vehicle through your insurer regardless who's fault the accident was.

In the case of you being at fault or the other party decides to go through their insurance you must inform your insurer so they are aware there could be a claim against your policy,they will ask you if your car was damaged and if you are submitting a claim.

You can say no to the claim submission and as far as your insurer is concerned that is the end of their involvement in your car repairs.

everything else is as I have mentioned in previous posts.

To clarify the claim against your policy even though you may have not been at fault ,this scenario will manifest itself when you have an accident on a unclassified road where there are no road markings.The procedure the insurance companies take is a knock for knock where both insurers share the claims costs each claiming against the other ,you won't get a say in the matter and all bets or off regarding no claims, excess's and whatever else in benefits you may have had.

So be careful when driving on country lanes and the Highlands of Scotland.

[Malc]

Phil, as i understand it all then, if one doesn't make a claim for repairs under one's Fully Comp insurance then the insurer will not rescind cover after the accident and one can just keep the car on the road subject to it being roadworthy?

And if the third party is at fault, one would have to make a separate claim on their insurers without involving your own insurers ?

Is this the correct summary ?  

Thanks

Malc

[ambermarine]

Malc 

The cover you are paying for is protecting you against claims and covering your car for damage.

If you choose to pay for the damage to your car without claiming from the insurer you are not breaching any agreements you made with them.

As for making a claim against the other parties insurer then that is a bit more difficult but possible with legal backup.

My initial views on this thread were based on protecting your car from indiscriminate write off and unequal valuations and on that basis one would have to take some kind of hit if they were excluding the insurer from the final decision. All of these scenarios will carry a cost but the ultimate aim is to have the final say on what happens to the car.

[Malc]

would TPFT protect one against claims on oneself by a 3rd party  ?  both for other car's damage and personal damages etc arising from an  " at fault "  accident caused by oneself ?

Coz if one wasn't claiming on one's own Fully Comp insurance for car damage i guess one couldn't claim for personal damages either, like whiplash or whatever or any subsequent health issues developing ?

Maybe it's all too complex and not worth the cerebral energies expended ..........  whichever type of car insurance one has we can rest fully assured that the insurers will rip us all off one way or another.

So far as I can see, the only certain way to retain the accident damaged car and to continue with the insurance cover for road use is simply just not to claim for one's own damage including probably any knock-on issues arising too !  does not claiming for the car damage preclude claiming for collateral stuff too basically ?

Is this correct do you think ?

Malc

 

 

 

 

[ambermarine]

Malc

Yes, that is the case you are not claiming for anything so you will waive your rights to anything that would benefit you from that accident .

Your question on the TPFT is simply answered you have no cover for your vehicle apart from fire and theft so again accident damage is not covered if its your fault.

Claims by third parties are covered subject to conditions set out in the policy such as legality to drive abuse of drugs alcohol etc.

[Bluesman]

4 minutes ago, ambermarine said:

Malc

Yes, that is the case you are not claiming for anything so you will waive your rights to anything that would benefit you from that accident .

Your question on the TPFT is simply answered you have no cover for your vehicle apart from fire and theft so again accident damage is not covered if its your fault.

Claims by third parties are covered subject to conditions set out in the policy such as legality to drive abuse of drugs alcohol etc.

Quote

Your question on the TPFT is simply answered you have no cover for your vehicle apart from fire and theft so again accident damage is not covered if its your fault.

Even if the accident isn't your fault if you are only insured for TPFT you are still not covered you have to claim from the other parties insurance company. This you can do yourself or employ a legal company to work on your behalf.

[Malc]

ok everyone, thank you for your insight to all this

I'll just compare quotes ( as usual ) when the insurances are due

Best wishes

Malc

[Bluesman]

I have just saved £134 on our second car, 5 mins work on the internet a bog standard Fiesta after being quoted £300 renewell and have gone from Esure to M&S when I rang Esure to cancel the renewell they wanted to know what I had been quoted and from who as they would be able to beat their quote. When will these insurance companies realise we are not stupid and not to be so insulting by thinking we will swallow any old price they throw at us?

[RgrWynne]

Just had renewal for my wife's Honda and very competitive . Could not really beat it on search engine, where cheaper but different terms. With LV so going to renew .

[goldtop]

3 hours ago, Bluesman said:

I have just saved £134 on our second car, 5 mins work on the internet a bog standard Fiesta after being quoted £300 renewell and have gone from Esure to M&S when I rang Esure to cancel the renewell they wanted to know what I had been quoted and from who as they would be able to beat their quote. When will these insurance companies realise we are not stupid and not to be so insulting by thinking we will swallow any old price they throw at us?

Curiously, I just switched to TO esure, after morethan bumped my renewal from £150 last year to £260 this year (no changes at all apart from more grey hair). Esure were £200 via one of the comparison sites.

[Bluesman]

48 minutes ago, goldtop said:

Curiously, I just switched to TO esure, after morethan bumped my renewal from £150 last year to £260 this year (no changes at all apart from more grey hair). Esure were £200 via one of the comparison sites.

Insurance companies are a mystery even to themselves. I wen t on to Go To and M&S came up as the cheapest and without having to talk to anyone a few buttons pressed and job done..