His policy will not be loaded if they recover all the costs. However naturally the rates change because the base rates and applicable discounts alter due to your driving history. its not just a premium - ncd
You've contradicted yourself in these two sentences - an increase in the base premium is a loading by another name.
And don't kid yourself - the OP's premiums will increase, regardless of fault or whether his insurance company successfully recover all of their costs. Insurance companies routinely do so these days, using the feeble excuse that involvement in an accident (regardless of the circumstances) increases the policyholders risk profile for the future.
In these circumstances I would write to the original driver stating that their insurance company has not responded, that you are out of pocket and that you intend to recover the costs of the excess and increased premium from the driver directly through the small claims court.
I think it's likely that the insurance company has not responded because their policyholder hasn't responded to them.
In any event, as things stand, the OP can't write to the other driver or initiate a claim against the other party as it would appear that he/she doesn't even know the name of their insurer, still less the name and address of the other party involved in the accident.
You've contradicted yourself in these two sentences - an increase in the base premium is a loading by another name.
And don't kid yourself - the OP's premiums will increase, regardless of fault or whether his insurance company successfully recover all of their costs. Insurance companies routinely do so these days, using the feeble excuse that involvement in an accident (regardless of the circumstances) increases the policyholders risk profile for the future.
More than likely a case of they've not been able to get in touch with their policy holder. They have to give them fair time to respond before dealing without prejudice (paying out without actually admitting fault formally)
Could also be a case of insurer backlogs delaying things. Poor excuse I know but I've seen a lot of that recently! Threatening legal action will either get it bumped up the list if it is this, or encourage them to deal w/o prejudice sooner. Pretty sure it'll settle before court though if its a straight forward just vehicle damage with no PI or hire.
As for your premium, can't say for certain but if your insurer doesn't recover it may still show as a pending claim which then could affect.
More than likely a case of they've not been able to get in touch with their policy holder. They have to give them fair time to respond before dealing without prejudice (paying out without actually admitting fault formally)
Could also be a case of insurer backlogs delaying things. Poor excuse I know but I've seen a lot of that recently! Threatening legal action will either get it bumped up the list if it is this, or encourage them to deal w/o prejudice sooner. Pretty sure it'll settle before court though if its a straight forward just vehicle damage with no PI or hire.
As for your premium, can't say for certain but if your insurer doesn't recover it may still show as a pending claim which then could affect.
Hope its sorted soon for you!
You obviously work for an insurer, you used the correct lingo...ten years at Royal and Sun Motability I served...
i find it odd that the ops insurers will not disclose the third party insurance details, especially if it has been passed to legal.
also they are not responding , normally the insurer at fault is falling over themselves to control the claim to keep their costs down..
avoid unnecessary hire vehicles etc..
op who are you insured with?
I was involved in a minor accident a while ago, an old guy ran into me ,I was stopped on a round a bout at the time. We swapped details and he admitted it was his fault. weeks later my insurer said they had decided to settle ,Knock for Knock. I argued with them to no avail. I 'phoned the other driver and asked who his insurer was as I was going to sue them for my costs. Would you believe , his insurer was the same as mine, AXA. I changed insurers straightaway. What robbers they are.
And don't kid yourself - the OP's premiums will increase, regardless of fault or whether his insurance company successfully recover all of their costs. Insurance companies routinely do so these days, using the feeble excuse that involvement in an accident (regardless of the circumstances) increases the policyholders risk profile for the future.
I don't claim to know everything and be always right however I'm a paralegal for an insurance company and with all due respect that's not necessarily correct.
Someone in the OP's position might see their risk increase as a result but other factors that make a premium can decrease and therefore make the overall price go down.
Reporting a non-fault claim does not automatically guarantee the price goes up.
In these circumstances I would write to the original driver stating that their insurance company has not responded, that you are out of pocket and that you intend to recover the costs of the excess and increased premium from the driver directly through the small claims court.
Send the letter recorded delivery.
Hopefully that should galvanise the driver to jolly up their insurance company.
If not then issue a small claims court claim.
If the OP has Legal Expenses Insurance on their policy then all this would be done for them by the designated legal services provider (usually a stand-alone company).
The driver is also required to give you details of their insurance company in the event of an accident.
Not necessarily - they can also report it to the police or their solicitor if they have one, who will contact the other party or insurer. When celebrities, politicians or other full-of-their-own-self importance types are involved in accidents they usually choose this option.
Someone in the OP's position might see their risk increase as a result but other factors that make a premium can decrease and therefore make the overall price go down.
You're absolutely right.
Should the OP move home from Stratford in East London to Cromer in Norfolk and/or exchange his/her Bugatti Veyron for a Dacia Sandero, this would no doubt mitigate the effect but ...
I was involved in a minor accident a while ago, an old guy ran into me ,I was stopped on a round a bout at the time. We swapped details and he admitted it was his fault. weeks later my insurer said they had decided to settle ,Knock for Knock. I argued with them to no avail. I 'phoned the other driver and asked who his insurer was as I was going to sue them for my costs. Would you believe , his insurer was the same as mine, AXA. I changed insurers straightaway. What robbers they are.
"Knock for knock" has nothing to do with apportioning blame. It is simply an agreement between some insurance companies that they each deal with their own client's insured losses. To recover your No Claim Bonus you need to recover your uninsured losses, eg a policy excess, from the other parties insurer.
"Knock for knock" has nothing to do with apportioning blame. It is simply an agreement between some insurance companies that they each deal with their own client's insured losses. To recover your No Claim Bonus you need to recover your uninsured losses, eg a policy excess, from the other parties insurer.
I was involved in a minor accident a while ago, an old guy ran into me ,I was stopped on a round a bout at the time. We swapped details and he admitted it was his fault. weeks later my insurer said they had decided to settle ,Knock for Knock. I argued with them to no avail. I 'phoned the other driver and asked who his insurer was as I was going to sue them for my costs. Would you believe , his insurer was the same as mine, AXA. I changed insurers straightaway. What robbers they are.[/QUOTE
Sorry, with regards to my previous post I got focussed on the knock for knock 50/50 myth. I see that you did indeed chase your uninsured losses to find the other parties insurers were also yours I assume you went back to AXA, what was their response ?
To recover your No Claim Bonus you need to recover your uninsured losses, eg a policy excess, from the other parties insurer.
It's insured losses that need to be recovered by your insurer from the other insurer to preserve the NCD, recovery of the uninsured losses from the other party's insurers has no bearing on it.
Me neither - I distinctly recall making an error of judgement on 8th April 1990.
You're absolutely right.
Should the OP move home from Stratford in East London to Cromer in Norfolk and/or exchange his/her Bugatti Veyron for a Dacia Sandero, this would no doubt mitigate the effect but ...
... in the absence of such hypothetical (some might say unlikely) events, the renewal premium will rise.
That is exactly what I thought when I read it, of course premiums might be lower--if you buy yourself a lawnmower to get about on and even then it doesn't mean the quote won't be loaded if you have reported an earlier accident.
Can you tell me what you think a "knock for knock" agreement is then ?
Largely as you described but in that instance the (unlikley) recovery of your uninsured losses either from the third party or their insurers will not preserve your NCD as your insurers will not have recovered their outlay and It makes no financial difference to your insurer whether you get your uninsured losses back or not.
Comments
You've contradicted yourself in these two sentences - an increase in the base premium is a loading by another name.
And don't kid yourself - the OP's premiums will increase, regardless of fault or whether his insurance company successfully recover all of their costs. Insurance companies routinely do so these days, using the feeble excuse that involvement in an accident (regardless of the circumstances) increases the policyholders risk profile for the future.
I think it's likely that the insurance company has not responded because their policyholder hasn't responded to them.
In any event, as things stand, the OP can't write to the other driver or initiate a claim against the other party as it would appear that he/she doesn't even know the name of their insurer, still less the name and address of the other party involved in the accident.
Perfectly true but it doesn't always happen, and seems not to have happened in this case.
You clearly know better than me.
Could also be a case of insurer backlogs delaying things. Poor excuse I know but I've seen a lot of that recently! Threatening legal action will either get it bumped up the list if it is this, or encourage them to deal w/o prejudice sooner. Pretty sure it'll settle before court though if its a straight forward just vehicle damage with no PI or hire.
As for your premium, can't say for certain but if your insurer doesn't recover it may still show as a pending claim which then could affect.
Hope its sorted soon for you!
You obviously work for an insurer, you used the correct lingo...ten years at Royal and Sun Motability I served...
I was involved in a minor accident a while ago, an old guy ran into me ,I was stopped on a round a bout at the time. We swapped details and he admitted it was his fault. weeks later my insurer said they had decided to settle ,Knock for Knock. I argued with them to no avail. I 'phoned the other driver and asked who his insurer was as I was going to sue them for my costs. Would you believe , his insurer was the same as mine, AXA. I changed insurers straightaway. What robbers they are.
I don't claim to know everything and be always right however I'm a paralegal for an insurance company and with all due respect that's not necessarily correct.
Someone in the OP's position might see their risk increase as a result but other factors that make a premium can decrease and therefore make the overall price go down.
Reporting a non-fault claim does not automatically guarantee the price goes up.
If the OP has Legal Expenses Insurance on their policy then all this would be done for them by the designated legal services provider (usually a stand-alone company).
Not necessarily - they can also report it to the police or their solicitor if they have one, who will contact the other party or insurer. When celebrities, politicians or other full-of-their-own-self importance types are involved in accidents they usually choose this option.
Me neither - I distinctly recall making an error of judgement on 8th April 1990.
You're absolutely right.
Should the OP move home from Stratford in East London to Cromer in Norfolk and/or exchange his/her Bugatti Veyron for a Dacia Sandero, this would no doubt mitigate the effect but ...
... in the absence of such hypothetical (some might say unlikely) events, the renewal premium will rise.
OP - hope you get it sorted.
"Knock for knock" has nothing to do with apportioning blame. It is simply an agreement between some insurance companies that they each deal with their own client's insured losses. To recover your No Claim Bonus you need to recover your uninsured losses, eg a policy excess, from the other parties insurer.
You seem to have misplaced your sense of humour.
Enjoy the remainder of the Bank Holiday.
Spot on.