That is what I am trying to figure outOriginally Posted by Captain Morgan
I would just advise caution here. Check the contract thoroughly before signing anything. I struggle to see how any company would insure you against any expense in the case of a 50/50 judgement in an accident situation.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Agreed, the numbers don't add up. Someone is paying for the repairs, someone is paying for the other costs (how's your neck?) and someone's paying the CMC's profit. If the insurer is covering the 50/50s, either the premiums are massive or they're winning the vast majority of the liability arguments.
Didn’t with me. I used a CMC when a van drove into the back of me on the M4. My premium the following year was less.
That would have been a no blame accident, in such a case the insurance company claims back any losses from the at fault motorist ( his insurance co' ) . As for your premium going down, it could be the area that you live is a low accident area + if you insure through the same company they have the records on thier data base. It might be different if you changed companies as you would have to declare the accident at time of application.
It's am insurance based issue - the small print is the issue.
They state they will sort it all out at no cost to you (which sounds great) but the reality (in my case) was the third party's insurers pushed back against the CMC and I ended up staring down the barrels of a court appearance due to them contesting the costs. The CMC would not guarantee my indent even though it was a 'no fault' claim for me.
The potential loss is around the hassle, stress and legal issues.
CMC's are renown for inflated costs and extortionate car hire additions.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
I have to say I am a bit puzzled by the 50% liable, as far as i'm aware a cmc needs the case to be a 100% non fault. I have never seen a knock for knock claim where a cmc is involed not go completly pear shaped. That credit insurance is under your name I assume you realise this? Also the implications if the other sides insurance decides to refuse the claim as unreasonable.... just saying
Lol, yeah wot he above said.
Chris, I think you missed my earlier posts (and my irony ;-) ) , fully aware of the risk / reputations of CMC’s, the OP appears more trusting...
That’s not my point though. adrianw stated ‘if you use a CMC your insurance premiums will rocket’
That is not necessarily the case.
I haven't read every single post, but I got far enough to feel the need to comment to the uninitiated on how UK motor insurance works...
(check my blog for more details)
Rubbish. Most (if not all) UK insurers base premiums on the type of accident, not the cost. If it's not their customer's fault then they will recover all their costs from the other insurer anyway (or at least make reasonable efforts to do so).
This ! BTW - have you got legal expenses as part of your policy ? If so, use it and get separate legal counsel. Your contract of insurance is with the insurer, not a claims management company (that's your insurance company's problem). Deal with the insurer. If they agree that you're not at fault then it is their responsibility to sort your vehicle and recover costs from the third party, not yours !
really ??I'm not even going to comment on this.
To the OP. regardless of whether or not you claim, or whether your NCD is protected, unfortunately your premium will increase on a like-for-like basis as the risk of insuring you has increased due to you being involved in an incident. It won't be increased as much as if you were at fault, but it will increase. The current advertising campaing by Direct Line stating that your NCD won't be reduced if your car is vandalised is misleading as it infers that you won't be penalised come renewal, which is false.
NCD is a marketing tool used to give meaningless discounts on premiums and sell the impression that insurance companies are doing you a favour by not reducing it if you're not at fault. Ultimately they use many many pieces of data to assess the individual risk of a driver, and they price according to that risk. The fact that you've been in, but not caused an accident in X years is a better risk than being at fault, but a worse risk than not being in an accident at all.
To everyone else... I suggest you read my blog, and choose insurance companies wisely... the cheapest product is never the best product.
Daniel.
All I'm going to say regarding the above post is that I know two people who have been in accidents and have used cmc's both had identical experiences, when they found out the value of their claims they had been massively inflated, one was door damage to a BMW 3series estate which ended up being £8000, and one one was offered a like for like car, the closest they got to a Noble was a Porsche CaymanS, the cost of the repairs was £7000 the cost of the claim was £28000, the hire charges were astronomical, Both were no fault claims and their insurance costs have rocketed.
I will give one example of one of the parties making it so complicated the insurance companies went knock for knock, someone was travelling along a main road when a car pulls out of a side road and crashed into the side of the first car. the other driver admitted full responsibility at the scene and the police didn't attend as no one was hurt. the first car was written off. the other driver later told his insurance company that first car had pulled out of a bus stop and crashed into him. it went knock for knock.
Wouldn’t touch them…. Someone did a load of damage by reversing into my parked car 3 years ago now…. There insurance company sorted and then sold my details on to a claims management companies…. I still get a minimum of 1 call per week…. It’s outrageous
Just because you are not aware doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I have seen the credit insurance policy and yes I know it will be in my name. I work in the insurance industry so do have a basic understanding of these things...
If you want to PM me your email and I can send you the policy wording. There is a clause which frightens me and that is the policy only covers the car hire and car repair costs. Other 3rd party costs are excluded. I’m worried that I may get stung with this down the road.
I’ve had ballpark quotes to repair my car and it needs a new panel, approx cost £800 + wheel refurb cost. Not cheap but in the scheme of things I think going down the CMC presents too much risk, certainly more than I am comfortable having hang over me for the next potential year or so whilst the CMC and 3rd party insurers battle it out.
I am trying to contact the 3rd party insurers directly to see what their stance is. Will also refer to the legal cover I have included within my policy.
Thanks for everyone’s input and views, I will update as and when there are further developments.
One reason why you shoukd request police attendance if you are certain that you are not at fault. If the police refuse to attend if no one is hurt then call an ambulance. They are thus compelled to attend.Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
You serious? Lie to the police/emergency services? What is the point. They didn’t see the accident so what value can they add...never mind it also being a complete waste of resources and could deny the resource to someone who actually needs it.
For info the police were called (by the other party). I spoke to them and they said wasn’t a need to attend due to no injuries parties or hazards to other road users. This was fine by me.
I suppose people might be less likely to lie, giving a statement to the police at the time, compared to making something up later to tell their insurers.
They will base it on the law of negligence...as in...which party had the last opporrunity to avoid the accident.
Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
The Ambulance service are stretched enough without bogus calls of this kind. It would be unlikely that they would attend once the details are assessed over the phone, and it really is wasting their time.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
If desperate for police attendance I understood the safer method was thinking there was a smell of alcohol / erratic behaviour.
Bit mischievous, but even if they do attend they will not make any judgement on fault/cause if there are no injuries and parties involved have exchanged details.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Just to provide an update on this:
In the end I decided against the CMC route as my car was drivable and as such no pressing need to get the car repaired immediately. To keep my NCB intact and to not pay my excess I made a claim myself directly against the car rental firm who then referred the case to their claims adjustor firm. Upon submission of my version of events they said they would contact the driver of the rental car and investigate. This was all prior to my car insurance renewal date of 27th Oct. About 2 weeks prior to my renewal my own insurance company called to advise that they have received a claim for damages against me. As such my NCB was reduced to 3 years from 5. At renewal I left my insurance company for another with a premium of about £20 more than what I was paying the prior year. Upon supplying my insurance company full details of the incident they were confident that I had a very good case and would dispute liability. I hadn’t heard anything until last Sunday when the claims adjustor acting on behalf of the other party called to say they will be settling my claim in full on a without prejudice basis. My old insurance company have also confirmed that the claim being made against me has been withdrawn and confirmed reinstatement of my NCB. All in all a very good outcome. Car being repaired, no excess paid and NCB intact.
Had the damage to my car been more severe and not drivable the CMC route would have certainly been more appealing.
Well done, good result, as it should be.
Cheers..
Jase
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
