BBC encourage insurance fraud.

[PhilDawson8270]

No second go, the thing is settled from a legal standpoint.

It was a little bit of humour. Take the cash, then go to no-win-no-fee.

Certainly wasn't a serious comment

 

[classic33]

It was a little bit of humour. Take the cash, then go to no-win-no-fee.

Certainly wasn't a serious comment

He gets carried away at times. Others managed to reply before me.

 

[Globalti]

And then the insurers can set a premium that reflects the risk of a driver who fails to see other road users, rather than the premium being artificially lowered by dishonesty. So good driving is rewarded and bad driving is penalised. Something this cyclists doesn't seem bothered about.

In support of what you write, I recently met somebody who works in motor insurance. She told me: "Off the record and I never said this.... but if you do ever have a small fender-bender and you decide to pay cash, don't tell your insurance company because they will put you down as what they call an 'accident magnet' ".

 

[glenn forger]

They will do nothing of the kind. An at fault claim would bump premiums, which is exactly what they're supposed to do. It's one of the principles of insurance, Utmost Good Faith. Honesty, in other words.

You are asking a company to underwrite your risk. If you fail to notice people and drive into them your irsk, and premiums, should be higher. That's how insurance works.

 

[classic33]

They will do nothing of the kind. An at fault claim would bump premiums, which is exactly what they're supposed to do. It's one of the principles of insurance, Utmost Good Faith. Honesty, in other words.

You are asking a company to underwrite your risk. If you fail to notice people and drive into them your irsk, and premiums, should be higher. That's how insurance works.

You'd be suprised at just how much dis-honesty there is within the insurance trade.
"Deny any and all responsibility" being their first to the customer, in the event of a possible claim.

There's one or two on here fallen foul of that one, myself inclcuded.

 

[Markymark]

Your insurance can go up for non fault claim. You are deemed more likely to make a claim if you have a bump which is non-fault.

 

[glenn forger]

That's right. So claiming your insurer consider you an "accident magnet" is a load of old trousers. And this was not a non-fault claim.

 

[subaqua]

GF is Migrantwing and ICMFP .

how long will this current bee in bonnet broken record run Glenn ? 1 , 2 , 5 years or more ?

even a blind man can see that what Mort wrote in support of " becoming an accident Magnet" is correct based on the linky posted as well but you know so much better than research.

so must mean you are insurance underwriting specialist now as well as having the knowledge that ALL lorry drivers are murderous barstids . Where do your skills end , we should put you in charge of transport safety immediately and we would instantly be better than the Dutch and the Danish.

shakes head at how sad a life you must have to be like this. I do pity you .

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

"It's never happened before and I worried about it," he said. For two or three weeks afterwards, he said, his driving was too cautious. His wife would tell him: "You're half way across the road just to miss that bike."

OMG the horror of having to give room!!!

 

[bozmandb9]

I'm afraid you're wrong. If the rider accepts the £140 he has no further redress. You don't get a second go. So the beeb is breezily endorsing behaviour that could seriously impact those hurt by drivers' inattention.

I don't see why not, unless he's signed an agreement to indicate that the £140 is in full and final settlement, and indemnifies the driver against any and all future claims. If not, it's an admission of accepted liability, and if the cyclist subsequently suffers medical problems, should ensure that the question of liability is already settled, and the £140 is simple viewed, correctly, as a payment in respect of damage to the bike.

 

[Profpointy]

I dropped a cup once and smashed it. I never told my insurance company. Am I committing fraud as they might have wanted to class me as accident prone.

 

[Markymark]

Well, your insurance may go up if you have a non-fault claim. Unfair but true. You also have a responsibility to tell your insurance company of any collision, again even if non fault. You will almost certainly be in breach of their terms if you don't.

 

[Profpointy]

Well, your insurance may go up if you have a non-fault claim. Unfair but true. You also have a responsibility to tell your insurance company of any collision, again even if non fault. You will almost certainly be in breach of their terms if you don't.

whilst that may well be true in theory, I'd hazzard a guess that 99% of cars on the road have scratches on them from hitting, or being hit by something and few of these are of sufficient consequence for claiming or reporting. And yet, even a small scratch would likely cost far more than the £140 mentioned upthread if claimed under a fully comp policy

 

[Markymark]

whilst that may well be true in theory, I'd hazzard a guess that 99% of cars on the road have scratches on them from hitting, or being hit by something and few of these are of sufficient consequence for claiming or reporting. And yet, even a small scratch would likely cost far more than the £140 mentioned upthread if claimed under a fully comp policy

Yes, however having money exchange hands makes it more serious than a scratch which is just ignored.

 

[nickyboy]

Well, your insurance may go up if you have a non-fault claim. Unfair but true. You also have a responsibility to tell your insurance company of any collision, again even if non fault. You will almost certainly be in breach of their terms if you don't.

It's an interesting situation. Your teacups are (presumably) insured just as your car is insured. Break a teacup and, because it is below the excess, you just replace the teacup and that's that. I am struggling to see the difference between that and, say, repairing some damage to a car also below the excess

Quantum is different of course, but I don't think there's anything in the T&Cs about that. So aren't we invalidating our home contents by not reporting the broken teacup in the same way we are invalidating our motor insurance by not reporting some damage?