Insurance and Claiming for Vandalism

Hi all

My wife came home last night with two vandalised door mirrors on her Fiesta - see earlier post "Fiesta - Driving without Door Mirrors". They are totally trashed and the door for one at least is showing significant distortion at the mounting point.

I have insurance questions for anyone that has experience of this....

  1. If I make an enquiry about my cover and give name/policy number etc., will my insurance automatically be raised if they know this incident has occurred?

  1. Same question if I go ahead and claim for this (assuming vandalism is covered). If I have protected no claims, will they just load my premium next year?

I have comprehensive insurance, but cannot remember whether it included protected no claims :(

Thanks

Phil

Reply to
thescullster
Loading thread data ...

Yes, protected no claims just protects your discount and not the amount they may charge you on renewal after making a claim, nor what any other insurance company may quote when declaring a claim.

Reply to
alan_m

Probably cheapest overall is just to buy a couple of mirrors from ebay and swallow it, if the vehicle is very new then go for the insurance and get all the damage properly fixed, but it may well happen again. Nurse/doctor car parks are being targetted all over the country, often cars are stripped of entire front ends over night.

Reply to
MrCheerful

Very likely as you are *supposed* to notify them of any incidents so they can re-asses (and price) your risk (however unpredictable), even if you repair it at your own cost. [1]

Very likely but it may not be by much.

We did when we had a vehicle written off by a lorry (when we were in bed asleep) but:

Whilst they paid out quickly enough (it wasn't much, even with only £50 excess) but 1) the premium went up and 2) it was considered a 'blame claim' because they couldn't claim off the guilty party because they made off and so I had to declare such for the next 5 years with all the other insurances (cars / motorbikes etc).

Cheers, T i m

[1] I saw a TV program about insurance a while back where a guy had had his car stolen and the insurance rep (loss adjuster?) was round there covering it with him. After seeing recent photos of the car and confirming a value he insurance guy asked 'what is it generally like for vehicle crime round here?' The guy then told him that he had the car window broken some months earlier and an attempt to seal the radio but the perps were disturbed so he just fixed it himself ...' and at that point he insurance guy tore the form up and left.

Their point is that had you told them what happened, even if you didn't make a claim and repaired it at your own cost, your / the 'risk' was then higher and you should have been paying a higher premium?

I think other co's have paid out a reduced amount based on the difference in cost of the new (higher risk) cover.

Another woman show us her car left damaged in her garage after the insurance Co found out the wheels that were fitted weren't standard for that vehicle (but were an optional upgrade) but she hadn't declared them. Had she *known* they weren't std she would have notified them and the premium may well have been the same. She was still having to pay the HP on a car she couldn't use or sell.

Reply to
T i m

snip

I think in that example the insurance company might be on dodgier ground. I thought that the modification must, in the final analysis, materially affect risk.

Of course whether anybody could be bothered to fight an insurance company on that point is another matter . . .

Reply to
RJH

If true, doesn't that sound like an insurance ombudsman case? My model (bought after one owner) is available with 15 inch or 16 inch wheels. I made sure I bought a 15 inch one for comfort. But I would never have thought of raising that with the insurer. I've no idea which is "standard" and which is "special". I would have thought that the *key* parameters for insurance like engine capacity and "spec" would be picked up automatically from the vehicle registration document these days (at least, for an unmodified car).

Reply to
newshound

You are right Rob as I think in this case the owner 'lost control' of the vehicle and it rolled over (suggesting a tyre / traction related cause etc). I think in those sorts of cases you either blame the equipment (that you are probably still responsible for but at a lower level) or admit to bad driving?

Quite. ;-(

As with them paying us out but assigning it a blame claim 'because they couldn't claim off anyone else', suggests they don't want to carry *any* risk themselves?

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

The TV program suggested it was.

Could be.

Ok.

I'm sure many don't. Even if you add a pinstripe you are supposed to notify them because it could make it more attractive to thieves.

No, quite, but I understand it's the obligation of the owner / driver to find out.

Exactly ... however, *every* insurance I have taken out on any vehicle they have asked 'Is the vehicle modified' and I have a fairly good idea if my vehicles are 'stock' (in a way that would interested them) or not.

Like, I *always* declare that there is a towbar fitted to my cars, even though doing so rarely draws any interest at all. However, explaining that my BMW motorcycle had what has become a pretty standard / aftermarket ss replacement required them to go off and check. They do this partly to confirm it wouldn't have added / changed the performance but also in case the replacement exhaust would cost more to replace should it get damaged / stolen (and so increasing their risk / your premium).

I looked upon it as just something to replace what had rusted off.

Thinking on I think I should refine what I said earlier re the woman who had rolled her car and not been paid out because the wheels that were on her car weren't 'std' for that car.

I remember now they weren't an official option on that model, but were a wheel commonly fitted to that model. eg, Such ally wheels were std on a GL but not (or even a factory option) on an L.

So, ideally the dealer that sold it to her should have explained to her that the wheels weren't std, therefore were 'a modification' AFA the Ins Co were concerned and that she should notify them of such.

With motorbikes, most of the 'extra bits' seem to be considered as accessories, rather than modifications, like racks and luggage and so they need to know about them so they are included in any claim (and so premium etc).

Our boat insurance is *very* flexible. As long as the value of all the equipment is covered across all the policies, any losses should be covered, no matter what combination they happened in.

So if boat 1 is normally just for rowing but today I want to use the outboard that is normally associated with boat 2, and it all gets stolen, I'm still covered. They do it this way because it isn't realistic to expect people to define a strict set of combinations in that sort of field.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. Getting confirmation of the acceptance of a towbar on my motorbike (in writing) took a little more pressure on the broker > underwriter.

Me. So can I get that in writing please? Them. Sorry, we can't do that but it is covered sir. Me. Whilst I hear what you say, I would like it in email / writing please, so if / when something does happen, I have proof. Them. Sorry, we can't do that sir. Me. Ok, I'll have to go elsewhere then, bye. Them. Erm, hold on sir, let me see what I can do, I just need to speak to the underwriter ... (email confirmation of towbar cover arrives). ;-)

Reply to
T i m

Oh for the good old days of the Norwich Union motorcycle insurance. Insures the person, they are covered for *anything* they ride up to their capacity limit whether or not they own it. (Except maybe stolen bikes). And IIRC there were only three capacity groups. Of course this was third party, I could never afford (or justify) comprehensive.

Reply to
newshound

Hi Guys

Thanks for the useful feed back. I have been onto the Insurance company this morning to check that I have no claims protection (I do). Before giving details, I specifically asked them whether discussing a potential claim would affect premiums/NCB etc.. Both individuals spoken to claimed not. But the info I couldn't get was "how much will my premium increase if I make a claim for the damage". They nor the underwriter would even give a ball park/range. So even with NCB it is not possible to make a realistic financial assessment of whether it will work out "cheaper" to get the work done on insurance (and get hit with future costs and current excess) or just pay for it to be done independently.

Hey ho

Phil

Reply to
thescullster

The thing to watch with renewal quotes is that the risk to the insurance company may have been reduced by them increasing the excess amount - both fixed and optional. I once had a renewal quote where the excess on the glass cover was so high that effectively I would have paid 100% for a new windscreen.

Reply to
alan_m

Ah yes. ;-)

A bit like our current AA cover (us in our or anyone else's vehicle, even as a passenger). The only exception is us out on cycles. If they are happy to get *us* home irrespective, it shouldn't be a particularly difficult job to get us home on a cycle (given as some mopeds are based on cycles etc) and I wouldn't want to carry the tandem and trailer very far!

I checked with my bike insurance re riding one on a test that wasn't currently insured. They said it would be covered for 3rd party only from the moment I chucked my leg over it until I got off it again. So it was the 'bend it you buy it' and don't get off till back. ;-)

I think I remember that. ;-)

No, same here, and there was then a big difference in cost.

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

Good point. When getting quotes online I often play about with the variables, like voluntary excess and generally find sliding it down from say £200 to zero, hardly affects the premium (so why not). ;-)

And this is an even bigger issue when running an older car where the insurance can be as much as the cars value. I might still put comp on it, rather than just TPF&T (often only a few quid more), simply because of stuff like windscreen cover and with a low combined excess, might get something back in the event of a total loss.

It is all a bit of a minefield / gamble though. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

Could try getting a price comparison site quote for a 'new' car just the same as your current one, but declaring the 'claim'.

Reply to
DJC

Under 250, 250 to 500, over 500 I think. I was riding a 499 most of the time but I always had the unlimited (not much difference in price). I think you had to have had a full license for 2 years to qualify.

Reply to
newshound

Again, that sounds familiar. Along the same sort of lines as the bike cc based tax classes.

I never rode a 'big bike' as a lad, only riding mopeds then 125 bikes and 150cc scooters as transport.

It with Mrs No2 who was keen on us getting something bigger and we got an XT350, followed by a 'Madras' REB 350. Then someone suggested she got her own licence and she did. She progressed up the cc ladder faster than I because we were doing longer distances with more gear and a bigger bike can do that easier (often more planted, bigger tyres, better brakes etc). So that was her going from her KH125, CG123, XV353, newer XV535 to the XV750. Each step it was 'I couldn't handle that', till she actually tried each and loved it. ;-)

Mind you, apparently Mum and Dad toured the UK on a Francis Barnett Cruiser that I think was only (and old skool) 225cc?

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

Many years ago when I bought my house. When the papers arrived from the solicitor after the completion, I discovered the house insurance papers hadn't been signed by the insurance company & insurance was worthless when not signed by the company. Of course the solicitor didn't bother to check.

So I called up the company. Although nothing untowards had happened, spose I was lucky, but not amused by this convenient letdown.

Insurance man: "We would have covered you if something had happened...". wow! (Although the small print indicated otherwise)

Reply to
johannes

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.