Someone Drove Into My Car

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Someone Drove Into My Car - No Insurance!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

653 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1485749 5-Feb-2016 10:52

jonathan18:

I don't think that's what they meant - I'm assuming they mean if someone has a full insurance policy on their own car, whether the person who caused the accident has third party insurance or not they'll still be covered for damage to their own car through their own policy. But fair enough point as it could be misinterpreted...

Except in the UK full insurance is not compulsory, the minimum is third party.

And you would want to claim on other person so you don't lose your no claims bonus.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1485772 5-Feb-2016 11:16

roobarb:

jonathan18:

I don't think that's what they meant - I'm assuming they mean if someone has a full insurance policy on their own car, whether the person who caused the accident has third party insurance or not they'll still be covered for damage to their own car through their own policy. But fair enough point as it could be misinterpreted...

Except in the UK full insurance is not compulsory, the minimum is third party.

And you would want to claim on other person so you don't lose your no claims bonus.

Jonathan18 is correct, I was talking about having a "full cover" insurance policy for your own vehicle.

At that point, it doesn't matter what the other party has - you deal exclusively with your insurer and are in no way effected by the "status" of the other party if you can identify them. (Ie. Whether they are insured, whether they have the financial ability to pay reparations, whatever...) And even if they're never caught/identified, you're still covered! ...but you incur the cost of excess as agreed in the policy you chose.

If they can be identified (and you're not at fault) you don't pay any excess and don't lose your no claims bonus. This doesn't change if they have 3rd party insurance, or not. If they have money or not. If their car was roadworthy or whether is was a stolen pile of junk crashed by a disqualified driver.

Why on earth anyone would want to move to a scheme where you're reliant on "everyone else" being insured in case they crash into you is beyond my comprehension.

EDIT: typo

roobarb

653 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1485825 5-Feb-2016 11:55

6FIEND: Why on earth anyone would want to move to a scheme where you're reliant on "everyone else" being insured in case they crash into you is beyond my comprehension.

It works in the UK because everybody is insured, and it is the high risk drivers who pay the high premiums.

meesham

973 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1485882 5-Feb-2016 13:03

roobarb:

It works in the UK because everybody is insured, and it is the high risk drivers who pay the high premiums.

The NZTA did a study on it a few years ago and found that UK still has around 6% of drivers uninsured, NZ is 7.6% (with a 1.5% maximum margin of error).

http://www.transport.govt.nz/land/Vehicleinsurance

In my opinion everyone should be insured but it seems that even when it's compulsory people still (stupidly) risk not having insurance.

lxsw20

3552 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1485892 5-Feb-2016 13:37

roobarb:

6FIEND: Why on earth anyone would want to move to a scheme where you're reliant on "everyone else" being insured in case they crash into you is beyond my comprehension.

It works in the UK because everybody is insured, and it is the high risk drivers who pay the high premiums.

My 30 year old cousin pays £ 600pa for insurance on a 1L 2012 Ford Fiesta. Not exactly high risk stuff. I was paying about half that for my 2009 Mazda 3 MPS Turbo in NZ @ age 26.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1485935 5-Feb-2016 14:18

6FIEND:

roobarb:

jonathan18:

I don't think that's what they meant - I'm assuming they mean if someone has a full insurance policy on their own car, whether the person who caused the accident has third party insurance or not they'll still be covered for damage to their own car through their own policy. But fair enough point as it could be misinterpreted...

Except in the UK full insurance is not compulsory, the minimum is third party.

And you would want to claim on other person so you don't lose your no claims bonus.

Jonathan18 is correct, I was talking about having a "full cover" insurance policy for your own vehicle.

At that point, it doesn't matter what the other party has - you deal exclusively with your insurer and are in no way effected by the "status" of the other party if you can identify them. (Ie. Whether they are insured, whether they have the financial ability to pay reparations, whatever...) And even if they're never caught/identified, you're still covered! ...but you incur the cost of excess as agreed in the policy you chose.

If they can be identified (and you're not at fault) you don't pay any excess and don't lose your no claims bonus. This doesn't change if they have 3rd party insurance, or not. If they have money or not. If their car was roadworthy or whether is was a stolen pile of junk crashed by a disqualified driver.

Why on earth anyone would want to move to a scheme where you're reliant on "everyone else" being insured in case they crash into you is beyond my comprehension.

EDIT: typo

1) If you claim on your insurance and the insurer cannot recover that cost, your NCB will fall, making your policy more expensive next renewal

2) If they have to pay out, your premiums will be affected next renewal because they will likely regard you as an increased risk

3) If they can be identified and they have no insurance and no assets, your insurer may still penalise you because they were unable to recover their costs from another party unless (taken from the current AA policy which won't be massively different in most)

"Reimbursing your excess"
"We will reimburse the excess for an event if all of the following criteria are met:"
"• you give us the correct name and contact details of the other driver"
"• you give us the correct registration number of the other vehicle"
"• the person responsible confirms their involvement in the event"
"• we agree the driver of your vehicle was not at fault."

deadlyllama

1260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1485951 5-Feb-2016 14:35

My brother landed in the Netherlands and tried to buy a motorbike there. Compulsory insurance was a bureaucratic nightmare. You are not allowed to own a vehicle that is not insured, so you absolutely have to have the insurance sorted *before* the ownership is transferred. No "Oh, I'll do it tomorrow..."

Probably fine if you buy the car from a dealer, but a right royal PITA for a private sale.

3rd party is cheap here, and it has to be because it has the $0 competition of "she'll be right." Even the ultra-cheap 3rd party I had with my first car came with $3,000 of cover for *me* being hit by a driver with no insurance.

The only people who benefit from compulsory insurance are the insurance companies. If you've got insurance, chasing up the other party is the insurance company's problem.

My previous car was written off after a hit-and-run. No idea who the other party was. Tower didn't bat an eyelid, they still paid out (but I had to pay an excess and lost my no claims bonus). I switched to the AA who don't charge the excess/etc if the damage was done by a 3rd party, and offered me a lower premium to boot.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Ratez

72 posts

Master Geek

#1486118 5-Feb-2016 17:46

The argument for compulsory third party is why do people that buy insurance have to be penalised by those that don't. If someone cannot afford third party then it means they cannot afford to pay someone for their damage anyway. My NCB will be affected plus I may have to pay excess because of someone who doesn't care who he hits.

I don't see the justification behind non compulsory third party.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1486295 5-Feb-2016 22:19

Ratez: The argument for compulsory third party is why do people that buy insurance have to be penalised by those that don't. If someone cannot afford third party then it means they cannot afford to pay someone for their damage anyway. My NCB will be affected plus I may have to pay excess because of someone who doesn't care who he hits.

I don't see the justification behind non compulsory third party.

Additionally, I would support young drivers being required to have fully comp insurance with medical cover and the ACC should be obligated to sue them for any medical costs they force the public purse to bear as a result of their driving until they have had a full licence for 5 years.

Only that kind of radical change is likely to have any effect on the dire road stats we have, by ensuring that young drivers learn good habits like not having accidents early on in their driving career. It won't do anything for the muppets of a certain age who still think rules do not apply to them - like the guy driving through Martinborough in his Hilux yesterday with no seatbelt, on the phone and two unrestrained dogs in the back....

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#1486313 5-Feb-2016 22:48

Geektastic:

Ratez: The argument for compulsory third party is why do people that buy insurance have to be penalised by those that don't. If someone cannot afford third party then it means they cannot afford to pay someone for their damage anyway. My NCB will be affected plus I may have to pay excess because of someone who doesn't care who he hits.

I don't see the justification behind non compulsory third party.

Additionally, I would support young drivers being required to have fully comp insurance with medical cover and the ACC should be obligated to sue them for any medical costs they force the public purse to bear as a result of their driving until they have had a full licence for 5 years.

Wow....

Jase2985

13457 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1486315 5-Feb-2016 22:56

so holding a liscence for 5 years automatically makes someone a good driver?

most of the poor drivers you see are not yound drivers who have just got their licences, most of the ones involved in police chases that end in deaths dont even have licences.

i dotn see how what you have proposed will change anything except make it harder for some people to own any form of car, especially those in lower decile areas

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1486560 6-Feb-2016 17:20

Jase2985:

so holding a liscence for 5 years automatically makes someone a good driver?

most of the poor drivers you see are not yound drivers who have just got their licences, most of the ones involved in police chases that end in deaths dont even have licences.

i dotn see how what you have proposed will change anything except make it harder for some people to own any form of car, especially those in lower decile areas

Nope. The licence would need to be clean for 5 years.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1486561 6-Feb-2016 17:22

itxtme:

Geektastic:

Ratez: The argument for compulsory third party is why do people that buy insurance have to be penalised by those that don't. If someone cannot afford third party then it means they cannot afford to pay someone for their damage anyway. My NCB will be affected plus I may have to pay excess because of someone who doesn't care who he hits.

I don't see the justification behind non compulsory third party.

Additionally, I would support young drivers being required to have fully comp insurance with medical cover and the ACC should be obligated to sue them for any medical costs they force the public purse to bear as a result of their driving until they have had a full licence for 5 years.

Wow....

Absolutely serious. I do not see why the taxpayer should pay for these fools to race around like brain dead imbeciles on public roads. If they want that privilege I see no reason why they should not prove they earned it.

Jase2985

13457 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1486563 6-Feb-2016 17:22

and again thats still doesnt make you a good driver

there are heaps of terrible drivers out there that wouldnt have been ticketed for their offences, because the police just dont have the time or resources for that.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1486581 6-Feb-2016 17:41

Or If your father knows Trevor Mallard, you can be caught doing 210+, lie to police and still have a squeaky clean record.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4