Car Insurance

ldoodle

Distinguished Member
Hello,

My insurer is Direct Line. I had my car vandalised over the weekend and am a bit bewildered to find that their 'Vandalism Promise' only protects the no claims discount - I still have to pay the excess which is £250. It will only cost £280 to fix the wing mirror so it's not worth going through insurance.

So, my question is: If I were to ring them up today and change the excess to zero (and pay the extra per month), would I still be able to claim through the insurance for something that happened before I changed the policy?

I have a crime reference number so my no claims wouldn't be harmed.

Thanks
 

jenic

Member
Your just going to have to fork out the £280.

Then, hook your car up to a 50,000V battery when not in use so any scum that touch it will die instantly.
 

penno116

Novice Member
Hello,

My insurer is Direct Line. I had my car vandalised over the weekend and am a bit bewildered to find that their 'Vandalism Promise' only protects the no claims discount - I still have to pay the excess which is £250. It will only cost £280 to fix the wing mirror so it's not worth going through insurance.

So, my question is: If I were to ring them up today and change the excess to zero (and pay the extra per month), would I still be able to claim through the insurance for something that happened before I changed the policy?

I have a crime reference number so my no claims wouldn't be harmed.

Thanks
odds are you would be done for fraud, imagine it for one minute, hi id like to make my excess £0, 5minutes later hi id like to make a claim please!
 

IAN P

Novice Member
Are you sure it was vandals and not the bloody buses,i've had two wing mirror's destroyed by buses,easy to replace on a fiesta though.
 

ldoodle

Distinguished Member
100% sure it was vandals as a) it was close to 3.00am and b) I heard him/her/them walking past each car smashing them off - done about 12 along my road!

I would love to catch them. The Hostel films would look like child's play (not the films) compared to what I would do..
 

ldoodle

Distinguished Member
odds are you would be done for fraud, imagine it for one minute, hi id like to make my excess £0, 5minutes later hi id like to make a claim please!
And these companies receiving money from consumers and fighting tooth and nail to never give it back isn't fraud?

Anyway it's not like I am changing to £0 excess for nothing is it - my premium would go up. I 'anonymously' phoned them yesterday and they said it wouldn't affect anything that had already happend anyway. :mad:

Spoze it's like everything else in this country though - rip off the consumer as much as we can.
 

penno116

Novice Member
And these companies receiving money from consumers and fighting tooth and nail to never give it back isn't fraud?

Anyway it's not like I am changing to £0 excess for nothing is it - my premium would go up. I 'anonymously' phoned them yesterday and they said it wouldn't affect anything that had already happend anyway. :mad:

Spoze it's like everything else in this country though - rip off the consumer as much as we can.
In your first post you implied that you were going to change your excess so you could claim for this incident. Its fraud, simple as that! and anonymously phoning is not being entirely honest is it now?

I dont understand why you are moaning about it, after all you chose the excess in the first place.
 

Ian J

Banned
Anyway it's not like I am changing to £0 excess for nothing is it - my premium would go up. I 'anonymously' phoned them yesterday and they said it wouldn't affect anything that had already happend anyway. :mad:

Spoze it's like everything else in this country though - rip off the consumer as much as we can.
They aren't ripping anyone off and you cannot blame them if you didn't bother reading your policy. I have just had a look on the Direct Line website and their vandalism promise clearly states the following:-

These days it's almost impossible to protect your car from being vandalised. If you're a victim, our vandalism cover comes as standard and now preserves your no claims discount. And we won't just repair the damage; if you go to one of our recommended garages, we'll clean your car inside and out too. After all, it's not your fault if you're a victim - so why should you suffer twice?

Conditions

* You pay the excess
* The incident is reported to the police and assigned a crime reference number.
* The damage has not been caused by another vehicle

When you claim you will have to pay the excess. Once we receive your claim, you may lose your no claims discount, but only until we are supplied with a relevant crime reference number.
What you are proposing to do is dishonest and fraudulent and your justification for your proposed action is because you didn't bother reading your insurance policy to see what you were actually insured for.

I suppose that it takes all sorts but in my mind you are no better than the people that vandalised your car
 

hdsport

Well-known Member
What you are proposing to do is dishonest and fraudulent and your justification for your proposed action is because you didn't bother reading your insurance policy to see what you were actually insured for.

I suppose that it takes all sorts but in my mind you are no better than the people that vandalised your car
Have to agree...actions like this cost every one else. We all pay for others dishonesty.

People should realise that when they take a policy out the excess is part of it and if you aren't prepared to pay it in the event of a claim don't take the policy out in the first place.
 

Ron240

Well-known Member
in my mind you are no better than the people that vandalised your car
That is rather harsh to say the least Ian. :eek:

Idoodle will most likely be a working tax payer, who is generally honest in everyday life, but is feeling upset at the system.
His worst crime here is simply making an error in judgement, so it is very unfair to compare him to somebody who is potentially a lying, cheating, vandalising scumbag...possibly living on benefits, and could also be a druggy.
Any of the above combinations are possible, but one of them is certain - the person is a vandalising scumbag!!
 

sidicks

Banned
It may be a bit harsh, but I think the point Ian is trying to make is that by trying to cheat the system to recover the costs will simply result in the rest of the motorists paying through increased premiums, which clearly isn't fair.


And these companies receiving money from consumers and fighting tooth and nail to never give it back isn't fraud?
No it is not, it is sticking to the terms of the policy.

If you did not have to pay an excess then think how much less care people would take with their own cars, as any scrape or dent could be repaired free at the insurers' expense!

Spoze it's like everything else in this country though - rip off the consumer as much as we can.
Insurance companies get a bad press because 'they are always trying to prevent paying a claim' but they are simply trying to balance the books between the risks that they accepted (and for which they hopefully charged an appropriate premium) and the claims they expected to pay, given the policy wording plus associated admin costs, and cost of capital required to be held under FSA regulations (significant!).

After a poor claims record then clearly they need to increase premiums to recoup those extra costs.
:lesson:
Sidicks
 

eric pisch

Novice Member
100% sure it was vandals as a) it was close to 3.00am and b) I heard him/her/them walking past each car smashing them off - done about 12 along my road!

I would love to catch them. The Hostel films would look like child's play (not the films) compared to what I would do..
Im afraid you would be done for that, under current government policies you can not violate the criminals human rights to commit crime.
 

Ron240

Well-known Member
Im afraid you would be done for that, under current government policies you can not violate the criminals human rights to commit crime.
Oh come on.....were you really serious with that statement? :rolleyes:
Can you not understand the frustration and anger people feel when wrong is done against them....and do you not also understand that in that situation it is human nature to want revenge, and you may say things in the heat of the moment that you probably would not actually carry out?

You seem to be all for human rights, even when they work for the blatantly guilty, to the detriment of the innocent. This happens time and time again, we hear about it regularly, sometimes in unbelievably bad circumstances - rapists, murderers etc.

Your statement, for me, was completely pointless, and i cannot even understand why you made it, considering the underlying message is completely obvious. :mad:


This is my opinion, and i should be allowed to express it.
 

eric pisch

Novice Member
Oh come on.....were you really serious with that statement? :rolleyes:
Can you not understand the frustration and anger people feel when wrong is done against them....and do you not also understand that in that situation it is human nature to want revenge, and you may say things in the heat of the moment that you probably would not actually carry out?

You seem to be all for human rights, even when they work for the blatantly guilty, to the detriment of the innocent. This happens time and time again, we hear about it regularly, sometimes in unbelievably bad circumstances - rapists, murderers etc.

Your statement, for me, was completely pointless, and i cannot even understand why you made it, considering the underlying message is completely obvious. :mad:

This is my opinion, and i should be allowed to express it.
would you like me to add /sarcasium to the end of it?

Im all for making scroats who behave like this and generally make everyones lives about them a living hell do serious hard labour... My comments thou reflect how i see this governments policys on law breakers etc Time after Time we see "petty" criminals being arrested on TV for the xx/th offense only to be let out with yet anouther caution or a laughable fine .... Even prision seams to be a glorified holiday camp with tv and games consules in there rooms :(
 

Ron240

Well-known Member
would you like me to add /sarcasium to the end of it?

Im all for making scroats who behave like this and generally make everyones lives about them a living hell do serious hard labour... My comments thou reflect how i see this governments policys on law breakers etc Time after Time we see "petty" criminals being arrested on TV for the xx/th offense only to be let out with yet anouther caution or a laughable fine .... Even prision seams to be a glorified holiday camp with tv and games consules in there rooms :(
I can see now that i misinterpreted your true meaning, sorry about that. :oops:
We seem to have the same outlook and values after all. :D

It just struck a chord with me, because there are far too many people out there that are willing to stick up for the "human rights" of individuals, even the extreme cases where they have lost all sense of humanity by their actions.
 

energysolutions

Novice Member
That is rather harsh to say the least Ian. :eek:

Idoodle will most likely be a working tax payer, who is generally honest in everyday life, but is feeling upset at the system.
His worst crime here is simply making an error in judgement, so it is very unfair to compare him to somebody who is potentially a lying, cheating, vandalising scumbag...possibly living on benefits, and could also be a druggy.
Any of the above combinations are possible, but one of them is certain - the person is a vandalising scumbag!!
Have to agree 100%

Lets remember Idoodle is the victim of damage to his hard earned property, and had some mindless scumbag not carried out this act he would not need to claim.

Agreed, what he was suggesting would not work/be legal

However I believe his motivation was to minimise his loss (not to gain) as whatever direction he took was going to result in financial cost for simply minding his own business.
 

hdsport

Well-known Member
Have to agree 100%

Lets remember Idoodle is the victim of damage to his hard earned property, and had some mindless scumbag not carried out this act he would not need to claim.

Agreed, what he was suggesting would not work/be legal

However I believe his motivation was to minimise his loss (not to gain) as whatever direction he took was going to result in financial cost for simply minding his own business.
The problem with that is whilst he is the victim of a 'mindless scumbag'...the cost of fraudulent claims is passed on to you and me.

I think everyone sympathises (including insurance companies as hard as that may be to believe) but defrauding companies/other motorists is not a justified response.
 

Ron240

Well-known Member
the cost of fraudulent claims is passed on to you and me.
defrauding companies/other motorists is not a justified response.
This is true, and im sure everybody here would completely agree, but this is not the point i was taking exception to. It was comparing the original poster to the person that vandalised his car, by saying he was no better than that person.
This was the wrong thing to say.

Obviously i am not in full possession of the facts pertaining to both parties, but generally speaking, if somebody is prepared to commit an act of senseless vandalism, then that puts them in a lower class to the majority, and could also point towards the existence of other social issues.
I felt very strongly against the original comment, and quite honestly couldnt believe it had been made in the first place.

Speaking of car insurance, mine is due for renewal in the next 3 weeks. :(
I have been with the same company for a few years now, and the same thing happens every year......when the send me my renewal figure, despite me having a perfect record, it has always increased significantly.
I then phone them up and tell them it is too high, so they instantly reduce it by anything up to £50.
This proves that you dont always just have to accept the renewal figure quoted to you by your car insurance company. If you feel you are justified in thinking it is too high, then tell them so.
 

Ian J

Banned
this is not the point i was taking exception to. It was comparing the original poster to the person that vandalised his car, by saying he was no better than that person.
This was the wrong thing to say.
One probably doesn't have two braincells to rub together and trying to explain the differences between right and wrong to him is probably like trying to explain to a chimp. The other however is far more intelligent and obviously knows the difference between and wrong yet is suggesting that he knowingly and deliberately defrauds an insurance company
 

Similar threads

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Panasonic HX800 TV + Sony HT-G700 Soundbar reviews, movie and TV show news and reviews
Top Bottom