this is not fair!!

[minibusman]

my husband has a minibus... in august a woman ran into the back of him (i will cut a long story short here) damaging her headlight. my husband got photos of the headlight
she rang us up and demanded 1.5g for repairs to the bumper, vallence, bonnet and headlight... so my husband laughed at her and rang his insurance company to let them know that this crazy woman is trying a scam..... today we have been told that our insurance company is going to pay �500 ... aparently its easier than rying to fight... i am sooo angry about this. what do i pay insurance premiums for? and its o.k. settling �500 now... i will be paying them back this and more when my premiums go up!! is there anything that i can do to stop this? i would rather go to court as i am being scammed here and paying for the privaledge!! is there any governing body that this can be reported to? i refuse to go down without a fight.....

[redcrx]

if she ran into the back of him surely its her fault regardless.

Did he report the accident to his insurers at the time or just take pics and hope that she'd go away?

[pussglen]

Have a word with citizens advice bureau doesnt cost anything, certainly sounds like your being conned. Anyway in my experience anybody that runs into the back of you are always the guilty party unless she is saying that hubby reversed into her. Keep us posted ........... Good Luck

[Reverandfunk]

I agree with Puss

[minibusman]

she is saying that my husband backed into her..he has a tow bar on the back which would have hit her before anything else... but she hit the side of the minibus with her side headlight so obviously she was overtaking and my husband was dropping off a passenger!! but the insurance company have said that �500 'is not worth argueing over' they were their words... but its the principle of the matter and the fact that the premium is going to go up and that my husband will loose his no claims bonus... our insurance company said that she has now come up with a witness (3 months later) ... its all just a joke!!
thanks for your answers and i am going to ring citizens advice -x-

[themas]

When insurance companies adopt this attitude its no wonder some people are willing to try to scam them. I agree with you - its wrong in principle. I think all you can do is take it through your insurer's complaints procedure and then to the Insurance Ombudsman if not satisfied.

[minibusman]

yea .. i think youre right... they only seem to want to save time money and hassel for themselves... but in the long run its all of us who suffer from this attitiude with ever increasing premiums... at risk of sounding like my 7 year old son.... ITS STILL NOT FAIR!!!!! -x-

[JB]

Would the passenger that your husband was dropping off not give a witness statement? And have you explained to the insurance company that there is a tow bar that would have caused damage if the accident happened in the way that the third party is claiming? If the minibus has never been inspected by an engineer (and I'm assuming not as there was no damage to it) then the insurers aren't to know! Insurance companies have a duty to keep the costs as low as possible - inflated or fraudulent claims don't just have an impact on your premiums, they affect everyones! And, if an insurance company has enough evidence to avoid paying out unnecessarily, then they will take it! I would advise talking to them rationally - you are their customer, and they will act in your best interests (economy allowing!)

[factor-fiction]

I'm puzzled. Have you told us everything? If the car went into the back of tyour husband's minibus he should claim for any damage (can be substantial cost even for small bumps) and for any whiplash injuries. Must be worth at least �500- more like �1500. You'd probably find the other insurance company would drop their claim and hope you'd drop yours too. Tell you insurance company you want to put in a claim against the other driver.
This assumes it was straightforward case of the other driver going straight into the back of you. If it was more complicated- eg you swerved from one lane to another then maybe your insurance company is right to pay up the �500

[Whickerman]

Folks - this is simple. You pay insurance, and in the small print you hand over your rights to negotiate to the insurance company. You have no say in these negotiations. If they choose to pay out you have no comeback.

[minibusman]

the passengers were mentally handicapped.... we have told the insurance company everything ... the thing she has in her corner is that now a witness is prepared to stand on her behalf....so now we are trying to get the boys mum to come forward.... she is reluctant as she is a neighbour of the woman involved....but as wickerman points out so well.... you hand over all rights to the insurance company... it stinx

[factor-fiction]

what si basis of woman's claim?

[fishbait]

You can withdraw your insurance companys liabillity by writing to them to this effect and repaying any monies they may outlayed. You can then pursue this women for your losses through the small claims court. Simple as that, but as you know it isn't always that easy to recover losses unless there was an independent witness to the incident, insurance companies normally roll over and play dead when you produce one of these.

[factor-fiction]

Sorry Minibusman but something seems odd here.

If it was accepted that the other driver was wholly at fault (eg drove straight into back of minibus) then your insurance company wouldn't pay up.

If your insurance company is paying up then the other drver must have argued a reasonable case that your minibus driver was partly at fault. Can you tell us what reason they gave for saying minibus was partly at fault?

And why don't you claim for a new rear lamp to be fitted if you are so sure the other driver was wholly at fault?

Sorry if I don't sound sympathetic but I do want to help .... but without the full details it's difficult.

[themas]

factor30 - I can't see any reference to a damaged rear light, or indeed to any damage to the minibus.

The "reasonable case" could simply be based on a lie, but if the insurer was dealing with this thoroughly they would be enquiring as to how the damage occurred without other damage from the tow bar.