| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim 17:34 - Jul 7 with 4939 views | uefacup81 |
I've had notification from my insurer that they have received a claim from a third party for 'uninsured losses' dating back to an incident that allegedly happened over nine months ago.
The allegation is that I parked alongside the claimant's vehicle on a retail park and caused damage to the vehicle by opening my car door against the side of their vehicle. Apparently this was witnessed from one of the shops.
Based on where I normally park in that car-park, the nearest shop is about 35m away, so this witness must have exceptional eye-sight. Given the lines of sight required as well, they'd have had to have been in a pretty precise location, looking directly down between the rows of cars, at the precise moment of the alleged impact.
What's the best way to respond to this? Deny all knowledge of having been there at the date/time in question, and put the burden of proof on the claimant to prove the claim and/or produce whatever witness they claim to have?
It seems a really weird thing to make a claim for - especially as I'm sure they can't prove that their vehicle wasn't damaged prior to the alleged incident. It also seems a bit odd that they'd wait the best part of nine months before deciding to make a claim.
I'm convinced this is bullsh*t, but don't want to give my insurer the slightest opportunity to settle the claim in order to get an easy life.
Any advice? [Post edited 7 Jul 2020 17:41]
|  |
| |  |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 20:14 - Jul 7 with 2217 views | sparks |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 20:00 - Jul 7 by uefacup81 |
Yup, done that and it seems I didn't use my bank card that day - which isn't an oddity in itself.
Based on the various comments above, I'm considering a response as follows:
Dear [Insurer]
Thank you for providing me with further details.
Based on the information provided, and having briefly referred to my own records, I have been unable to ascertain whether I was present at the alleged location at the date and time in question.
As such, I wish to dispute this claim, and would request that you raise the relevant dispute via the RTA portal and with the claimant's solicitors.
So that I may fully assess the claimant's claims, and provide a full and reasoned response, please would you provide me with:
*Details of the claimant
*The claimant's evidence upon which they intend to rely to place me at the scene of the alleged incident
*The claimant's evidence upon which they intend to rely to prove that any damage to their vehicle was caused by my actions
*Any explanation provided by the claimant for the significant delay between the alleged incident, and the claim having been made
Yours...
Should that suffice, and cover off the relevant points? |
You might want to comment on whether you have any recollection of ever hitting someone's door in that car park. Otherwise you may seem a bit cagey on that point. |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 20:20 - Jul 7 with 2200 views | uefacup81 |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 20:14 - Jul 7 by sparks |
You might want to comment on whether you have any recollection of ever hitting someone's door in that car park. Otherwise you may seem a bit cagey on that point. |
Okay, so insert between paragraphs two and three:
Whilst I have used the car park in question on multiple occasions in the past, I have no recollection of ever having hit another vehicle with my door. Indeed, I am always careful to ensure that such contact does not occur when either entering or leaving my vehicle in a busy car park. | |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 20:44 - Jul 7 with 2175 views | TheTrueBlue1878 |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 17:52 - Jul 7 by waveneyblue |
For my sins - I work in the glamourous world of insurance (although thankfully not Private Motor Insurance)
The onus is on claimant to prove you had done it, not for you to prove you didn't.
Ask your insurers to go back to them and ask for actual proof as you DO NOT accept liability.
You may have an issue if an independent witness is willing to make a statement that it was definitely you - but from the details you provided, this seems unlikely from 35 metres away
Hope this helps
Good Luck ! |
That makes 2 of us. Although again, not in Private Motor Insurance, although we do commercial fleet but I don't get involved in that.
As for this, deny liability, ask your Insurers to go back and request evidence that any alleged damaged is of your fault.
I would ask for any and all evidence from all angles that this is somehow your fault (damage done to car, proof that it was allegedly you, proof you were allegedly at the scene). Cover all basis, but at this time, I would definitely deny liability.
(35 metres seems a rather large distance to categorically confirm identity). |  |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 20:49 - Jul 7 with 2165 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 20:44 - Jul 7 by TheTrueBlue1878 |
That makes 2 of us. Although again, not in Private Motor Insurance, although we do commercial fleet but I don't get involved in that.
As for this, deny liability, ask your Insurers to go back and request evidence that any alleged damaged is of your fault.
I would ask for any and all evidence from all angles that this is somehow your fault (damage done to car, proof that it was allegedly you, proof you were allegedly at the scene). Cover all basis, but at this time, I would definitely deny liability.
(35 metres seems a rather large distance to categorically confirm identity). |
Never mind confirm identity it is a long way, in a busy car park, to even notice someone has caused damage opening a car door.. The chances of having a 35m line of sight in a car park would be remote. |  |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 21:35 - Jul 7 with 2141 views | factual_blue |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:34 - Jul 7 by uefacup81 |
That's an interesting point that you raise.
The claim has come to my insurer through the claimant's solicitor rather than through their insurer. Would a solicitor be able to access information such as that, or is it only accessible to insurers? |
At a guess this has stemmed from the shysters who mysteriously call you about an accident you were recently involved in. They're, I imagine, trying to reclaim the other party's excess. I don't know how they get the info, but I'd guess that if you sign up with them, they get permission from you to contact your insurer. |  |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 22:16 - Jul 7 with 2117 views | PhilTWTD |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:43 - Jul 7 by uefacup81 |
They've provided me with the date and time (down to the precise minute, which seems oddly specific).
I've had a cursory glance through my records, which throws up nothing to either confirm or deny my presence. In honesty, I'm not minded to expend any more effort at this end looking back through records unless and until the claimant can prove beyond doubt that I was there |
Your phone might be able to tell you where you were at that particular time. There are ways of sifting for that sort of thing which someone on here is bound to know how to do. |  | | |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 22:32 - Jul 7 with 2103 views | BloomBlue |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:34 - Jul 7 by uefacup81 |
That's an interesting point that you raise.
The claim has come to my insurer through the claimant's solicitor rather than through their insurer. Would a solicitor be able to access information such as that, or is it only accessible to insurers? |
That often happens when people have legal cover as part of their car insurance, if part of a claim isnt covered by the insurer and the claimant wants to continue they pass it onto the solicitor with all the detail.
I lot of people include the legal cover for a fixed price ie £30 and it doesnt cost them any extra so they will often just use them to try and get the uninsured cost back. |  | | |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 23:07 - Jul 7 with 2063 views | Ryorry |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:31 - Jul 7 by uefacup81 |
Yeah, that was her. I can't remember the precise outcome, but I think she sucked it up in the end and didn't bother to challenge the level of damage the neighbour was claiming for.
As for Basuco's comment - with it being nine months ago I can't recall for sure whether I was there or not, let alone whether my door made contact with another car if I was there. I'll likely take that line in my response to my insurer:
"I do go there from time to time, but obviously can't remember if I was there on the date/time in question. I clearly do not accept any liability at this stage. Please would you request that the claimant provide clear evidence of both the presence of my vehicle in the car park, and the alleged damage being caused by my vehicle." |
If the damage was then, there and genuine, wouldn't the first reaction of any car owner either seeing this themselves, or receiving such info from a witness, be to rush back to their car & take photos on their smartphone of both the damage to their own car, and the one parked adjacent that it was claimed did the damage? Or is owner (or witness) saying the driver drove off immediately? In which case they should have a description of the 'offender' and be able to ID them.
Why haven't they provided that evidence? The whole thing stinks. [Post edited 7 Jul 2020 23:12]
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 23:46 - Jul 7 with 2046 views | Basuco |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 22:16 - Jul 7 by PhilTWTD |
Your phone might be able to tell you where you were at that particular time. There are ways of sifting for that sort of thing which someone on here is bound to know how to do. |
I think, that you can ask google for the data hey hold on your phone. |  | | |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 03:51 - Jul 8 with 2007 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 19:43 - Jul 7 by uefacup81 |
They've provided me with the date and time (down to the precise minute, which seems oddly specific).
I've had a cursory glance through my records, which throws up nothing to either confirm or deny my presence. In honesty, I'm not minded to expend any more effort at this end looking back through records unless and until the claimant can prove beyond doubt that I was there |
Just to consider the flip side, if this was genuine it is possible the other person may have returned to their car to find damage to the side, had a witness in a shop confirm they saw an x coloured car hit it, and then requested CCTV footage which they have had to wait a while to receive. Thus explaining the delay. I don’t think having a specific date/time is that odd either - if I’d returned to my car damaged in those circumstances I would note that too
Is there any chance it could have been someone else in your car - your ex?
Suggestions in this thread are spot on though. Confirm you can’t say for certain if you were there (after all it was 9 months ago so not unreasonable to not know this), that you park a way away from the shop which makes the witness seem odd and most importantly that you are always careful and would not have hit someone’s door in this manner, and are therefore confident you haven’t done this damage. Your insurer should fight liability on your behalf - after all they don’t want to have to pay for the damage either |  |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 09:47 - Jul 8 with 1943 views | uefacup81 |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 21:35 - Jul 7 by factual_blue |
At a guess this has stemmed from the shysters who mysteriously call you about an accident you were recently involved in. They're, I imagine, trying to reclaim the other party's excess. I don't know how they get the info, but I'd guess that if you sign up with them, they get permission from you to contact your insurer. |
That's what I was thinking - that 'uninsured losses' would likely relate to an excess paid. But if that was the case, why is this the first I've heard of it, rather than there having been an initial claim for the damage in the first place? | |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 09:55 - Jul 8 with 1939 views | sparks |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 09:47 - Jul 8 by uefacup81 |
That's what I was thinking - that 'uninsured losses' would likely relate to an excess paid. But if that was the case, why is this the first I've heard of it, rather than there having been an initial claim for the damage in the first place? |
He may have claimed under a fully comp policy. And then pursues the excess. | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 09:56 - Jul 8 with 1941 views | GeoffSentence |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 22:16 - Jul 7 by PhilTWTD |
Your phone might be able to tell you where you were at that particular time. There are ways of sifting for that sort of thing which someone on here is bound to know how to do. |
Google timeline might be able to show it, assuming an android phone with location services enabled. |  |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 10:18 - Jul 8 with 1929 views | uefacup81 |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 09:56 - Jul 8 by GeoffSentence |
Google timeline might be able to show it, assuming an android phone with location services enabled. |
Cheers Geoff.
I've taken a look and it confirms that whilst I was at the location on the date in question, I certainly wasn't there at the time at which the claimant alleges I damaged their vehicle.
Likewise, the location it says I parked in the car park is well out of the line of sight of anyone in any of the shops on site.
I've gone back to my insurer, denied liability, and asked them to get the claimant to prove that both me and my vehicle were there at the time in question, that their car was damaged in the car park, and that it was me that caused the damage. I shall be interested to see what they come back with! | |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 10:30 - Jul 8 with 1922 views | uefacup81 |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 09:55 - Jul 8 by sparks |
He may have claimed under a fully comp policy. And then pursues the excess. |
I'm pretty uneducated in these things, but why make the claim on their own policy if they allegedly knew it was me all along? | |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 10:40 - Jul 8 with 1914 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 10:30 - Jul 8 by uefacup81 |
I'm pretty uneducated in these things, but why make the claim on their own policy if they allegedly knew it was me all along? |
Strictly speaking that’s the correct process - report the incident to your insurers with details of the other party and they then pursue. In fact it’s a condition of the policy to do so
However in practice a lot of people often approach the person themselves and try and resolve without involving insurers, but certainly not the ‘normal’ process even if it’s fairly common | |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 10:42 - Jul 8 with 1914 views | uefacup81 |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 10:40 - Jul 8 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Strictly speaking that’s the correct process - report the incident to your insurers with details of the other party and they then pursue. In fact it’s a condition of the policy to do so
However in practice a lot of people often approach the person themselves and try and resolve without involving insurers, but certainly not the ‘normal’ process even if it’s fairly common |
But seemingly in this case, the claimant has noticed the damage, known the alleged cause, but not disclosed having know the cause when they made the initial claim? Otherwise surely I'd have heard about it before now?
To my mind that's pointing toward the ex-in-law even more. He'll have no doubt claimed for the damaged door 18-or-so months ago when it happened (he's that anal about his car), and has now seen an opportunity to have a sneaky attempt at getting his excess back. [Post edited 8 Jul 2020 11:53]
| |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 11:51 - Jul 8 with 1873 views | Ryorry |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 10:42 - Jul 8 by uefacup81 |
But seemingly in this case, the claimant has noticed the damage, known the alleged cause, but not disclosed having know the cause when they made the initial claim? Otherwise surely I'd have heard about it before now?
To my mind that's pointing toward the ex-in-law even more. He'll have no doubt claimed for the damaged door 18-or-so months ago when it happened (he's that anal about his car), and has now seen an opportunity to have a sneaky attempt at getting his excess back. [Post edited 8 Jul 2020 11:53]
|
As this has come via the claimant's solicitor & your own insurers, if they had a really strong case, wouldn't they be saying something like "we have irrefutable proof in the form of photos that you/your vehicle were responsible, so it is pointless for you to deny it" ?
I mean, you're required to take & send photos even when it's just of damaged goods in a delivery these days! If they haven't taken/provided photos of the damage + the vehicle parked alongside, why not? As I said, it's the first thing most car owners would do in the circumstances.
You also said "especially as I'm sure they can't prove that their vehicle wasn't damaged prior to the alleged incident". That's also a frequent basis for spurious claims, and as you say, with your ex + in-laws situation, it sounds a perfect opportunity for them to try & pin previous damage on you - 2 birds with one stone! [Post edited 8 Jul 2020 11:52]
| |
| |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 12:47 - Jul 8 with 1844 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Challenging a spurious/petty insurance claim on 10:42 - Jul 8 by uefacup81 |
But seemingly in this case, the claimant has noticed the damage, known the alleged cause, but not disclosed having know the cause when they made the initial claim? Otherwise surely I'd have heard about it before now?
To my mind that's pointing toward the ex-in-law even more. He'll have no doubt claimed for the damaged door 18-or-so months ago when it happened (he's that anal about his car), and has now seen an opportunity to have a sneaky attempt at getting his excess back. [Post edited 8 Jul 2020 11:53]
|
Sorry you may well be right - but as my other post the timeline could also indicate that they have been waiting for some footage or something to get the vehicle details and only just now make the approach
From what you’ve posted though it does sound dubious, and regardless if you have no recollection of it you absolutely should be denying any liability and getting your insurers to put the onus back on them | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
