Cyclone Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 If hit by an uninsured driver, you can claim against the MIB (Motor Insurance Bureau), the excess is about £400 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Maybe if insurers were quicker at dealing with claims the premiums wouldn't be so expensive? Someone hit me last year. He was to blame. His insurers Churchill did nothing to help me so I had to take on a solicitor to deal with it. They'll still have to pay out the same at the end, but there will be a solicitors bill of a few thousand they'll - sorry YOU Churchill insurance users - will have to pay. This is some of the reason for rising premiums. Insurance companies don't seem to care about the extra costs involved in dealing with claims handlers, they just pass them on to us. In a no fault situation I would go directly to a claims handler if the other party's insurer didn't agree to and arrange a hire car within a couple of days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex C. Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 If hit by an uninsured driver, you can claim against the MIB (Motor Insurance Bureau), the excess is about £400 though. I think this has changed now - the excess for being hit by an untraced driver is £300, there is no excess if hit by an uninsured driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catcompare Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Uninsured drivers remind me of those who don't pay their gas, electric and water bills, ultimately someone else pays for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFoot Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 The only way insurance is going to be less extortionate is if we can stop insurers having to fork out for claims where uninsured drivers are to blame, that's the only place I can see any leeway. How do we do that? Dish out real punishments for driving uninsured. Crushing a £500 for not paying insurance means nothing as the culprit will just get another £500 car that may well be less than insurance would be on a car. Like the ridiculous story of a 16 year old who had already been banned from driving, committed another offence and was (in addition to being fined) banned for a further 12 months. By the time his ban expires he would be at an age where most folk think about learning to drive so in effect it was no punishment at all. This is the sort of things we need to get rid of. Of course if there were no uninsured cars/drivers about, meaning potentially less expense for the insurance companies, does anyone really think the insurers would reduce their premiums? I certainly don't think so, the difference would go to the shareholders, not the policy holders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 It's a very competitive market, someone would reduce there price to grow market share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex C. Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 The only way insurance is going to be less extortionate is if we can stop insurers having to fork out for claims where uninsured drivers are to blame, that's the only place I can see any leeway. How do we do that? Dish out real punishments for driving uninsured. Crushing a £500 for not paying insurance means nothing as the culprit will just get another £500 car that may well be less than insurance would be on a car. Like the ridiculous story of a 16 year old who had already been banned from driving, committed another offence and was (in addition to being fined) banned for a further 12 months. By the time his ban expires he would be at an age where most folk think about learning to drive so in effect it was no punishment at all. This is the sort of things we need to get rid of. Of course if there were no uninsured cars/drivers about, meaning potentially less expense for the insurance companies, does anyone really think the insurers would reduce their premiums? I certainly don't think so, the difference would go to the shareholders, not the policy holders. At the moment, the likes of direct line are so eager to grow market share that they happily underwrite premiums knowingly at a loss, in the hope they can put it up at renewal time and you'll stick with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 The only way insurance is going to be less extortionate is if we can stop insurers having to fork out for claims where uninsured drivers are to blame, that's the only place I can see any leeway. I'd say we need drivers to learn to drive properly. How many shunts and crashes are there daily because people drive too fast and too close? I think sometimes "uninsured drivers" are just an insurance industry bogeyman scapegoat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFoot Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I'd say we need drivers to learn to drive properly. How many shunts and crashes are there daily because people drive too fast and too close? Most of those drivers would know what they are doing is a bad habit but they want to try and "encourage" the guy in front to move faster. Simple impatience (and in some cases spending too much effort trying to stop others 'pushing in' ahead of them). The same drivers are the ones that are first on the horn when not happy with something someone else does IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 The only way insurance is going to be less extortionate is if we can stop insurers having to fork out for claims where uninsured drivers are to blame, that's the only place I can see any leeway. How do we do that? Dish out real punishments for driving uninsured. Crushing a £500 for not paying insurance means nothing as the culprit will just get another £500 car that may well be less than insurance would be on a car. Like the ridiculous story of a 16 year old who had already been banned from driving, committed another offence and was (in addition to being fined) banned for a further 12 months. By the time his ban expires he would be at an age where most folk think about learning to drive so in effect it was no punishment at all. This is the sort of things we need to get rid of. Of course if there were no uninsured cars/drivers about, meaning potentially less expense for the insurance companies, does anyone really think the insurers would reduce their premiums? I certainly don't think so, the difference would go to the shareholders, not the policy holders. I agree. We also have to stop the 'ambulance chasing' culture that is beginning to emulate the US. We need to stop paying out fortunes to those with whiplash, and stress due to the 5mph impact they suffered. Luckily I'm an old fart (well wrong side of 40) so insurance for me is fairly cheap. However my youngest daughter will be learning to drive in a couple of years, and the fact that the insurance for her to have her own car will probably be in excess of £2K makes it more likely that we won't buy her a car, but put her on our policies as a named driver, with occasional use; so that she can gain some experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.