To say a crash HAS to go through insurance

[Chelyanne]

So on the school run and bang... a woman reversed out in to the side of our car.
She asked me if we could not involve insurance and she'd pay for the damage (passenger door, rear wing, rear bumper, side trim and alloy all have visible damage). I said no it has to go through insurance and she left in a huff leaving me with no contact details, I did get a pic of her numberplate on and we have dash cams front and rear too. No injuries to me or 5 kids in the car, she had an adult passenger and they both looked okay too.

Do you think I was being unreasonable saying no to her?

@DraigFach

Report to your insurance because you have to. It's part of the terms of your insurance that your report any collisions whether you're at fault or not...not doing so nullifies your insurance and could lead to you having difficulty obtaining insurance in the future.

Just make sure you make a note of the date and details of the incident because you'll need to declare this on all insurance applications for the next 5 or so years. Reporting non-fault issues hasn't increased my premiums, but remembering the dates is a nuisance (first was someone driving into the back of me at a roundabout that was full of traffic, other was them ploughing into my parked car that dash cam helpfully recorded).

Agree with this…as I get older I loose track of time…was that 5 years ago or 7 years ago etc Learnt my lesson and now have notes in my files

I think you are a bit confused. (Or maybe it's me.) When someone says they "don't want to go through insurance" it means they don't want you to contact your insurance company to ensure your car is fixed. They want you to trust them to fix your car instead of trusting your own insurance company. Even if they do pay up, this only makes sense for both if both are intending to keep their premiums down by fraudulently hiding the accident from their insurance companies. When someone asks "not to go through insurance" they are asking you to collude in fraud for the mutual benefit of both

Not necessarily. They can mean:
(1) Don't tell your insurance company - breach of your contract (policy) with them and potentially fraudulent - never agree. Or
(2) Get it fixed privately and bill me, rather than using the insurer's recommended service. Depending on the terms of your insurance policy, this may be allowed and it's not fraudulent (as long as you don't then lie about the cost of the repair). But it does involve trusting the other driver more than may be wise.

Assuming both parties have insurance, and notify their insurers as they are required to do, what advantage do both get from not involving insurers? In other words, if their is no crooked motive on either side, why would anyone not involve insurers?

It's because a notification only (no outlay required by the insurer) won't usually increase your premium - or at least not as much as if the insurer has to shell out - especially if the other driver has admitted liability.

@Otherpeoplesteens

You win today's award for shoehorning hatred of the UK and expressing the superiority of the EU into the least relevant thread, well done.

She's very likely uninsured or has a history of RTCs where she is at fault if she's trying to avoid going through insurance

I insisted it went through the insurers after a much less kind of impact, what seemed a really nice middle aged lady had no insurance.

Get it fixed privately and bill me, rather than using the insurer's recommended service.

Why would they ask for that?

She has driven off without providing details.
The police will be on her for that alone.
Always go through insurance, you never know what will come back later.

This is making me wonder if maybe she is not insured

You and me both
It may be that she's just worried about the premiums or it may not, but while DIY can work for very small incidents I wouldn't even consider it for the kind of damage you've described

Assuming both parties have insurance, and notify their insurers as they are required to do, what advantage do both get from not involving insurers? In other words, if their is no crooked motive on either side, why would anyone not involve insurers?

To avoid a premium increase and loss of NCB?

It's because a notification only (no outlay required by the insurer) won't usually increase your premium - or at least not as much as if the insurer has to shell out - especially if the other driver has admitted liability.

But your insurance is going to recover the money from theirs, of from them, supposedly, so there is no difference to how much your insurance has to shell out, so should be no difference in the effect on your premiums. The only time your insurance is going to shell out more if you claim is if their insurance doesn't pay (because they aren't insured) and they won't pay (in which case it would have been a bad move to have trusted them to pay you directly.)

But your insurance is going to recover the money from theirs, of from them, supposedly, so there is no difference to how much your insurance has to shell out, so should be no difference in the effect on your premiums. The only time your insurance is going to shell out more if you claim is if their insurance doesn't pay (because they aren't insured) and they won't pay (in which case it would have been a bad move to have trusted them to pay you directly)

No, with a private repair when Mrs Smith has crashed into Mrs Jones, Mrs Smith pays for the repairs to Mrs Jones' car directly. Neither insurance company has to pay anything. Mrs Smith's premiums will probably still go up, because her insurer now sees her as higher risk, but not as much as they would have done if her insurer had paid for repairs. Mrs Jones' premiums usually don't increase. If it goes through insurers, Mrs Jones may see her premiums go up or lose her NCD, even though Mrs Smith caused the accident.

So, on paper, it's to the advantage of both parties. But the reality can be messier.

[quote daimbarsatemydogsbone]@Otherpeoplesteens

You win today's award for shoehorning hatred of the UK and expressing the superiority of the EU into the least relevant thread, well done.[/quote]
Well, I actually had a serious crash when I was driving a Portuguese registered vehicle which didn't belong to me, in Spain, when I was hit by a German. No common language between anyone at the scene.

The form made it dead easy, as did the insurance stickers in the window. In this instance the EU arrangements simply were superior.

@sillysmiles

Assuming both parties have insurance, and notify their insurers as they are required to do, what advantage do both get from not involving insurers? In other words, if their is no crooked motive on either side, why would anyone not involve insurers?

To avoid a premium increase and loss of NCB?

Why would the premium increase and loss of NCB be different for a reported accident with no claim compared to a no-fault claim where 100% of costs were recovered?

(I believe reported not-at-fault accidents for which you do not claim do affect what you pay in future. Your NCB may be unaffected, but your future premiums may be higher than they would have been otherwise.)

The only times I have known people agree to this, it has turned into a nightmare with the other party questioning bills etc.

random … OP’s insurance WILL increase even if the claim is settled in full by the other party’s insurers. It didnt used to be this way many years ago, but it is now.

My dd was involved in a non fault accident. The other insurers paid for everything (injury, car damage, car hire), my daughters insurers paid out nothing and her ncb was not affected. It went on her policy as a non fault claim.

Her renewal insurance was £100 higher than if she’d not had the claim. I rang the insurers to query it, and yes, that’s how insurance works. Even non fault claims bump up prices. Absolutely wrong and unfair, but that’s how they work.

Well, I actually had a serious crash when I was driving a Portuguese registered vehicle which didn't belong to me, in Spain, when I was hit by a German. No common language between anyone at the scene.

Not an issue in this case so utterly irrelevant.

The form made it dead easy, as did the insurance stickers in the window. In this instance the EU arrangements simply were superior.

Not an issue in this case so utterly irrelevant.

There is absolutely no legal basis on which you can force her to make a claim against her own insurance company. The OP is legally entitled to make a claim against her but it is up to her whether she informs her insurer.

Somebody drove into the back of my car, broke into tears said they didn't want to go through insurance as they had already had one crash. I took details and number plate, etc and waited till I got home to make a decision. My car was quite damaged front and back as they forced my car into an object so I went through insurance. When it got to the repair centre it ended up costly as it had all sorts of unknown (to me) damage so I was so glad I went through insurance.

No, with a private repair when Mrs Smith has crashed into Mrs Jones, Mrs Smith pays for the repairs to Mrs Jones' car directly. Neither insurance company has to pay anything. Mrs Smith's premiums will probably still go up, because her insurer now sees her as higher risk, but not as much as they would have done if her insurer had paid for repairs. Mrs Jones' premiums usually don't increase. If it goes through insurers, Mrs Jones may see her premiums go up or lose her NCD, even though Mrs Smith caused the accident.

It's only fair that Mrs Smiths premiums don't go up as much as they otherwise would, because she's save her insurance company the cost of repairs. Overall, it's not clear, and goes against economic logic, that Mrs Smith is any better off.

In any case, we don't care about her, it's Mrs Jones that matters.

Mrs Jone's will only lose her NCB if her insurance company doesn't recover costs. In the scenario we're supposed to beleive that the other party can be trusted to pay, so supposedly this is a non-issue.

Mrs Jones will probably have increased premiums, but why would her premiums increase more in scenario (a) no-claim, no cost to her insurance company, than in scenario (b) no-fault claim in which insurance company recovers 100% of costs, so no cost to the insurance company. Either way, her insurance company is out nothing. Either way, her premiums will probably increase.

@ChloeCrocodile

why doesn't the UK have an incident report form like other countries??!!

Because it is really easy to inform the police anyway.

Ha, ha. Since when?

Presume you at least got the registration OP?

Unless it's a bump that literally can be sorted with a bit of T-Cut always go through your insurance. You have the licence plate; that's all you need to get the ball rolling.

There is absolutely no legal basis on which you can force her to make a claim against her own insurance company.

You have the wrong insurance company. OP was not insisting on contacting other persons insurance, they were insisting on contacting their own.

@RandomLondoner

There is absolutely no legal basis on which you can force her to make a claim against her own insurance company.

You have the wrong insurance company. OP was not insisting on contacting other persons insurance, they were insisting on contacting their own.

Ah! Well yeah fair enough.