|
But my house and contents policy is "new for old", so why not my car policy? Just for the record, there was 6mm tread on the front tyres and 4mm on the back. The fronts were 10 months old and had covered 6.5k miles. The rears were about two and a half years old and had done about 27k.
|
|
It is a tad unfair. Whilst you can see the insurers take on it I doubt you were planning on spending any money on tyres any time soon.
|
Seems outrageous to me that a combination of wear and tear allowance and excess can rob you of any payout at all. One or the other, but not both. Mark is bound to know the full score on this.
HJ
|
|
It's a con - you should name & shame the insurance company, when you make a claim following an accident they don't deduct money from your claim depending on how many stonechips/scrapes or "supermarket dents" you have in your bodywork --- at least not yet anyway !!!
|
>>It's a con
No its not.
Do you believe that you should be able to use a tyre for half its life, claim for damage to them, and then have new ones given to you ? Does that seem reasonable ? Because firstly you would be making a profit out of your insurance, which is not the point, and second you would be creating a situation when we would have a massive raise in claims for tyres. You would then pay for this in your insurance premkium, irrespective of whether or not you have claimed for tyres. Still like the idea ?
Perhaps you would prefer they give you part worn tyres where you have no idea of the history ? Or maybe lower value tyres ?
Or maybe if you bought a tyre for £100 and then used it for half its life, paying you for the half you didn't use and therefore lost is actually reasonable ?
>>when you make a claim following an accident they don't deduct money from your claim depending on how many stonechips/scrapes or "supermarket dents" you have in your bodywork
Of course they do. Or do you believe that the condition of a car has no effect on its "write off" value ? Or do you believe that someone with the tattiest vehicle on the planet should receive the same money as the man with the smartest example on the planet ?
And why do you think you get less value for a 10 year old car then you get for a new one ?? That wouldn't be because it was part worn, would it ?
And you know our approach to naming and shaming so even if you had been right, which you are not, it wouldn't have been acceptable here.
On the other point is the excess. Clearly an insurance company uses and excess to reduce the value of a claim, to avoid the small claims all together, and discourage you from making claims. In return for that you get a cheaper premium - or in some cases you get the insurance company to accept your policy where otherwise you might not.
You have had the benefit of that, and now you are finding out why. I have some sympathy for you, but you should have been aware of the possible effect of your policy excesses. (actually looking at your note I guess you were, so more of a warning to others).
I'm afraid that the insurance company are behaving exactly correctly in this case. I would also recommend that you read your policy document to check that there is nothing else in there that you don't know about.
To everybody else, do remember excesses. If one company offers you £500 premium, £200xs and another offers you £600 premium, £50 xs then do you know which you would be better to take ? You need to look at the premium difference, the excess difference, and think how many years you would need to be accident free to make the excess difference worth while.
If an additional £50xs reduces your premium by £60, then it is obviously worthwhile provided that you never have more than one accident in a year.
If an additional £50xs reduces your premium by £10 then you would have to go 5 years without an accident to break even.
And for goodness sakes, don't buy something you don't understand and do remember that with insurance you typically do get what you pay for - there is normally a reason why its cheap.
|
|
|
|
I'd have thought that they worked out the current value of the tyres at £287 (if the wear was about 50%) the idea of the excess is that you pay the first £300 of a claim (keeps premiums down by reducing trivial claims) so as the tyre value is less than the excess there is nothing to claim for. The effect on NCD and/or premiums cannot be ignored either.
I can't see anything wrong with this. A policy with zero excess costs considerably more than one with the normal excess and is the owners choice when taking out a policy. As a well known moderator would probably say "you get what you pay for, the cheapest is not always the best".
Martin
|
Although harsh (and I wouldn't be happy either), I don't think it's actually unreasonable.
Firstly, the excess is irrelevant to the argument here.
You either accept an excess in exchange for a cheaper policy, or have no excess and pay a higher premium. Simple.
The subject that matters is betterment, which is the one thing insurance is not designed to provide. If the old tyres were 50% worn, then fitting new ones at insurance cost places you in a better position than you were. You are therefore expected to pay for this 50% to put you back in a neutral position.
That this, plus the excess, meant that the cost to you is lower is you paid the whole sum yourself is simply unfortunate.
|
|
Whilst I sympathise with you, you have not lost the tyres. You have lost the remaining life on them and the insurers have a point. You could contest the amount they are claiming for wear, citing the observed tread depth, and mileage run since they were fitted.
|
So according to most of you, it's ok for insurance company to adjust for age, wear and tear in act of vandalism payout? In other words if you found your entire car was scratched, slashed, kicked and banged on one morning, you wouldn't mind if your insurance company told you to cover 50% of the bill on paint and panels as "they were already 5 years old, stone chipped, scratched here and there and slightly faded"?
Wear and tear or not, if it's insured it should be returned to the same state as before or better. As simple as that.
|
>>if it's insured it should be returned to the same state as before or better. As simple as that.
Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. You are entirely 100% correct.
If it is a brand new car, it should be replaced with a brand new car. If it is a 10 year old car, it should be replaced wiht a 10 year old car. If it is a part worn tyre, it should be replaced with a part worn tyre. If it is a £100 tyre which has been used for half its life and therefore there is £50 of value left, you should get that £50. You should be put back in the same place you were.
If it is insured, it should be paid. Of course, the excess is called the "uninsured loss" so that shouldn't be paid, btu other than that it should be paid.
So I agree with v0n and demand that GT receives the value for half worn tyres less his excess. I demand that this be offered immediately. It is his right to be put back in the position he was in before the incident.
Oh.
I see.
That is actually what happened.
Oh.
Well that's alright then.
|
"If it is a brand new car, it should be replaced with a brand new car. "
Except it is not, and they don't hence GAP insurance - more money making to allow the insured to be able to buy another new car in the event of total loss. Even if mileage is negligible and condition is showroom, you will not get back what you paid from a standard policy (cake and eat it?), and that to my mind is grossly unfair. However they will sell you this GAP policy......hmmmm.
And whilst we were talking of excesses etc, wouldnt it be nice if insurers advised of changes to these when you change our vehicle and not just the revised premium. Don't assume they will be unchanged. They are meant to advise you, but in my experience they don't. I suppose I should have AA'sked :-p
regards.
|
|
>>So according to most of you, it's ok for insurance company to
>>adjust for age, wear and tear in act of vandalism payout? In
>>other words if you found your entire car was scratched, slashed,
>>kicked and banged on one morning, you wouldn't mind if your
>>insurance company told you to cover 50% of the bill on paint and
>>panels as "they were already 5 years old, stone chipped,
>>scratched here and there and slightly faded"?
So, according to you, if I have a set of bald tyres, and they get slashed on the morning I'm due to go and buy a new set, then the insurers (i.e. everyone else who pays a premium) must buy the new set for me? Not logical, Jim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
