Exaggerated Insurance Claim - Fraud

[Biker Biggles]

I think you have to leave this to your insurance.Having said that I think you will probably end up losing your no claims bonus.This could be because the cyclist who caused the crash has no insurance,and so the other party(the other car driver) will claim against you.Not fair and right,but it seems to be the way they do things.

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

I think you have to leave this to your insurance.Having said that I think you will probably end up losing your no claims bonus.This could be because the cyclist who caused the crash has no insurance,and so the other party(the other car driver) will claim against you.Not fair and right,but it seems to be the way they do things.

I hope you're wrong on this!

If the cyclist is liable, then it's his bill no-one elses. He's bound to have some sort of household insurance, perhaps he could use that?

My dad has helped me deal with most of this, and so far the police don't seem interested. So probably telling the police about the fraud isnt gonna work, after all our justice system is that poor and in too many guilty people getting no charges.

The only thing where it will get interested on the fruad is the courts i assume.

[Biker Biggles]

The insurance company that is footing the bill will be interested in any fraud going on in order to reduce their outlay.If that turns out to be your insurance company they will no doubt be grateful to you for pointing out any fraud,but it won't save your NCB if they have to pay out at all.

[Ruffy]

Originally Posted by Kinvig

If the cyclist is liable, then it's his bill no-one elses.

This is correct, but how many cyclists do you know who have specific insurance? It's unlikely a household policy will provide third party cover. But this still doesn't mean they aren't liable.

Your description says you only collided with the cyclist, who then went on to clatter other vehicles. Therefore, in theory the other driver needs to claim against the cyclist (who could possibly then counter claim against you). CB-1, the other driver is probably coming at you directly because he thinks he's got no chance of recovering his costs from the cyclist unless he sues and takes him to court.

You need to challenge your insurance company not to accept this as a legitimate claim and push them to refer the other driver to the cyclist (and his insurers). You have proof you are not liable. Don't let em stitch you up. Unfortunately, it's not about right & wrong - the insurance companies want the cheapest outcome. If it's only a few scratches, they may think it'll be cheaper to pay a paintjob claim than pay for the admin in fighting it off. They certainly won't care about the effect on you of a claim on your policy/loss of your NCB/inflated premium, so you need to keep on at them to do what's acceptable to you as the policyholder.

Oh, and I also think you should be claiming off the cyclist for your repair costs etc.!

I'm shocked that there is any chance you could be liable simply because the cyclist is unlikely to have insurance! I'd be fuming if someone tried to blame me simply cos I happened to be the nearest person with insurance!

Originally Posted by muffles

I'm shocked that there is any chance you could be liable simply because the cyclist is unlikely to have insurance! I'd be fuming if someone tried to blame me simply cos I happened to be the nearest person with insurance!

My POV exactly. Cyclist was at fault, if the cyclist was uninsured, surely they can still claim against him (funds in savings accounts, value of his house, repo his TV, etc?) If they can't get anything from him, that's their misfortune. Nothing to do with you, you've got a police statement saying you were not to blame...

This thread reminds me of someone I used to work with in Plymouth. She was a passenger in a car that was rear-ended. I mentioned that you get hefty damages for whiplash. Next day she came to work in a surgical collar moaning about pain and stiffness in her neck. She'd spent the evening at A&E. Can't think why

[Ruffy]

Originally Posted by muffles

I'm shocked that there is any chance you could be liable simply because the cyclist is unlikely to have insurance! I'd be fuming if someone tried to blame me simply cos I happened to be the nearest person with insurance!

It's not about who's liable, it's about who they can get to pay up. Sad to say, it's a game of money, not of right and wrong.

It happened to me twenty years ago! In the car, a dog runs out infront of me and I hit it. I only broke it's leg and it didn't run off. Dutifully, I rang the police (dogs were licensed then and it's a reportable incident if you hit a licensed animal.) Police attended, took statements etc. I asked what I should do about the dog and they said they'd deal with it, so off I went, thinking I'd done the right thing. Six months later a letter from the police lands on my mat claiming £hundreds for vet's fees, kenneling etc. Thankfully my dad wasn't intimidated by this, refuted all liability and sent them packing to look for the dog's owner. During the subsequent chain of correspondence, the police admitted that they couldn't trace the owner and it was their policy to seek reimbursement from other parties (or their insurers) to keep their costs down. Still not intimidated, my dad sent 'em packing again on the basis that I wasn't liable for an uncontrolled dog on the streets. Eventually they capitulated, but we had to fight for it!

So, CB1, deny deny deny! Put it in writing to your insurance company that you are not liable. Send them copy of the police letter to back this up (despite what people may think, it's still about the best witness you can get!) Tell them that they should not pay this claim against your policy, that the claim should be against the cyclist. Keep copies of everything you send them. They won't want to do what you want at first, but stick to your guns - you are not in the wrong and you shouldn't have to pay.

Originally Posted by Ruffy

It's not about who's liable, it's about who they can get to pay up. Sad to say, it's a game of money, not of right and wrong.

Well, I agree with what you're saying, but it's said in a vague enough way to be taken the wrong way.

I was arguing that legally there shouldn't be (and isn't, as far as I know) a way to blame the OP for the accident, since he wasn't liable.

What insurance companies & third parties actually try and do is another matter entirely - it was the way Biggles put it:

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

This could be because the cyclist who caused the crash has no insurance,and so the other party(the other car driver) will claim against you.Not fair and right,but it seems to be the way they do things.

...that makes it sound as though going after the OP is actually legal. That's really what I was commenting on