B0LL0CKS.

How many people have a fraud conviction for this?

It’s breach of contract at worst.

Frikkin’ armchair Big-Hitters :rollseyes:

Breach of contract until renewal, then fraud. Number of convictions is no indication of legal status but feel free to point out the bit of the legislation I’ve incorrectly interpreted, I’m always happy to be corrected. 🙂

Just worked out why you seem to be replying to my posts with a sudden increase of frequency.

It all started when I dared to suggest that your little car wasn’t unique, didn’t it?

Oh lolololololololololololol!!!!

It’s just a car FFS, get over it.

So the likes of Chips Away etc dealing with the public are thus accessories to fraud, as by your very definition any repair you deem necessary should also require notification of the insurer, this extends to stone chips as I mentioned previously.

See also your home insurance – if you’re paying for accidental damage and don’t then notify them when you break a glass you’re committing the same offence – your policy should reflect the increased risk from the fact you broke a glass.

You have a very black and white view of this, and actually that’s where prosecutions are relevant, because there’s never been one upheld (or even sought) AFAIK, because it isn’t fraud.

Anyway, you’ve just written “lolololololololololololol” I’m disappointed I’m engaging wtih someone who actually writes that.

Remember that you would still need to inform your insurance of the minor damage even if you do not wish to make a claim – many insurance companies have a rule that if you don’t tell them about damage it can invalidate your insurance policy.

From Chips Away website but it’s not up to them to inform your insurance company so not sure how they could be accountable, not that it’s fraud though.

Home insurance may be the same and expect you to inform them of damage, I’ve not looked but I found out that car insurance does regardless.

You have a very black and white view of this

?

I’ve already stated that what is declarable is between the insurer and the insured.

So the likes of Chips Away etc dealing with the public are thus accessories to fraud, as by your very definition any repair you deem necessary should also require notification of the insurer, this extends to stone chips as I mentioned previously.

And I mentioned that I personally wouldn’t deem stone chips as declarable.

Honestly, I think you are projecting opinions onto me that I don’t have and trying to argue against those, which is pointless.

Your home insurance analogy is incomparable, home and motor policies are massively different.

that’s where prosecutions are relevant, because there’s never been one upheld (or even sought) AFAIK, because it isn’t fraud.

I think it has a lot more to do with how much it would cost the insurance co to possibly gain a conviction to recover, in the case of the OP what, a few hundred quid? It’s simply not financially viable.

Far from baseless, I was once privy to the data and stats of one of the UK’s biggest auto insurers.

What I mean is, in and of itself, having an accident doesn’t affect one jot your likelihood of having another. What would affect that likelihood is why that incident occurred. If, for example, you live on a main road and been victim of a hit & run overnight, then you’re statistically more likely to have another if you continue to park in the same place. OTOH, if you’ve been sat at traffic lights and someone behind you is on their phone and drives up your chuff, how can that possibly have any statistical bearing on potential future accidents?

No idea what relevance it is, it is completely inapplicable to the OP’s situation where there was a third party involved.

That’s my point – there isn’t a third party involved. It was damage caused by a third party but they’re no more involved than I am, as far as insurers are concerned it’s an at-fault claim.  It’s essentially vandalism.

And I mentioned that I personally wouldn’t deem stone chips as declarable.

Where do you draw the line?

Stone chips; a rock flying up and denting your door; self-inflicted accidental damage; someone pranging your door in a car park and driving off.

Not trolling, genuine question.  When there’s no third party to claim against, at what point do you deem repairing damage to your own car with your own money to become fraudulent?

Where do you draw the line?

It’s the third time that’s been asked. Don’t hold your breath for an answer.

Personally I’d say anything so small that you don’t make an insurance claim would seem like a reasonable place for that particular line and easy enough to check on.

sBob is technically correct in what he asserts; in that insurance companies ‘require’ us to agree to these conditions in order to remain insured. This fact does not take away the ridiculousness of the requirement to declare all damage; as demonstrated by the stone chip logical argument. If none of us would declare stone chip repair, then we are all made ‘dishonest’ by the insurance company’s terms, and it becomes a personal morality decision about where we would draw the line.

Yes, but if I want to own two cars I can only use my discount for not claiming on one.

Why am I less of a risk due to a history of careful driving in one car but not the other? I can only drive one at once and my (exemplary) driving history doesn’t suddenly change.

No. NCB is built up per policy -literally a bonus/discount for not making a claim on that policy. If you insure two cars/policies you can build up two sets of NCB. You can insure as many vehicles as you want, all with different NCBs on different policies. (Some companies will mirror the NCB onto a different policy but that’s just to get your business.)

You wouldn’t be a lesser risk on one car/policy compared to the other, you’d just have a different amount of NCB.

Yes, you can only drive one car at any one time but you can insure any number of vehicles and build up a discount for not claiming separately on each.

Am I making this clear?

It’s the third time that’s been asked. Don’t hold your breath for an answer.

I’m not an insurance company, where I’d draw the line is of no consequence.

Am I making this clear?

You don’t need to, I already understand how it works, you’re not telling me anything new. I’m still allowed to not like it. 🙂

I mean you’re wrong, of course. 😆 I can use NCB built on one policy on a completely new policy with a completely new insurer, the policies have no relation to each other, other than recognising my excellent and safe driving. 😎

Cougar; you’re trying to relate statistics to specific incidents. That’s not how it works. You might keep your motor in a private underground car park but if you’re in the wrong post code computer will say no to reduced premiums. With close to 40 million registered vehicles on the roads individual circumstances cannot realistically be catered for.