Flood damaged motor vehicles.

Leekbrookgull · Dec 27, 2015

Does anyone have (just out of interest) any idea how motor insurance works on flood damaged vehicles ? Some of these pictures that we are seeing from places like York show vehicles submerged (and York has been flooded before) so how does it work ? :wave:

warmleyseagull · Dec 27, 2015

Believe it is like an accident. Insurance company decides whether car can be economically repaired or whether to w/o. Depends on value of car.

AmexRuislip · Dec 27, 2015

Leekbrookgull said:
Does anyone have (just out of interest) any idea how motor insurance works on flood damaged vehicles ? Some of these pictures that we are seeing from places like York show vehicles submerged (and York has been flooded before) so how does it work ?

Sorrry for the pun, but your NSC name does not bold well for thread title

Stat Brother · Dec 27, 2015

Whilst on the subject of motor insurance, can anyone answer this:-

Just before Christmas I was one back on a busy roundabout.
As a gap appeared I went to move forward, but the car in pole position didn't move.

Had I gone into the back of the silly old duffer, I'd have taken responsibility, with all that entails.

So far so good.

The thing is, now I'm once bitten twice shy, with good reason.
It turns out the old fogey needed all the cars of West Sussex off the road before undertaking such a dangerous maneuver.

I'm now following him for a couple of junctions and this guy is obviously an accident waiting to happen.

So back to my original non-crash.

If I happened to have been, say, the third 'guilty' driver to crash into this idiot, this year.

Are all 3 of us liable, even though a clear pattern is forming with one obvious connection?

Could I expect one of the two insurance companies to flag this up?

Leekbrookgull · Dec 27, 2015

Stat Brother said:
Whilst on the subject of motor insurance, can anyone answer this:-

Just before Christmas I was one back on a busy roundabout.
As a gap appeared I went to move forward, but the car in pole position didn't move.

Had I gone into the back of the silly old duffer, I'd have taken responsibility, with all that entails.

So far so good.

The thing is, now I'm once bitten twice shy, with good reason.
It turns out the old fogey needed all the cars of West Sussex off the road before undertaking such a dangerous maneuver.

I'm now following him for a couple of junctions and this guy is obviously an accident waiting to happen.

So back to my original non-crash.

If I happened to have been, say, the third 'guilty' driver to crash into this idiot, this year.

Are all 3 of us liable, even though a clear pattern is forming with one obvious connection?

Could I expect one of the two insurance companies to flag this up?

Don't insurance companies share information ?

Stat Brother · Dec 27, 2015

Leekbrookgull said:
Don't insurance companies share information ?

To the point of taking what would be a simple, straight forward claim, and turning it into a potential forest worth of paperwork.

Cian · Dec 27, 2015

If you live or work (the two questions about where a car is kept and where it is used) in an area prone to flooding you are likely to find it financially unviable to get comprehensive insurance. TP/TPFT insurance won't cover floods.

Far more often than not the car is a writeoff due to the risk of initially undetected damage to wiring/connectors that could cause trouble later on.

Bevendean Hillbilly · Dec 27, 2015

Stat Brother said:
Whilst on the subject of motor insurance, can anyone answer this:-

Just before Christmas I was one back on a busy roundabout.
As a gap appeared I went to move forward, but the car in pole position didn't move.

Had I gone into the back of the silly old duffer, I'd have taken responsibility, with all that entails.

So far so good.

The thing is, now I'm once bitten twice shy, with good reason.
It turns out the old fogey needed all the cars of West Sussex off the road before undertaking such a dangerous maneuver.

I'm now following him for a couple of junctions and this guy is obviously an accident waiting to happen.

So back to my original non-crash.

If I happened to have been, say, the third 'guilty' driver to crash into this idiot, this year.

Are all 3 of us liable, even though a clear pattern is forming with one obvious connection?

Could I expect one of the two insurance companies to flag this up?

Sorry to say this as I've done exactly the same thing but it's 100% your fault. The advice I was given is always look at the car in front of you at a roundabout and NOT at traffic actually on the roundabout. People stall or dither all the time.

Stat Brother · Dec 27, 2015

Bevendean Hillbilly said:
Sorry to say this as I've done exactly the same thing but it's 100% your fault. The advice I was given is always look at the car in front of you at a roundabout and NOT at traffic actually on the roundabout. People stall or dither all the time.

As said I didnt do anything wrong.
But I'd be amazed if the other car doesn't have its own bay at a local body shop.

I guess I'm asking how many accidents that weren't you 'fault', can you have before the insurance industry questions the 'innocent victim'.

Cian · Dec 27, 2015

Stat Brother said:
I guess I'm asking how many accidents that weren't you 'fault', can you have before the insurance industry questions the 'innocent victim'.

If they have involved their insurance company in the claims, its likely their premiums will rise even though there's been no fault attributed due to the sheer volume of incidents.

Legally, they aren't at fault much as it'd appear they're unsafe.

Harry Wilson's tackle · Dec 27, 2015

Stat Brother said:
Whilst on the subject of motor insurance, can anyone answer this:-

Just before Christmas I was one back on a busy roundabout.
As a gap appeared I went to move forward, but the car in pole position didn't move.

Had I gone into the back of the silly old duffer, I'd have taken responsibility, with all that entails.

So far so good.

The thing is, now I'm once bitten twice shy, with good reason.
It turns out the old fogey needed all the cars of West Sussex off the road before undertaking such a dangerous maneuver.

I'm now following him for a couple of junctions and this guy is obviously an accident waiting to happen.

So back to my original non-crash.

If I happened to have been, say, the third 'guilty' driver to crash into this idiot, this year.

Are all 3 of us liable, even though a clear pattern is forming with one obvious connection?

Could I expect one of the two insurance companies to flag this up?

I did exactly this earlier this year when a daft old bat pulled on to the A2 then stopped. She said 'Oh dear, I have only just got the car back after somoene else did what you have just done'. Legally it was my fault. But . . . . :wrong:

Stat Brother · Dec 27, 2015

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
I did exactly this earlier this year when a daft old bat pulled on to the A2 then stopped. She said 'Oh dear, I have only just got the car back after somoene else did what you have just done'. Legally it was my fault. But . . . .

There we go, my hypothetical question made real.

Shirley that accident can't all be your fault?

Green Cross Code Man · Dec 27, 2015

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
I did exactly this earlier this year when a daft old bat pulled on to the A2 then stopped. She said 'Oh dear, I have only just got the car back after somoene else did what you have just done'. Legally it was my fault. But . . . .

I have sympathy. Living in Eastbourne, it seems there is no shortage of old dears, some of whom feel no particular restraint regarding the rules, when on entering a roundabout, stop whilst on it and have a jolly good look around. I've almost crashed a couple of times due to that sort of idiocy.

ferring seagull · Dec 27, 2015

Away from flood damaged vehicles and irrespective of anything, all drivers should have half a foot above the brake pedal in any situation of slow moving traffic !

Old Fogey.

Garage_Doors · Dec 27, 2015

Stat Brother said:
Whilst on the subject of motor insurance, can anyone answer this:-

Just before Christmas I was one back on a busy roundabout.
As a gap appeared I went to move forward, but the car in pole position didn't move.

Had I gone into the back of the silly old duffer, I'd have taken responsibility, with all that entails.

So far so good.

The thing is, now I'm once bitten twice shy, with good reason.
It turns out the old fogey needed all the cars of West Sussex off the road before undertaking such a dangerous maneuver.

I'm now following him for a couple of junctions and this guy is obviously an accident waiting to happen.

So back to my original non-crash.

If I happened to have been, say, the third 'guilty' driver to crash into this idiot, this year.

Are all 3 of us liable, even though a clear pattern is forming with one obvious connection?

Could I expect one of the two insurance companies to flag this up?

Yes his insurance premiums would increase, as mine did a few years ago.
On the Saturday i was knocked off my bike and then two days later a truck took the front of my car off, both were non fault accidents and in both case the other parties accepted liability.
But when it came to renew next year my premiums had increased due to these accidents.
When speaking to the insurers its because its all down to risk, although my no claims bonus was not affected the premiums were higher as i was seen as a higher "risk" because of the accidents.
Although i was not at fault, because i was in a position, ie location, time of day etc to have the accident then my "risk" is higher hence the higher premiums, no matter how i argued that i was being penalised for accidents not of my making was told, that how insurance works ??

In the same way my son was knocked off his motorbike 12 weeks ago a week after passing his car driving test, we had his car ready to insure it, but subsequently he will not be able to walk for another 12-18 months hence not be able to drive a manual car, we have now got him an auto car but because the claim against the third party who has accepted liability( Police prosecuting for Careless driving) will not be settled for at least 3-4 years because of his injuries

On the insurance he has to put down he has had an accident with injuries unsettled, not provision for "non fault" so his premiums more than double from £1300 to £2,500 because some one hit him. And solicitor advises it not possible to claims for insurance premium adjustments within the claim for damages.
Insurance is ass

Harry Wilson's tackle · Dec 27, 2015

Stat Brother said:
There we go, my hypothetical question made real.

Shirley that accident can't all be your fault?

It would have been less an issue had I not been so surprised by the daft bat stopping I hit the accelerator instead of the break and gave her a great big thwack up the arse. Mea culpa . . . :lolol:

Anyway, with nine points on the licence from speeding in the last year, I think its time I had a bit of a rethink about my 'attitude' on the road . . . .

Stat Brother · Dec 27, 2015

Programme_Seller said:
Yes his insurance premiums would increase, as mine did a few years ago.
On the Saturday i was knocked off my bike and then two days later a truck took the front of my car off, both were non fault accidents and in both case the other parties accepted liability.
But when it came to renew next year my premiums had increased due to these accidents.
When speaking to the insurers its because its all down to risk, although my no claims bonus was not affected the premiums were higher as i was seen as a higher "risk" because of the accidents.
Although i was not at fault, because i was in a position, ie location, time of day etc to have the accident then my "risk" is higher hence the higher premiums, no matter how i argued that i was being penalised for accidents not of my making was told, that how insurance works ??

In the same way my son was knocked off his motorbike 12 weeks ago a week after passing his car driving test, we had his car ready to insure it, but subsequently he will not be able to walk for another 12-18 months hence not be able to drive a manual car, we have now got him an auto car but because the claim against the third party who has accepted liability( Police prosecuting for Careless driving) will not be settled for at least 3-4 years because of his injuries

On the insurance he has to put down he has had an accident with injuries unsettled, not provision for "non fault" so his premiums more than double from £1300 to £2,500 because some one hit him. And solicitor advises it not possible to claims for insurance premium adjustments within the claim for damages.
Insurance is ass

Blimey I'm sorry to hear that about your son, that's horrific.

I'm not surprised premiums go up, any excuse.

My hypothetical point is now real for [MENTION=1200]Harry Wilson's tackle[/MENTION].

Could he claim that he's not solely responsible for that specific accident, therefore not liable for the damage to her car.
Citing the 'victims' history regarding similar accidents?

Harry Wilson's tackle · Dec 27, 2015

Green Cross Code Man said:
I have sympathy. Living in Eastbourne, it seems there is no shortage of old dears, some of whom feel no particular restraint regarding the rules, when on entering a roundabout, stop whilst on it and have a jolly good look around. I've almost crashed a couple of times due to that sort of idiocy.

Thanks. But it makes sense that its the person behind who takes the rap.

A few years ago, on the M6, I was overtaking on the outside lane, with a slower car overtaking in front of me. Up roars some mad bint in a mini, up my arse, tailgating. Once the car in front had pulled in, I shot off, leaving said mini for dust. Two minutes later, same scenario. Mini breath condensing on my rear windscreen. This time, instead of roaring off, once the car in front had pulled in, I slammed on. Cueue, angry waving tiny fists. But she backed off from there on. Does this make me a bad driver? Probably, yes. :albion2:

Cian · Dec 27, 2015

Stat Brother said:
Could he claim that he's not solely responsible for that specific accident, therefore not liable for the damage to her car.
Citing the 'victims' history regarding similar accidents?

Basically, no. Unless you can prove an element of actual fraud.

Stat Brother · Dec 27, 2015

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
It would have been less an issue had I not been so surprised by the daft bat stopping I hit the accelerator instead of the break and gave her a great big thwack up the arse. Mea culpa . . . Anyway, with nine points on the licence from speeding in the last year, I think its time I had a bit of a rethink about my 'attitude' on the road . . . .

I did that once, in my yoof.

I hit the fella on the drivers door, at relatively low speed.
Panicked, missed the brake, floored the accelerator and smashed in his rear door, the boot panel, and rear lights. :lol:

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Flood damaged motor vehicles.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Trainee Spy 🕵️‍♂️

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Well-known member

Wunt be druv

Well-known member

Originally the Swankers

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Well-known member

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page