Advice Requested

Walls

I scraped a car in the car park the other day. I did the decent thing and hung around, and gave them my details.

I'm after receiving two quotes for repairs. The first is €850, and the second is €950. They climb even more if I go through my insurance. I eventually signalled my acceptance of this, and now the garage wants to be paid upfront before they'll do anything. (The bill breaks down as 200 for paint, by the way, and the rest is labour). Is this request for payment up front above board??

5W30

Wow, just shows how pointless car insurance is in Ireland.

You pay for insurance so that you are covered in the event of an accident but the insurance trade in Ireland is such a rip-off it's cheaper being "uninsured".

Absolutely ridiculous now that you have to fork out 900 quid for something your insurance should be paying and you cannot go that way because they will take that 900 back in your next premium!

I feel sorry for OP.

Defn: insurance (noun) - an arrangement by which a company or the state undertakes to provide a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a specified premium.

Riiiiight.

Walls

Can't really argue with you, you've hit the nail on the head with regards to the problem.

veetwin

I'm in pretty much the exact same situation myself having grazed a car in shopping centre car park at the weekend. Ins company will cover it but my ncb goes from the full 6 years down to 3 and will have the "accident" on my record for years to come. Will have to take my medicine and pay the extortionate rate of the crash repair centre of the other party's choosing. I suppose it shows the value of paying the extra for full ncb protection.

To answer the OP's question it is pretty standard practice for the garage to seek payment up front especially when a someone other than the owner is paying. How else would they get their money if you refuse to pay/claim inability to pay/disappear?

Hachiko

unless you have an exceptional insurance company in most cases if you cause damage you will be liable to foot the costs and/or have your premium increased accordingly.

On the other hand if someone else causes damage you don't have to pay, the other person's insurer will foot the bill.

To Elland Back

5W30 wrote: »

Wow, just shows how pointless car insurance is in Ireland.


Riiiiight.

WTF has the insurance company got to do with the price the garage is charging for repairs?

5W30

To Elland Back wrote: »

WTF has the insurance company got to do with the price the garage is charging for repairs?

The price is irrelevant actually.

The fact that people have to pay for an insurance policy and then are forced not to use said insurance policy renders it quite useless

Henry Ford III

5W30 wrote: »

The price is irrelevant actually.

The fact that people have to pay for an insurance policy and then are forced not to use said insurance policy renders it quite useless

They can claim if they wish, but it'll cost them.

5W30

Henry Ford III wrote: »

They can claim if they wish, but it'll cost them.

Which defeats the whole purpose of insurance in the first place.

Sure if it'll cost you then you're better off paying it without using insurance.

To Elland Back

5W30 wrote: »

The price is irrelevant actually.

The fact that people have to pay for an insurance policy and then are forced not to use said insurance policy renders it quite useless

Nobody is 'forced' to take own damage fire or theft cover. The fact that people choose to take this optional cover and then not claim for a MINOR incident is a personal decision based on economics

5W30

To Elland Back wrote: »

Nobody is 'forced' to take own damage fire or theft cover. The fact that people choose to take this optional cover and then not claim for a MINOR incident is a personal decision based on economics

Yes, I fully agree with you but you're missing my point.

It SHOULD NOT be more economical to pay for damages from your own pocket. That is why insurance exists in the first place.

Imagine my case. I'm 20 with 1 year NCB and I'm paying €1500 a year. If I crash and need to claim from insurance I will probably not be able to get back on the road because my insurance will be way too high next year.

Therefore insurance is quite pointless for me. No matter how much damages, I would have to cover it myself even though I'm paying an extortionate premium.

To Elland Back

5W30 wrote: »

Yes, I fully agree with you but you're missing my point.

It SHOULD NOT be more economical to pay for damages from your own pocket. That is why insurance exists in the first place.

But nobody could afford insurance if it covered pissy little repairs under €1k if there were no consequences on next year's premium.

veetwin

To Elland Back wrote: »

Nobody is 'forced' to take own damage fire or theft cover. The fact that people choose to take this optional cover and then not claim for a MINOR incident is a personal decision based on economics

I'm afraid I'm missing your point here. What has fire and theft cover got to do with this discussion?

The discussion relates to third party cover and the point is unless the damage is very high claiming off the insurance is a bad idea as they will get the cost of the claim plus interest back off you in increased premiums over the next few years.

5W30

To Elland Back wrote: »

But nobody could afford insurance if it covered pissy little repairs under €1k if there were no consequences on next year's premium.

The excess should sort that out

After you cover the excess there should be no need to increase the insurance premium IMO.

In terms of probability, a car crash is an independent event. Whether you had a crash before or not does not change the probability of you crashing again.

To Elland Back

veetwin wrote: »

I'm afraid I'm missing your point here. What has fire and theft cover got to do with this discussion?

The discussion relates to third party cover and the point is unless the damage is very high claiming off the insurance is a bad idea as they will get the cost of the claim plus interest back off you in increased premiums over the next few years.

I apologise. I honed in on the line where the OP said HE received 2 estimates for repairs, which usually refers to own damage, rather than repairs to 3rd party vehicle

However, the principle remains. If there are no financial consequences for minor claims, nobody could afford the premium

Nichard Dixon

5W30 wrote: »

Wow, just shows how pointless car insurance is in Ireland.

You pay for insurance so that you are covered in the event of an accident but the insurance trade in Ireland is such a rip-off it's cheaper being "uninsured".

Absolutely ridiculous now that you have to fork out 900 quid for something your insurance should be paying and you cannot go that way because they will take that 900 back in your next premium!

I feel sorry for OP.



Riiiiight.

It doesn't really, €900 is a modest amount of money, insurance would be hardly needed at all if this was all that was required. Insurance mainly serves to fund catastrophic injuries, write offs and the like.

Payment up front seems reasonable. If the car owner was paying the garage would have the car, but in this case they have no hold over the OP.

dr.fuzzenstein

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

It doesn't really, €900 is a modest amount of money, insurance would be hardly needed at all if this was all that was required. Insurance mainly serves to fund catastrophic injuries, write offs and the like.

Payment up front seems reasonable. If the car owner was paying the garage would have the car, but in this case they have no hold over the OP.

Yes, if you normally have that kind of cash in your arse pocket or between the sofa cushions, but to a lot of us, it's not something we wouldn't think twice about blowing on a weekend or putting it all on red for the sheer hell of it. To a lot of people 900 is not something we have just lying around, it's something we would have to borrow, or give up food or heat for or fall behind on a bill.
But I don't disagree, it's pretty much standard.
Herself reversed into a car in a supermarket car park (it's an epidemic!) and the bill is €850. We don't have that kind of cash, because we have to pay for internet, electricity, a new fridge, my car just went through the NCT and needed work, hers needs NCT and work, tax, insurance is due and in order no keep my sanity there is a 4 day trip to Germany and (since the employers pays part of it), the gym.
We manage, just about. One thing that never happens is that at the end of the month there is 900 left sitting in the account, looking at me all seductively.
So the insurance will have to pony up the dough. Hope she got no claims protection.

9935452

5W30 wrote: »

The excess should sort that out

After you cover the excess there should be no need to increase the insurance premium IMO.

In terms of probability, a car crash is an independent event. Whether you had a crash before or not does not change the probability of you crashing again.

For that to happen , the insurance companies would put the excess up to a grand or two.
So you would be basically in the same position again..

CiniO

To Elland Back wrote: »

However, the principle remains. If there are no financial consequences for minor claims, nobody could afford the premium

Why do you think so?
Example - Poland.
Pretty much all car insurance policies have step back NCB as standard.
Let's take an example of scale:
1 years NCB - 10% discount on premium
2 years NCB - 15% discount
3 years NCB - 20% discount
4 years NCB - 30% discount
5 years NCB - 40% discount
6 years NCB - 50% dicsount
7 years NCB - 55% discount
8 years NCB or more - 60% discount

With every claim you go back 2 years.
So let's say you have 8 years no claims driving. Assume basic premium for you is €250 so you pay €100 per annum on premium as you have 60% discount.
If you cause an accident, you will go back 2 years on the scale, so you will only have 50% discount, and therefore have to pay €125 next year.
Year after it will be €112.5 and on third year, back to full NCB and premium of €100. So in other words in a next 2 years you pay €25+€12.5 = €37.50 extra.
If the claim is higher than that, it's worth claiming.
Even if you have few accidents within few years, you still won't go too crazy on premium, unless you keep having accidents often and end up without any NCB your premium will be loaded extra (there is an opposite scale to NCB which goes with loadings).

With such setup, people don't bother paying for damage themselves, unless it's something really cheap like €10 or €20 to repair. Most damage above that, is being fixed by insurance claims.
I can't understand why you think this would need to cause drastic rise of premiums in Ireland, if it works OK in Poland?

LawlessBoy

What are the claim payouts like in Poland in comparison to over here though?
Fake claims are a big problem and ive seen it first hand, people claiming stress, anxiety, back pains and time off work when theyve told me themselves their fine.
As far as i know most of this stuff cannot be diagnosed either and thats why its so easy to get away with.

CiniO

LawlessBoy wrote: »

What are the claim payouts like in Poland in comparison to over here though?
Fake claims are a big problem and ive seen it first hand, people claiming stress, anxiety, back pains and time off work when theyve told me themselves their fine.
As far as i know most of this stuff cannot be diagnosed either and thats why its so easy to get away with.

In short, you can not really count for too much on your injury claim there.
But that's not the point.
Point is, that small claims, even for a tiny dent or a scrape, and common, and it doesn't make premiums go sky high.

9935452

CiniO wrote: »

In short, you can not really count for too much on your injury claim there.
But that's not the point.
Point is, that small claims, even for a tiny dent or a scrape, and common, and it doesn't make premiums go sky high.

but as lawlessboy has pointed out there is a whiplash claim culture here and as a result insurance companys are not making money so premiums are rising.
Though i do disagree with the fact you can make a small claim or a big claim and there is no difference in them in the eyes of an insurance company.

To Elland Back

CiniO wrote: »

I can't understand why you think this would need to cause drastic rise of premiums in Ireland, if it works OK in Poland?

In your own example, the loss of 2 years bonus IS a financial consequence!!!

dr.fuzzenstein

CiniO wrote: »

In short, you can not really count for too much on your injury claim there.
But that's not the point.
Point is, that small claims, even for a tiny dent or a scrape, and common, and it doesn't make premiums go sky high.

That's EXACTLY the point!
A claim that would normally cost a few hundred suddenly now costs over €10-15k. How can that not be the point?
The Irish system is to punish the person against whom the claim was made by racking up their premium sky high, whilst the punishment for a fraudulent claim is a humongous payout.
And what happens when you "ouch my neck" claim gets thrown out of court? Nothing, better luck next time, already looking forward to seeing you again. Not that it ever gets to court, because the insurance company will just crumble and pay up. So on top of massive payout with no risk for fraudsters, there is very little burden of proof other than a sicknote from any doctor.
The point is massive payouts for owies with no consequences for fraudulent claims. How can that ever not be the point?
I understand the insurance companies. They cannot fight the claims in court, because it would drive up their cost even more. Politicians aren't interested, because their good buddies and relatives in the law trade are making an absolute killing, so the single option insurance companies have is to crank up premiums.

It's like there's widespread theft going on and the victim gets punished in order to stop it.

Henry Ford III

5W30 wrote: »

Which defeats the whole purpose of insurance in the first place.

Sure if it'll cost you then you're better off paying it without using insurance.

Insurance isn't some sort of instant access savings account. It's cover against a potentially significant liabilty.

CiniO

To Elland Back wrote: »

In your own example, the loss of 2 years bonus IS a financial consequence!!!

It is, but it's affordable.
In Poland for €300 single claim, your premium might go up by €30. No one within right mind, will even think about forking out €300 out of his own pocket and try to cover damage himself. That's what insurance is for.

In Ireland, if you have a small damage of €1000 most people will actually pay it out of their own pocket, because otherwise their premium would rise likely from €500 to €1500.

This is my point.

CiniO

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That's EXACTLY the point!
A claim that would normally cost a few hundred suddenly now costs over €10-15k. How can that not be the point?
The Irish system is to punish the person against whom the claim was made by racking up their premium sky high, whilst the punishment for a fraudulent claim is a humongous payout.
And what happens when you "ouch my neck" claim gets thrown out of court? Nothing, better luck next time, already looking forward to seeing you again. Not that it ever gets to court, because the insurance company will just crumble and pay up. So on top of massive payout with no risk for fraudsters, there is very little burden of proof other than a sicknote from any doctor.
The point is massive payouts for owies with no consequences for fraudulent claims. How can that ever not be the point?
I understand the insurance companies. They cannot fight the claims in court, because it would drive up their cost even more. Politicians aren't interested, because their good buddies and relatives in the law trade are making an absolute killing, so the single option insurance companies have is to crank up premiums.

It's like there's widespread theft going on and the victim gets punished in order to stop it.

Yes, I agree with you, but I was talking about something else - just small claims which are not worth for drivers to be covered by insurer (due to mad premium increases), and instead drivers have to cover them themselves, even though they have insurance.

Marcusm

5W30 wrote: »

Yes, I fully agree with you but you're missing my point.

It SHOULD NOT be more economical to pay for damages from your own pocket. That is why insurance exists in the first place.

Imagine my case. I'm 20 with 1 year NCB and I'm paying €1500 a year. If I crash and need to claim from insurance I will probably not be able to get back on the road because my insurance will be way too high next year.

Therefore insurance is quite pointless for me. No matter how much damages, I would have to cover it myself even though I'm paying an extortionate premium.

Motor insurance is not really designed for the driver's benefit but to indemnify other road users from a driver's misuse of a fairly dangerous machine. If you look at it that way, is it is a cost of being on the road and rationally you should claim only if it makes financial sense to do so. It's really useful if the claim would be for write offs, serious personal injury etc.

Marcusm

CiniO wrote: »

Why do you think so?
Example - Poland.
Pretty much all car insurance policies have step back NCB as standard.
Let's take an example of scale:
1 years NCB - 10% discount on premium
2 years NCB - 15% discount
3 years NCB - 20% discount
4 years NCB - 30% discount
5 years NCB - 40% discount
6 years NCB - 50% dicsount
7 years NCB - 55% discount
8 years NCB or more - 60% discount

With every claim you go back 2 years.
So let's say you have 8 years no claims driving. Assume basic premium for you is €250 so you pay €100 per annum on premium as you have 60% discount.
If you cause an accident, you will go back 2 years on the scale, so you will only have 50% discount, and therefore have to pay €125 next year.
Year after it will be €112.5 and on third year, back to full NCB and premium of €100. So in other words in a next 2 years you pay €25+€12.5 = €37.50 extra.
If the claim is higher than that, it's worth claiming.
Even if you have few accidents within few years, you still won't go too crazy on premium, unless you keep having accidents often and end up without any NCB your premium will be loaded extra (there is an opposite scale to NCB which goes with loadings).

With such setup, people don't bother paying for damage themselves, unless it's something really cheap like €10 or €20 to repair. Most damage above that, is being fixed by insurance claims.
I can't understand why you think this would need to cause drastic rise of premiums in Ireland, if it works OK in Poland?

What are the average payouts for personal injury claims in Poland. As we've all seen from a recent extended post, motor insurance is not profitable in Ireland. Admin costs for in a small market may account for this but I suspect underwriting experience may show a correlation between email claims due to driver error and later more substantial costs from a more extreme version of the same error, hence why claims result in significantly increased premia.

JoyPad

When I take up health insurance, they never ask if I had claims in the past few years.
Same for home insurance, if I'm not mistaken.
And the next year's premium does not change if I had a claim or not.

Why is the car insurance different? Because they can, and they make more money this way.

Marcusm

JoyPad wrote: »

When I take up health insurance, they never ask if I had claims in the past few years.
Same for home insurance, if I'm not mistaken.
And the next year's premium does not change if I had a claim or not.

Why is the car insurance different? Because they can, and they make more money this way.

I'm afraid that you are assuming that high premiums equals high profits, a sort of a post hoc ergo propter hoc scenario. You cannot compare health and home insurance with motor insurance. By law, all health insurance providers must provide insurance at the same price to all customers/potential customers. This is known as "community rating" - the only exceptions are for pre existing conditions where there are exclusions for 5 years when first taking out insurance or when upgrading plans.

As far as home insurance is concerned, the insurers absolutely do take into account claims history but the important factors are generally not the homeowner but the area where the house is situated and the age/type of materials used in construction. These are more important as most home insurance claims are not the result of the policyholder's actions but factors such as flooding, fire burglary which are only sometimes attributable to the homeowners negligence.

By contrast there is a direct correlation between at fault claims history for motor claims and likelihood of future incidents, accidents, faults and allegations (as Paul Simon would say).

A bit of care and attention while parking can save you the bones of €1000 it seems. But let's moan about insurance.

...And Justice

LawlessBoy wrote: »

What are the claim payouts like in Poland in comparison to over here though?
Fake claims are a big problem and ive seen it first hand, people claiming stress, anxiety, back pains and time off work when theyve told me themselves their fine.
As far as i know most of this stuff cannot be diagnosed either and thats why its so easy to get away with.

Yep, and makes a balls of it for those of us that actually have those injuries and are NOT claiming for the "craic"

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

dr.fuzzenstein

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Understandable, but that's why there is that vicious circle. People say "right, now it's MY turn and I will screw them for everything I can get", so insurance companies are saying "well we're getting fleeced and politicians are doing nothing, the only thing left is raise premiums".
http://www.personalinjuryireland.ie/news/high-court-compensation-awards/

To many people The Book of Quantum is a menu. "Oh, I'll have that and that looks good and a bit of that, don't criticise me, I Am Entitled!"
Great country where you can get €20k for "ow my neck hurts a bit"