Miike G wrote:

I doubt it. IME 'no fault' accidents, paid for by 3rd parties insurance has
no affect on ones premium.

I beg to differ. SWMBO's insurance went up by £28 when we disclosed the
(non-fault) accident I had in 2008- I'm a named driver. Mine also went up.

Adrian wrote:
"Miike G" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Being hit whilst parked costs me more a year than 2xFPNs.

Should depend on who pays for the repair.

Her insurance is paying, in their words "so you won't need to make a
claim"

Clearcut in your case, as you know who caused the damage, but if you
didn't, and claimed off your own insurance, assuming you have a fully
comprehensive policy, it could affect your premium, which might be the
point that Adrian is making.

It isn't. Mine was just as clear-cut as Carl's.

My NCB is untouched. It's down as not-at-fault. BUT - it's a claim
involving my car, which affects my risk. Apparently.
Same here. I was hit from behind while stationary at a red light. My NCB
was not affected, it's non-fault, but both our premiums went up as I'm a
named driver on the wife's policy. I'm an increased risk because some
****wit couldn't see the stationary car at a red light :-/

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"Miike G" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

In my case, the other driver's insurance. No arguments from them.

Sounds like you need to try a different insurance Co.

That was common across a large number from a comparison site.

I don't use them, except to compare premiums with those offered by my
broker.
I've accepted his recommendations for over 30 years. His offerings are
competitive with those I see online, and having all my details and what I'll
accept on record makes an ins Co change or policy renewal simple and hassle
free. A signature and a payment is all he usually requires.
And a quick telephone call is enough to get insurance on a car I might have
decided to buy
Maybe I should thank him for my claim experiences.
Mike.

"Miike G" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Sounds like you need to try a different insurance Co.

That was common across a large number from a comparison site.

I don't use them, except to compare premiums with those offered by my
broker.

Oh, likewise. But they're good for playing around with "What if...?"

(And, yes, my broker is not only cheaper than the best of the comparison
site quotes, but a better policy - and they're top people.)

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"Miike G" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Sounds like you need to try a different insurance Co.

That was common across a large number from a comparison site.

I don't use them, except to compare premiums with those offered by my
broker.

Oh, likewise. But they're good for playing around with "What if...?"

(And, yes, my broker is not only cheaper than the best of the comparison
site quotes, but a better policy - and they're top people.)

Sounds like he should be doing a better job if your premium increases for
'no fault' damage to your car
Mike..

"Chris Bartram" wrote in message
...
Miike G wrote:

I doubt it. IME 'no fault' accidents, paid for by 3rd parties insurance
has no affect on ones premium.

I beg to differ. SWMBO's insurance went up by £28 when we disclosed the
(non-fault) accident I had in 2008- I'm a named driver. Mine also went up.

Maybe my broker only offers me policies from more reputable companies. He
knows I'm not interested in the cheapest. I just don't want any hassle if I
have a claim. Or a penalty for any 'no fault' damage.
Mike.

"Elder" wrote in message
...

Not that ****.


That has to be the shortest and most irrelevant mini review ever, before the
topic went well OT...

Tim

In article ,
says...

"Elder" wrote in message
...

Not that ****.


That has to be the shortest and most irrelevant mini review ever, before the
topic went well OT...

Tim


Hardly OT, it was about a modification to my car.

With about 90 miles under my belt in it, I'm quite impressed.
Shame they disabled the on board bluetooth, would have quite liked to
have seen how good it was to work with my phone.

Good things, engine not bad, cruise control excellent, handling smooth
but a little soggy, perfect for where it is aimed I guess.

Bad things, handbrake lever is too far back, worse even than with the
Saab 9000 and I have the seat almost all the way back, rear view mirror
is too low down, even with seat at lowest setting, anything around the
passenger side front wing doesn't exist. What's with the stupid need to
have the clutch pressed in to start the engine?

Loving the cruise, sitting in 4th at 50, on cruise seeing 85mpg for over
5 miles. Tried 5th and it dropped to 68. Nice up/down control for the
cruise too, can accelerate quite well without dropping off the cruise.
Would be perfect with an auto.
--
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553

Elder wrote:
In article ,
says...
"Elder" wrote in message
...

Not that ****.


That has to be the shortest and most irrelevant mini review ever, before the
topic went well OT...

Tim


Hardly OT, it was about a modification to my car.

With about 90 miles under my belt in it, I'm quite impressed.
Shame they disabled the on board bluetooth, would have quite liked to
have seen how good it was to work with my phone.

Heheh, have you still got some HTC thing? My experience of an HTC touch
and a Parrot BT kit is woeful. Is the bluetooth disabled, or does it
just not work with your phone? (c:

Good things, engine not bad, cruise control excellent, handling smooth
but a little soggy, perfect for where it is aimed I guess.

Bad things, handbrake lever is too far back, worse even than with the
Saab 9000 and I have the seat almost all the way back, rear view mirror
is too low down, even with seat at lowest setting, anything around the
passenger side front wing doesn't exist. What's with the stupid need to
have the clutch pressed in to start the engine?

Like on Saabs of the last 10 years or so? Mate's Chrysler Neon was the
same. Stops 'merkins (and UKians too now probably) starting in gear,
leaping forwards and suing the manufacturer for hitting the car in front.

--
Douglas

"Adrian" wrote:
My NCB is untouched. It's down as not-at-fault. BUT - it's a claim
involving my car, which affects my risk. Apparently.

I guess the theory behind it is that one more incident involving a third
party hitting your car when parked means that the chances are slightly
higher of you needing to claim on your own insurance as a result of someone
doing it and not leaving their details. Or something.

--
"For want of the price of tea and a slice, the old man died."