Whether i would go down this route would depend on my gut feelings of the other party involved, eg if it waddles and quacks it's a duck, but if the party is honourable, and you can only judge that by what you've seen and heard, then i would carefully be prepared to help out.

As a general comment, how quickly we've moved away from trying to help one another out by mitigating ones costs (does it have to be advantageous?), quick get the all seeing database filled in, you absolutely must you know, inform the collective mummy, full endorsement of the growing nanny state...

..carry on like this we might one day find ourselves volunteering for a British east german utopia with ever increasing surveillance...er hang on a mo

I agree GB, it has all got a bit stupid these days.

In the past myself and the wife have had 3 minor accidents where the 3rd party has offered to pay without going via the insurance.

An all instances I have reported the accidents to our insurers pointing out to them that at this time there is no claim as the 3rd party wishes to pay direct but at the same time pointing out that should the 3rd party reverse their wish a claim would be started.

In all cases the 3rd parties have done as they indicated, 2 paid cash up front (private individuals) and the other (company vehicle) paid the mutually agreed repairers directly.

In all instances the following year there was no increase to our premiums and when quotes were obtained from alternative insurers (as I do every couple of years) they were accepted as "no fault" accidents with no effect on the premium.

Just make sure you get a thorough quote for the work before accepting cash. There can be hidden damage and its doubtful if the 3rd party would dip into thier pocket a 2nd time.

Not lucky at all. 3 incidents, 3 different insurers. Never a single £ of loading.

Its all down to being clear with your insurers.

If you don't make a claim they cannot increase your premium (other than for the usual accross the board premium increases). If they do move elsewhere and just be upfront that you have not claimed when others have paid.

A couple of years ago my 85 year old dad an a accident, all his own fault, no arguement. £1200 of damage and when his renewal arrived it was actually cheaper.

So much for increased premiums.

That is exactly what happened to me Stivvy. The council paid for the car to be repaired directly without any quibble.

I called my insurance company and was VERY clear that I was not claiming and just informing them of the incident as per t&c's. Then some months later at renewal time the price shot up.

When I called them to question it, I was told in a very clear and abrupt tone that in their opinion me and my car were now more of a risk as the car had been "in an accident" regardless that it was stationary at the time of being hit.

A few years ago my parents were re-insuring my mothers car by phone and the man questioned why my father was not on the policy, he then told my father to wait a minute. This was then followed by the fact that it was going to be cheaper to have my father on the policy as a second named driver. To me that should be more of a risk as the car is more likely to be used with more drivers. It does not make sense to me.

If their data show that insureds who have had a "no fault" accident are i fact more likely to have another in the next policy year, then they would be justified in putting up the premium by a relevant, proportionate amount.

That said - my boon companion had an "at fault" accident last November - she ran into the back of another car at a roundabout. The premium has only gone up £30, and £20 on each of the two other cars she is a named driver on. Very fair I thought. That was with LV.

So it might not be as bad as feared.