Car Insurance - Advice required. : Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:27 pm  

One for you legal eagles - or anyone who has had to deal with similar.

On the 4th June I was involved in an RTA. I was 'rear ended' by someone at the top of the motorway slip road. Followed the usual procedures, exchanged details,etc and when I got home I reported the accident to my insurers. The call handlers took the details before passing me on to what I now know to be an 'accident management company' who arranged a courtesy car for me - they told me this was essential as my car was not legally driveable (even though I'd driven it the five miles from the scene of the accident to home without any problems) as the hatchback tail-lift had been curved in, and I was unable to open the boot, so could not access my spare wheel.
After going through the 'rigmarole' of sorting the car (which involved a conference call to the DVLA), I was then passed to my insurers who re-confirmed everything and said they be in touch. At the end of nearly ninety minutes on the phone, i hung up to find I had a voice-mail from the solicitors who would be handling my 'personal injury' claim (genuinely have whiplash). All is well with the world thought I, and assumed all would be resolved to my satisfaction.
I now find this wont be the case. Long story short - my insurers, I feel, are trying to 'railroad' me into accepting my car as a write-off, which they will pay out on, then claim back from the third party's insurer. This works in theory, however my car is 12 years old, 150k on the clock, and not in 'showroom' condition (but mechanically sound, and reliable - I have owned it from brand new) - so has a market value of probably 500 quid if I'm lucky. Take away my excess of 150, and the fact that I will have to pay the remainder of my insurance premium in full, and I'll end up in the position of having no car, and no money toward a replacement (could actually end up out of pocket!). I've asked the advice of friends and workmates who've been in similar positions, and have had conflicting stories. Some say it should be nothing to do with my insurer, and any claim should be direct with the 3rd party insurer, thus avoiding the excess, and premium charges. One suggested I take what was on offer,but could then take the 3rd party to the small claims court for my losses (ie the fact that I end up with no means of transport despite the insurance payout). Another has suggested I drop the claim for vehicle damage, pay for the repairs myself -and just await the personal injury compensation. This would also leave me quite a bit out of pocket, as I believe I would then be charged for the courtesy car I've been driving for the last 9 days.

Can anyone suggest a way I might get through this without ending up skint in the short term? All suggestions much appreciated.

Re: Car Insurance - Advice required. : Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:39 pm  

With many insurers if the other party has admitted liability then you won't have to pay any excess as your insurers will recover the full costs from the other insurance company.

Re: Car Insurance - Advice required. : Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:42 pm  

My view would be that, if you were not at fault (and if there's no dispute about who was at fault), all costs should be recovered from the third party insurers. You shouldn't have to pay anything except for the standard 'admin fee' to cancel your policy. That's how it worked when a third party wrote my car off a few years ago.

Re: Car Insurance - Advice required. : Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:45 pm  

Can you still buy the written off vehicle back from the insurers, you used to be able to - might be a route to take after they've settled and sorted, ultimately your problem is that you've now lost a reliable car that had its full history with you and the value of it is going to buy you something of a similar age and standard but with no knowledge of its repair state.

They've got you hooked now with the courtesy car though.

Re: Car Insurance - Advice required. : Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:30 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Can you still buy the written off vehicle back from the insurers, you used to be able to - might be a route to take after they've settled and sorted, ultimately your problem is that you've now lost a reliable car that had its full history with you and the value of it is going to buy you something of a similar age and standard but with no knowledge of its repair state.

They've got you hooked now with the courtesy car though.

The 'buy back' option is still there - dependant on the scale of damage - but is not a 'policy' of my insurers!!

That's my point - the law says that if I'm the innocent party I am entitled to be returned to the position I was in before the accident occured (repairs, etc) - OR be compensated to the 'full market value' of my vehicle - which is all well and good, and the 'market value' of my car might be 500/600 quid -but there is no way I could buy a car for that sort of money and by guaranteed the reliability that I know comes with my car!!

As regards the courtesy car - does anyone know what the legal standpoint is in this case? Is it true that the car is not allowed to be driven because the boot wont open? As several people have pointed out to me, a lot of cars these days don't even have a spare wheel....and I can still access the boot from the back seat anyway!! Could it be argued I was coerced into signing up for the courtesy car under a false pretence?? I know I'm probably clutching at straws here, but it just seems so unjust that I'll end up shelling out whichever option I take!!

Re: Car Insurance - Advice required. : Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:01 am  

I think there is some confusion here and I don't think you have the full picture.
I suspect you are being scammed.

Insurance companies are just in it for the money. A "courtesy car" is just that. If a comprehensive policyholder was off the road, then his insurance company would provide him with a temporary replacement, as a courtesy. A benefit under the policy. But you can have it only as long as they think reasonable. Usually, until either repairs are complete, or you get paid out as a write off.
The point is, you NEVER pay for a "courtesy car", you already paid for it when you took out the policy.

Then what happened was that insurance companies realised they could make a nice little earner on the back of non-fault accidents, and that's when the scams started.
Suddenly, instead of getting a courtesy car, you typically would find yourself diverted - very often by a claims management company - into the arms of a CREDIT HIRE company. They get you to formally sign up legal hire documents, and this means YOU OWE the full cost of hiring their vehicle for as long as you have it. If they can claim that from the other insurer then they will, but where that goes pear shaped, the hirer has to pay. The bill can be £700 a week or more.

So many people have been scammed in this way, they say they had no idea they were hiring on credit, but when it comes down to it, it emerges there is indeed a valid credit agreement which they have signed. Moral - don't sign stuff you don't know what it is. Many are coerced under false pretence - the "pretend a credit hire is just a courtesy car" scam is widespread. You say it was all apporved by your insurer - I'd check the policy. That will tell you if you were entitled to a courtesy car and if so then they should have provided one.
There is no legal requirement to have to be able to get to your spare wheel as there is no legal requirement to HAVE a spare. So if you could prove that's what you were told then again, a scam, but no doubt the CMC would laugh, and flatly deny saying any such thing.

The car remains your property. It doesn't sound like it is that category of write off that can't be put back on the road so you keep the car, and your insurance company has to pay you the pre-accident value, minus the value of the salvage. They may not want to, but it isn't up to them. You are not "buying back" anything. Your car is your property, and they are just paying you a sum of money for its loss in value. Tell them that is a policy of yours!

You don't have to claim on your policy. You could claim from the other driver's policy, but it would work just the same way (PAV minus salvage). Whether they claim the money back from the other driver is their problem, it doesn't affect your claim (though of course may affect your next renewal).

One suggested I take what was on offer,but could then take the 3rd party to the small claims court for my losses (ie the fact that I end up with no means of transport despite the insurance payout).

What nonsense. As there is no liability issue, you should be able to negotiate a payment for ALL valid heads of claim with the other driver's insurance company, so why would any court need to be involved? Second, you didn't end up with no means of transport, you ahve a "courtesy car". If you get your car back and fix it, you have that. If you instead take the money, then it is up to you to get a replacement. So theer is no possible claim "for ending up with no means of transport". If you end up temporarily without wheels while it is sorted out then you can claim maybe £75 a week for loss of use and inconvenience but that's about it. (But if you do take the net money from your own insurer, of course you then also claim "the excess" from the other driver, unless your insurance company recover it for you.)

Re: Car Insurance - Advice required. : Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:48 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Suddenly, instead of getting a courtesy car, you typically would find yourself diverted - very often by a claims management company - into the arms of a CREDIT HIRE company. They get you to formally sign up legal hire documents, and this means YOU OWE the full cost of hiring their vehicle for as long as you have it. If they can claim that from the other insurer then they will, but where that goes pear shaped, the hirer has to pay. The bill can be £700 a week or more.

I had a claims management company on the phone to me about 2 months ago.

In February I was reversing onto a prosepective customer's drive when he reversed into the side of my van. We both got out and his immediate statement was "what the hell are you doing on my drive?". To which I replied "well I was hoping to sell you some fish but I suppose that's bolloxed now". His initial statement led me to believe that he had simply reversed without looking behind him.

We exchanged details and I informed my insurance company of the incident and when asked if I wanted to make a claim, told them that I didn't and because I had a £200 excess, I would be sorting the damage to my van myself. I asked if this would have any detrimental effect on my NCB or accident record and was assured by them that it wouldn't. As it was, the repair to my van came in at less than my excess anyway.

Fast forward to April and I get a phone call from a claims management company suggesting that I accept 50/50 liability. This means I pay 50% of rectifying the damage to my vehicle and 50% to rectifying the damage to his. Quite different to "knock for knock".

When I refused to accept any liability, I was then passed to their "legal expert". This woman tried to tell me that if I refused to accept liability they would have no option other than to take me to court and the court would find that I was liable for 50/50 repairs, plus I would have to pay all costs. Her reasoning being that as we were both reversing, we were both equally liable. I asked if she'd seen the photographs of the collision and when she affirmed she had, I then asked her how, given all the laws of physics and vehicle dynamics, it would be possible for me to reverse sideways into the back of another vehicle. Her response was that was irrelevant and in all previous cases, the courts had found both parties to have 50/50 liability.

I asked her to send me the relevant case law and once I had an opportunity to read and further assess my legal position, I would get back in touch. So far I've heard buggerall from them.

A good start in reducing insurance premiums could be made by outlawing these scavenging, para-legal bastads who masquerade as "claims management companies".

Re: Car Insurance - Advice required. : Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:10 am  

You're not much of a salesman if you still couldn't sell him a fish though.

Re: Car Insurance - Advice required. : Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:41 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

You're not much of a salesman if you still couldn't sell him a fish though.

Any good salesman knows when there's no chance of a deal and simply moves on to the next s̶u̶c̶k̶e̶r̶ prospect

Re: Car Insurance - Advice required. : Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:00 am  

A friend of mine got rear ended on the motorway recently too. His car had the same issue, his rear bumper was damaged and the lock to the boot was faulty so it had been written off. He actually works for aviva insurance so was clued up on what to do and told me all about it.

First of all, don't accept the first offer for your car. They will try and get away with offering as little as possible, Do as much searching online or locally for car's of the similar type and age and see what they go for and then appeal for a better payment if you think it is unfair, which it probably will be. If you have a full service history you could even forward that and argue that it would add to the value.

Secondly the car is yours and even after they have paid for the value of your car as a write off you can you still take it back. That is exactly what my friend did. He was looking for a new car anyway but he got about £700 for the value of his car, had the vehicle returned to him and had a mechanic he knows repair it for him. It was then sold on.


I'm no expert but you shouldn't be paying for anything or ending up out of pocket in anyway as you are 100% not at fault.