Hastings a total loss

[daviet1976]

Originally Posted by Bernie_the_Bolt

The correct measure of indemnity for a written off car is the showroom price for a like for like vehicle including tax.

This is not quite true.

The correct term is market value. Without tax, as tax is claimed back from the DVLA.

I am very surprised Hastings did not accept your offer of autotrader printouts. However, they should have used autotrader to do your valuation!

Glass's guide and Parkers guides are just that- GUIDES!

They make no allowance for regional variation.

Contact Hastings and ask to speak to a technical claims manager. Be sure to ask for TECHNICAL as opposed to just a manager a this is not a customer service issue.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

OK I accept market value is the better notation.
My point still stands that it is the market price that dealers sell for that is relevant not the market price that dealers buy at nor private sales.
The tax I was talking about is VAT not VED

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Originally Posted by never shay die

Bernie, FOS guidelines dictate that insurers should be using Glass's Guide.

They may do but they are not law.

Originally Posted by never shay die

Every engineer's report I have seen, be it from insurers, credit hire companies, accident management companies etc all use the Glass's Guide to assist with the valuation. They may use other guides too, but the Glass's Guide is the constant. Glass's Guide is used predominantly as evidence in court when valuation is being contested.

I don't disagree one jot. The crucial word you use is "assist". My beef is when they are slavishly followed and particularly when people are fobbed off with trade-in value.

Originally Posted by never shay die

Furthermore, I would say that establishing pre-accident valuation is not an exact science.

Agree, which is one reason why maintaining decent service/repair/spare parts records is so important as can be using a consistent garage for repairs and servicing

Originally Posted by never shay die

But it is clear that the pre-accident value is just that - the value the vehicle would have fetched on the open market immediately prior to the accident. It is not the cost of purchasing a replacement from a forecourt.

Here I disagree. The time when I would agree with you is if the loss occurred when the car was for sale. When a car is not for sale, to put the policyholder into the same financial position they enjoyed immediately prior to the loss, they must have, with a cash settlement, a sum of money that allows them to replace the vehicle on a like for like basis (if you accept the premis that sale price and purchase price are different). To do so differently is not an indemnity and that is what the contract is for.

Originally Posted by never shay die

However, there are situations (such as with a newer vehicle or a vehicle recently purchased from a forecourt) when it would be unreasonable for an insurer not to pay forecourt price.

Agreed, per my examples. The main issue here is that insurers are often providing something in excess of a true indemnity - reflecting the fact that there may well not be a demonstrable market or big enough market to establish the value.

Originally Posted by never shay die

Higsta. I doubt that you're vehilce has been disposed of, unless it was a category A or B salvage. Their policy is clear in that they will hold the car in free storage until the claim is settled. Find out who took your car, call them and chances are they will still have it in storage and it can still be inspected.

One final point in response to the issue of "just because you paid x does not mean that is what it is worth". There is a simple market rule that an item is worth the price that two people are prepared to do a deal at. The market also changes at an inconsistent rate. If insurers want to allege a bad bargain then they really do need to produce compelling evidence to support their case.

[gyzmo]

Originally Posted by Bernie_the_Bolt

If insurers want to allege a bad bargain then they really do need to produce compelling evidence to support their case.

It is the insured who needs to demonstrate the value of the vehicle. If someone wants to pay an exhorbitant price, that is their fault. the law does not protect from a bad bargain. In my example, I doubt it would be difficult to produce compelling evidence!

[daviet1976]

Policy wordings state "market value"

The market consists of trade and retail value.

When I valued, I would start off at a figure between the two and use regional variants (such as autotrader) to gauge the correct figure.

It's not a science (as stated above) but it can be predicted. Just like the weather.

If the value is not felt to be correct, the onus is ALWAYS on the Insured to substantiate the claimed amount.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Regarding the market value issue. I rather wish I'd thought to see what the financial ombudsman has to say on the matter earlier. I found this:

issue 22 November - motor insurance

And I quote:

Most policyholders assume that their insurance policy will enable them to replace with a similar vehicle a car that has been stolen or damaged beyond repair. Our approach mirrors this. We want to see firms making a reasonable assessment of the car’s ‘market value’ – and then paying this amount. The ‘market value’ is the likely cost to the customer of buying a car as near as possibly identical to the one that has been stolen or damaged beyond economic repair.

IE cost to but not to sell.

Of course there can be genuine debates about what represents a fair market value. Our starting point is to consider the approach the firm has taken. We would expect it to have consulted the normal trade guides and to have allowed for any difference from the norm in the car’s mileage or condition. In most cases, the firm should have assessed the market value as equivalent to the ‘guide retail price’ (the price that a member of the public might reasonably expect to pay at a dealership).

IE including VAT and profit.

Sure there may be times when the evidence suggests that another approach is required but I have read nothing to indicate that this applies here.

It rather looks like that what I said in my first post on this thread is supported by the ombudsman!

Who wants to argue now?

Higsta, my suggestion is that you print the page from the ombudsman's site and send it to Hastings and ask them why they feel that these principles should be disapplied in your claim.

[Higsta]

Thanks for that Bernie have printed it

No new developments yet, phoned hastings tonight and was told that the people dealing with my complaint had left for the evening and that a note would be placed asking for someone to ring me

Havent managed to find any legal advice yet, contacted communtity legal advice but they said its an area of law they dont deal with, they put me on to the law society who gave me a list of solicitors to ring in my area, noe of which were much help as they were all unsure of what area of law this would fall into !!! (" THEFT " hes screams)

I also found out today that anyone can apply for a V5 registration document for any vehicle without proof of ownership, when first told i thought that can never be true!

Contacted DVLA tonight and apparantly this is correct .... and guess what someone has applied for a V5 for my car, i told the story so far and was told to fax all the details to department VC14 in the DVLA which i have done, all the operator said was that a note would go against the record of my vehicle but he didnt think it would stop the V5 being issued.

Anyone got any ideas where i can get legal advice on this, im really struggling to find anything at the moment.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Are you a member of the AA or RAC etc?

[daviet1976]

And I quote

"Sometimes the firm will argue that it would be fairer to use the ‘guide trade value’ (the price that a motor trader might pay). Normally this will be less than the market price that the policyholder will have to pay to replace the car. However, the trade value may be a useful indicator where the car was not in ‘guide retail’ condition or where there is evidence that the customer intended to buy a replacement privately.

And I go on.....

Other sources of reference may be relevant when making or assessing a valuation. For example, we would expect the firm to look at the price guides available to the general public, especially where these suggest significantly different results from the trade guides.

Customers who dispute the firm’s assessment of a car’s market value often draw our attention to ‘forecourt prices’ advertised in local papers, and – increasingly – to prices quoted on internet sites. Generally we place little weight on such evidence. Advertised prices for cars are widely understood to be a starting point for negotiation, rather than a fixed price.

Which is why I always used all three when completing valuations.

In Higsta's case, the lack of a proven service history has cost dearly. If he can prove that the car was serviced regularly, then the valuation should be increased.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Originally Posted by daviet1976

And I quote

"Sometimes the firm will argue that it would be fairer to use the ‘guide trade value’ (the price that a motor trader might pay). Normally this will be less than the market price that the policyholder will have to pay to replace the car. However, the trade value may be a useful indicator where the car was not in ‘guide retail’ condition or where there is evidence that the customer intended to buy a replacement privately.

And I go on.....

Other sources of reference may be relevant when making or assessing a valuation. For example, we would expect the firm to look at the price guides available to the general public, especially where these suggest significantly different results from the trade guides.

Customers who dispute the firm’s assessment of a car’s market value often draw our attention to ‘forecourt prices’ advertised in local papers, and – increasingly – to prices quoted on internet sites. Generally we place little weight on such evidence. Advertised prices for cars are widely understood to be a starting point for negotiation, rather than a fixed price.

Which is why I always used all three when completing valuations.

All of which is perfectly true but are supplemental points to the basic issue that the ‘market value’ is the likely cost to the customer of buying a car as near as possibly identical to the one that has been stolen or damaged beyond economic repair.

That is the starting point, it is what I said in post no 2, it is what others have contradicted me on and the onus is on insurers to explain why they are not offering this as the value. Not to do so is to breach the obligation to "treat the customer fairly" - a regulatory obligation imposed by the FSA.

Originally Posted by daviet1976

In Higsta's case, the lack of a proven service history has cost dearly. If he can prove that the car was serviced regularly, then the valuation should be increased.

Pretty much what I said in post no 3, but call me cynical but I have a hunch that the bulk of the difference arises from Hastings using the commpon ploy of preying on the prevalant ignorance (as displayed on this thread) that "market value" is something other than the cost to replace from a dealer!

[Higsta]

Originally Posted by Bernie_the_Bolt

Are you a member of the AA or RAC etc?

No unfortunately not, i even contacted barclaycard as this is the method i used to pay for the insurance in full over the internet but they they no longer provide a legal advice service.

[daviet1976]

Bernie, I think you and I are arguing, pretty much, FOR the same thing.

All I am trying to state is that Hastings have valused the vehicle correctly and that the onus is now on Higsta to provide evidence suggesting the valuation should be increased.

I agree with the majority of your comments, however.

[Higsta]

Well i finally got it all sorted today.

Contacted the complaints investigator that had been put in charge of my complaint, he said he hadn't reviewed my case yet but would reply to me within 4 weeks as per thier procedures.

I then explained to him the urgency i felt was needed as someone had applied for a registration document for my vehicle and i then explained the events of my claim to him. He didnt seem very happy by the time i finished and said he would look in to imediately and phone me back within 15 mins.

15 mins later i was contacted and was told:-

firstlly that he had found that my car had not only been sold to a salvage firm but somone had purchased it from the salvage firm aswell, he then admited they (hastings) had no right to sell my car.

Secondly the offer i had recieved of £2700 had been a mistake and that the report that had come in from the engineer had been mixed up with someone else and that although it had my name on the report it was for a Ford Mondeo and not my Renault Laguna Sport Tourer, he then told me the assesor had spotted the mistake and resubmitted the report with the correct ammount which was £3200 but no one had bothered to inform me of this. he apologised for the way i had been treated and for their mistakes and said he needed to meet with the heads of the claims department after lunch to get some answers and he would call me back this afternoon.

He called me back around 4pm and again apologised and said that they have now revised my offer and due to the circumstances were offering me a settlement of £3800 which is top price in the glasses guide for my car.

I accepted the apology and the Settlement and he assured me there would still be a full investigation into my complaint to which i will get the result of when its concluded

Thanks again to all of you for your advice and posts

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

What a c0ck-up!
But the settlement is great news! I'm very happy for you.

[daviet1976]

Patience and a friendly smile always worked for me!

There was nothing worse than someone on the phone making demands.

Well done!

[Higsta]

Originally Posted by daviet1976

Patience and a friendly smile always worked for me!

There was nothing worse than someone on the phone making demands.

Yup i totally agree, but it works both ways when i spoke to the claims people i got a terrible response and attitude which in turn wound me up till i got frustrated, then on the other hand all the people i spoke to in the customer services were completely different and would actually talk to you like a human being. Its almost like they were 2 different companies.