This is why insurance premiums go up ever year!

[mailmannz]

My old BMW 318i got hit by a bus way back in April, not a lot of damage done but it did pull the front pumper away and smash the fog light (but car still very drivable).

So I took the car in to BMW Stratford to be fixed and BMW ended up replacing the entire right hand side of the car (body panels from the rear to front bumber replaced, now front bumper and new fog light).

While the car was being replaced we got a loaner from BMW (covered by insurance) of a band new 320d. Nice car, but no where near as nice as my 2006 VW Passat it must be said.

It took BMW nearly 8 weeks to carry out the work and all the time the loan car was clocking up charges (paid for by the insurance company).

We eventually got the car back and about two weeks later a copy of the loan car invoice turned up at home...farken £5000!!!!

Add to that the £2500 for fixing the BMW and in total the costs where a couple times more than the old BMW was worth!!!

I am absolutely disgusted at how the costs of repairing my car were so high!!! And at the end of the day who pays for this, you and I in increased premiums!!!

So, who should I write to complain about this? My insurance company and BMW or are there powers higher that would take an interest in this?

Regards

Mailman

ps. If I knew it was going to cost this much I would have asked that the car be written off as its probably only worth about £1500 now.

[Rich44]

£5000 to hire a fekkin BMW for 8 weeks what was it gold bloody plated?

What a con, glad you didnt get the bill for it though, although I agree its disgusting and to think they blame people claiming for their genuine injuries for putting the costs up.

I saw an article the other day by the insurance companies claiming that car makers make the cars too soft these days so it only takes a tap to require a new bumper and that was why they had to keep putting insurance costs up. They then had a guy on from Ford who was saying it was complete and total drivel, they had to make cars softer its the reason that so many pedestrians walk away from accidents these days, they could go back to the old days of bumpers being a steel girder but then road accident fatalities would increase.

Insurance companies are so much like banks so far up their own bottoms if they coughed they would turn inside out grrrrrrrrr

[JonCris]

Originally Posted by Rich44

£5000 to hire a fekkin BMW for 8 weeks what was it gold bloody plated?

What a con, glad you didnt get the bill for it though, although I agree its disgusting and to think they blame people claiming for their genuine injuries for putting the costs up.

I saw an article the other day by the insurance companies claiming that car makers make the cars too soft these days so it only takes a tap to require a new bumper and that was why they had to keep putting insurance costs up. They then had a guy on from Ford who was saying it was complete and total drivel, they had to make cars softer its the reason that so many pedestrians walk away from accidents these days, they could go back to the old days of bumpers being a steel girder but then road accident fatalities would increase.

Insurance companies are so much like banks so far up their own bottoms if they coughed they would turn inside out grrrrrrrrr

Couple of things. Be thankfull they give you a BMW if the insurance companies had their way you would get a bike or walk. It had to be new one as I doubt they have many old ones knocking around. Check with the car hire firms & you'll find £5K is near the going rate for that period

As for the cars being to soft that's just more spin from the insurance companies 1st starting in the 60's the insurance companies & the government demanded car makers produce cars with front a rear "crumple zones" to absorb impacts & give a better chance for the occupants survival. This was done & it resulted in fewer claims for serious injury or death, but more lower value claims for damage. In other words it worked to the Insurance companies benefit as many of the claims where only for material damage & cost less to settle.

In recent years the car makers listening to the insurance companies have introduced memory plastics to the bumpers etc which at low speeds return to their original shape. This means they no longer absorb the impact & the energy is now transmitted through the car causing anything unrestrained inside the car to absorb the impact, namely the occupants. Whilst causing little or no visible body damage it has resulted in a dramatic rise in highly debilitating whiplash injuries.

As usual the insurance companies have a very short memory span & have chosen to forget the benefits crumple zones brought to the vehicle user in saved lives etc. & lower settlement costs to them

Hoping that everyone has the same memory span they have now found a new excuse to increase premuims & THAT'S what it's all about

[mailmannz]

JC, when I insured my car I made sure it covered a "like for like replacement" in the event of a crash. However if the crash had been my fault then I would have got a 1100cc hellbeast instead of the brand new beemer!

In the next few days Ill draft a letter to all and sundry about this because I would rather have settled for the car being written off than having nearly £8000 in repairs done on a car probably worth around £1500!

Regards

Mailman

[JonCris]

Originally Posted by mailmannz

JC, when I insured my car I made sure it covered a "like for like replacement" in the event of a crash. However if the crash had been my fault then I would have got a 1100cc hellbeast instead of the brand new beemer!

In the next few days Ill draft a letter to all and sundry about this because I would rather have settled for the car being written off than having nearly £8000 in repairs done on a car probably worth around £1500!

Regards

Mailman

As I recall the £8K includes the car hire which is a totally seperate cost.

Also as so often happens when they started the repair they may have thought it would fall within valuation but once the work commenced they found that the work was much more extensive than previously thought. By this time to declare a right-off on economic grounds was no longer viable

Like for like replacement in the case of loss does not mean you would only be given a like for like hire car. As Iv'e already stated you had a BMW so the insurers (rightly in my view) decided you where entitled to another

[mailmannz]

Re the Valuation thing, this had to be done by BMW before the work was authorised to be carried out. If it ended up costing more than the valuation then I hope BMW were the buggers who would have had to pick up the cost of the difference.

The like for like replacement clause only came in to effect if the accident was caused by a third party. If the accident had been caused by me then I would have only got a 1100cc Ka city car, not a brand new BMW 320d (I guess if I had a Merc then I would have got a Merc replacement since the car would have gone to a Merc dealer etc).

Mailman

[JonCris]

Very doubtful as it's accepted in the industry that very often it's not until you remove parts from the vehicle the find greater damage. You will find every quotation for such work is usually qualified to allow for this. In other words the quote isn't cast in stone

Also any liable 3rd party has a duty to provide you with a reliable vehicle of equal status & if that means new so be it.

Consider if they supplied you with an old vehicle & it suffered a mechanical failure such as brakes or a pokey little motor (0-60mph all day)which you aren't used to then they would be liable for what could be a very large claim

[mailmannz]

Well I thought the drama was over however I got a call from the insurance people the other day advising me that the bus companies insurance company is refusing to pay the hire car charges!

Thankfully though my insurance policy includes solicitors costs to get back the charges! Although the woman did say "hopefully we wont have to come after you for the payments" because they are sh1t out of luck if they want to recover £5k from me!

Mailman

[JonCris]

Originally Posted by mailmannz

Well I thought the drama was over however I got a call from the insurance people the other day advising me that the bus companies insurance company is refusing to pay the hire car charges!

Thankfully though my insurance policy includes solicitors costs to get back the charges! Although the woman did say "hopefully we wont have to come after you for the payments" because they are sh1t out of luck if they want to recover £5k from me!

Mailman

The indemnity principal applies to the hire. In other words for them to be able to collect the hire charges from the other side you have to be liable. But I shouldn't worry hire charges are always disputed & your solicitor will get them to pay and/or the hire company will accept a negotiated reduced hire payment from the defendants

[mailmannz]

Actually, I hope the hire rate is reduced and the hire company goes after BMW for the difference!

The whole event has been quite disgraceful!

Regards

Mailman

[JonCris]

Originally Posted by mailmannz

Actually, I hope the hire rate is reduced and the hire company goes after BMW for the difference!

The whole event has been quite disgraceful!

Regards

Mailman

They won't

[claims32]

I take you signed up for credit hire. The terms are that if the charges are not paid within 51 weeks then you accept responsibility. We have argued hire claims to an extent that they overrun this period and then when the hire company do not get payment from the hirer we call the agreement a sham and move to get the hire charges claim dropped.
I know of many cases where the hire company are attempting to recover the charges from the hirer as the agreement is a type of credit and the hirer is responsible.
The only problem is the hire companies do not seem to tell you that when you sign their documents.

[JonCris]

In other words like most of those in the Insurance Industry you delay as long as possible in the hope the hire company will not go after the hirer & by delaying until the 12 months are up you then claim a sham agreement. You force the hire company to go after their own client irrespective of the fact that your client is the guilty party & the victim has to endure more stress because of the Insurance Companies (or their reps) tactics.

That fact is that provided the claimant IS liable for payment under the indemnity principal then the defendant is also liable. If forced the hire company may commence recovery proceedings within 12 months against the hirer who should then bring in the negligent party as a part 22 defendant. Whatever the court decides is a reasonable hire charge will become payable by the NP or more usualy the matter is settled before disposal.

Just another example of the insurance industry denying the victim their rights under the law but after Endowment selling, Pensions, PPI, & their ongoing con/spin to raise premuims who's surprised not me.

I used to work for them but then I decided I wanted to sleep at nights