In Jun 2008, a Sky TV engineer's van collided with my parked car. Because the driver's door would only open a few inches, I considered it unsafe to drive. The van driver admitted liablity and so the process began.

I reported it to my insurers and they offered me a courtesy car to tide me by. My insurers contacted the Sky TV company several times and it seems they ignored it and thus didn't disclose their insurer's details for a long time.

Eventually, after three months, they finally gave the details, and within a week at the most, I had my car back with a nice shiny new paintjob. Because of this, the hire car charges were huge. Over £5k huge.

Now, they've admitted liability for the damage but are questioning the hire car charges. They made an offer of £2000 but it's not been accepted.

I'm in court on Thursday over this. Their defence is that I should've gone with a cheaper car hire and have failed to mitigate the charges. Frankly this is bollocks because I paid the insurers for the courtesy car cover (an extra few quid a month or something) and the onus is clearly on them to find the best deal.

Incidentally, the defence does quote some cases that may be of use to people here wanting a cite to back up their claims. I'll look them up and see if they're pertinent

In Jun 2008, a Sky TV engineer's van collided with my parked car. Because the driver's door would only open a few inches, I considered it unsafe to drive. The van driver admitted liablity and so the process began.

I reported it to my insurers and they offered me a courtesy car to tide me by. My insurers contacted the Sky TV company several times and it seems they ignored it and thus didn't disclose their insurer's details for a long time.

 

Eventually, after three months, they finally gave the details, and within a week at the most, I had my car back with a nice shiny new paintjob. Because of this, the hire car charges were huge. Over £5k huge.

 

Now, they've admitted liability for the damage but are questioning the hire car charges. They made an offer of £2000 but it's not been accepted.

 

I'm in court on Thursday over this. Their defence is that I should've gone with a cheaper car hire and have failed to mitigate the charges. Frankly this is bollocks because I paid the insurers for the courtesy car cover (an extra few quid a month or something) and the onus is clearly on them to find the best deal.

 

Incidentally, the defence does quote some cases that may be of use to people here wanting a cite to back up their claims. I'll look them up and see if they're pertinent

So their point is? Who caused the delay in effecting the repairs to your car?

Why are you going to court? this is between the insurance co's, not you. As you say; its your insurer's who arranged the car hire, so where do you fit in?

__________________

I don't have a bloody clue. However, they're saying that I should've mitigated the costs by:

contacting the hire car company about the terms of the agreement

asked them to find a cheaper hire car

looked for a cheaper car myself,

didn't use a courtesy car as provided by the garage (which they didn't offer anyway, besides, what would I have done between the accident and when they collected the car which was best part of 3 months)

I don't have much faith in the solicitors either for that matter, they sent me a statement to sign and it was so full of errors, both grammatical and factual I asked them to email the original .doc file and I rewrote it myself.

The credit hire company who organised your hire car are taking Sky's insurers to court, as they have not offered enough money.

There are loads of cases similar to this going through / recently gone through court. A lot of things will be covered, including were you able to "spot hire" a vehicle - (means testing), and did you need the size of the vehicle you were driving.

Dont worry if the credit hire company lose - they will not chase you for the money - they cannot. Turn up at court and answer honestly.

More likely then not there will be a flurry of telephone calls and taking instructions the morning of court and they will settle out of court...

I don't have a bloody clue. However, they're saying that I should've mitigated the costs by:

 

contacting the hire car company about the terms of the agreement

asked them to find a cheaper hire car

looked for a cheaper car myself,

didn't use a courtesy car as provided by the garage (which they didn't offer anyway, besides, what would I have done between the accident and when they collected the car which was best part of 3 months)

 

I don't have much faith in the solicitors either for that matter, they sent me a statement to sign and it was so full of errors, both grammatical and factual I asked them to email the original .doc file and I rewrote it myself.

Can you clarify who arranged the car hire? You mention 'courtesy car' in your original post so i'm assuming it was your insurers. In which case this leads me to say; It is the insurers who's responsibility to mitigate their losses, not you. By representing you, they are taking any legal responsibility away from you so they should be going to court, not you. What are your insurers saying about this?

__________________

the insurers haven't said anything, I've only spoken to the solicitors. However, I've just been looking through the court bundle I've been sent and they've put my name as the claimant, which is worrying me somewhat.

Got a call this morning from the solicitor. They'd settled. Hurrah.

Great news, that must be a relief for you.

HB

It is a bit, not for the reasons you think. It happened to coincide with my wife's day off and we fancied going out for the day. Looks like that's still on now. Yay!

the insurers haven't said anything, I've only spoken to the solicitors. However, I've just been looking through the court bundle I've been sent and they've put my name as the claimant, which is worrying me somewhat.

Good news indeed mate. I must admit to being baffled how they can put you down as the claimant without your knowledge but its academic now.

Enjoy your day out!

__________________

Personally I would be checking as to how they have settled the claim being as you are named as the Claimant. They may have settled the claim with you being lumbered for the Defendant's costs for all you know....

Plus I fail to see how your solicitors could possible accept any offer of settlement without your permission to do so. I also cannot seer how they signed the claim form and particulars of claim without your consent either. Very disturbing.

I've just sent him a terse email:

I have yet to receive the details regarding the settlement. Could you please send the paperwork regarding this please?

Edit: I then got the reply "there is no paperwork to sign"

So I've replied with:

The settlement would not have simply been constituted of a hand shake and the handing over a cheque, hence there must be a formal written offer plus a formal written acceptance. Could you please send them to me?"

I thought it was all cut and dried, but it seems I'm being kept in the dark for some reason.

another reply. He's going to send me a copy of the final court order outlining the settlement.

But the point being is, how could they have settled it without your consent. You are the Claimant, your solicitors cannot accept anything without your say so.

Ask them who they took instructions off to settle, who they took instructions off to sign the Particulars of Claim and the Claim Form.

I wonder what response you get.

The only thing I've had to sign is the Statement of the Claimant, which was so full of errors I ended up getting them to send me the file so I could rewrite it and correct all the spelling, grammar and factual errors.

Their actual reply was:

"Settlement was agreed over the phone, there is not always a written offer.

I will send you a copy of the final court order outlining the terms of settlement when I receive it back from the court"

I've been reading the "Civil Procedure Rules 1999", particularly Part 36.