I will try to keep this brief. I am an expert on driving and not insurance, so I could do with some help on this.

I bought a second car for us in November. It is an old Renualt Laguna, but it is a top of the range car with one owner from new, 52k, full history and was unmarked. We looked for months to find the right car. Anyway, It is insured for me and my wife to drive.

Twoweeks into ownership and she is hit by a car who basically dented the front wing, broke the headlight and mangled the corner of the bumper. There is no dispute at all over blame, it is clearly his fault and he accepted that.

So, details exchanged but she phoned me as she was concerned about his behaviour. She said he 'seems to be on something'. This was 3 weeks before Christmas, so my immediate recation is drink-driving and I told her to hang on whilst I get the police there. She told him to wait as the police were on their way and he then had to leave in a hurry.

So, we were left with his details and the car type, reg number etc.

I contacted my insurures on the Monday (this happened on Sunday) and they told me to claim of him (ours is 3rd part F&T). I contacted his insurers who took the details over the phone and would be in touch. I called now on 6 occassions. They have phoned him, left messages, then told me his number is not in use, they have written to him 3 times. He has so far ignored everything.

So. Any suggestions? I had the car looked at and had an estimate which came to £597 to repair the damage. We paid £600 for the car, so nice though it is I fully expected them to write the car off. But they have told me that if they settle it will be repaired.

I am baffled and slightly frustrated by the whole process so far. How long is reasonable for this oik to repsond?

My theory is that the driver was not actually the insured at all and has just used his car and given his name. Obviously that leaves the insured with a dilema. Ignoring it doesn't help though.

Any thoughts?

You'll just have to hang on for a bit longer. It is usual that if an insurance company does not hear anything back from their policyholder, they will in time, make an offer on a without prejudice basis but it does take time:cool:

Your insurers should be chasing this for you irrespective of you only having TP cover. I assume the TP's car was damaged also so he would be submitting a claim (assuming he was insured). I'm surprised the police didn't check his details after he made a 'swift exit'.

__________________

Your insurers should be chasing this for you irrespective of you only having TP cover. I assume the TP's car was damaged also so he would be submitting a claim (assuming he was insured). I'm surprised the police didn't check his details after he made a 'swift exit'.

 

The OP's insurers will not chase this at all. TP or TPF&T cover is just that, ie they will deal with a claim against their policyholder but they will not get involved in persuing the third party, some insurers do offer this as a service (but that's all it is, a service not an inherent right, and even then it's done on an 'as and when they are not busy dealing with other things' basis).

I'm afraid that in this instance, because the OP opted for TPF&T it is for them to chase the third party and sort it out themselves.

Mossy

The only way you can speed this up is by writing direct to the third party.

If you go to their insurers they will tell you they can't do anything (other than arrange a 'without prejudice' inspection of your car), and that is correct, unless and until their policyholder completes a claim form they cannot act on their behalf.

Threaten the third party direct with Court Action, write them a 14 day 'Letter Before Action' and state in great detail what you want, why they were liable and what you will do if they choose to ignore correspondence.

Having read your initial post, it does sound to me like there is something dodgy going on, either he was driving illegally (drink/drugs), or it wasn't the insured driver who was behind the wheel.

Mossy

The OP's insurers will not chase this at all. TP or TPF&T cover is just that, ie they will deal with a claim against their policyholder but they will not get involved in persuing the third party, some insurers do offer this as a service (but that's all it is, a service not an inherent right, and even then it's done on an 'as and when they are not busy dealing with other things' basis).

 

I'm afraid that in this instance, because the OP opted for TPF&T it is for them to chase the third party and sort it out themselves.

 

Mossy

This is when you find out how good your insurers really are!

But as you say Mossy, send letter before action to the TP but my gut feeling is he has no insurance. I would put in the letter; 'please forward to your insurers who may wish to settle on your behalf'. Oh, and send by recorded delivery.

Lets hope the info he gave dosn't turn out to be false but like I said in my earlier post, I would of thought the police would of checked. Maybe contact the officer who attended and find out.

This is when you find out how good your insurers really are!

 

That's a bit unfair sailorsam

I know a lot of very well known and highly respected Insurers who would not chase the TP on a TPF&T policy.

The OP decided to pay a reduced premium and took TPF&T instead of Fully Comprehensive, by choosing the cheaper option they accepted that if they had an accident they would be responsible for sorting out their own repairs. Sadly that has happened in this case, so it is unfair to suggest that the insurers should now do something that they didn't agree to do and were not paid for doing.

It is no reflection whatsoever on 'how good an insurer is', and as an aside those companies that do offer an unisured loss recovery scheme either farm it out to third parties (who aren't usually interested unless personal injury is involved), or they leave it festering for as long as possible in the hope it sorts itself out.

Either pay for fully comprehensive and let the insurer deal with it or if you take TPF&T then don't expect your insurer to sort your unisured losses out, you didn't pay for that level of service.

Mossy

That's a bit unfair sailorsam

 

I know a lot of very well known and highly respected Insurers who would not chase the TP on a TPF&T policy.

 

The OP decided to pay a reduced premium and took TPF&T instead of Fully Comprehensive, by choosing the cheaper option they accepted that if they had an accident they would be responsible for sorting out their own repairs. Sadly that has happened in this case, so it is unfair to suggest that the insurers should now do something that they didn't agree to do and were not paid for doing.

 

It is no reflection whatsoever on 'how good an insurer is', and as an aside those companies that do offer an unisured loss recovery scheme either farm it out to third parties (who aren't usually interested unless personal injury is involved), or they leave it festering for as long as possible in the hope it sorts itself out.

 

Either pay for fully comprehensive and let the insurer deal with it or if you take TPF&T then don't expect your insurer to sort your unisured losses out, you didn't pay for that level of service.

 

Mossy

Yeah but Mossy, the OP isn't going to take out fully comp insurance on a car which has only cost £600! And as you said in your earlier post SOME insurers will assist TPF&T policy holders in such circumstances so they obviously offer a slightly better level of service.

Anyway, I don't see us entering into yet another diss-agreement will help the OP. I have very much agreed with your advice of sending the TP a letter before action although by the way it looks, the TP may have provided false information which I why I suggest the OP contacts the police officer who attended to clarify.

Your insurers should be chasing this for you irrespective of you only having TP cover.

Then don't make sweeping statements like that, it will only confuse the OP with wrong information and cause them to waste time chasing the wrong person.

It has abosulutely NOTHING to do with the OP's insurers

Mossy

Then don't make sweeping statements like that, it will only confuse the OP with wrong information and cause them to waste time chasing the wrong person.

 

It has abosulutely NOTHING to do with the OP's insurers

 

Mossy

It has something to do with the OP's insurers Mossy... does he still not have to report it to them? and since when did you become a Moderator!?

It has something to do with the OP's insurers Mossy... does he still not have to report it to them? and since when did you become a Moderator!?

Yes and he has reported it, his insurers told him to claim off the other person, but your advise to him was that his insurers should chase the third party up irrespective of his level of cover. That is totally 100% wrong.

The whole idea of this forum is that people who have a problem post for advice, what they don't need is people who don't know what they are talking about telling them something that is wrong because that will waste their time (and possibly money) and it will also falsely build up their hopes.

If enough bad/wrong advice gets posted people will stop using this forum because they won't know what to believe.

I'm not a moderator, but what has that got to do with it anyway????

Mossy

The way you seem to always jump on people who don't give the advice that you think is correct. You yourself said that SOME TPF&T policies will assist policy holders in such circumsatnces so my post was not totally 100% wrong. I also used the phrase 'SHOULD' be chssing this up. Also, if you read my signature, it points out to the person needing advice that he/she should still seek professional advice for clarification. This should apply to ANYONE giving out advice on this or any other forum.

In any event, I will reserve further input to this thread for the OP. Continuing with this 'dis-agreement' will acheive nowt.

The way you seem to always jump on people who don't give the advice that you think is correct. You yourself said that SOME TPF&T policies will assist policy holders in such circumsatnces so my post was not totally 100% wrong. I also used the phrase 'SHOULD' be chssing this up. Also, if you read my signature, it points out to the person needing advice that he/she should still seek professional advice for clarification. This should apply to ANYONE giving out advice on this or any other forum.

 

In any event, I will reserve further input to this thread for the OP. Continuing with this 'dis-agreement' will acheive nowt.

I'm not going to get into an argument with you

Read the original post again, he was told by his insurers that he needed to claim off the other person, that therefore means that this particular insurer does not operate any kind of uninsured loss recovery scheme, so advising him that his insurers should be chasing up the third party irrespective of his level of cover was obviously wrong.

Mossy

going slightly off topic Sailor Sam, do you work in claims in some form? As in for an accident management co/hire co/sols etc? seems unlikely to be an insurer you work for (just my opp) and you obviously dont have to answer if you dont wish

going slightly off topic Sailor Sam, do you work in claims in some form? As in for an accident management co/hire co/sols etc? seems unlikely to be an insurer you work for (just my opp) and you obviously dont have to answer if you dont wish

I use to work in in the vehicle rental industry which included dealer franchised outlets which came under the umbrella of Network Insurance. So obvioulsy I have dealt with different situations over the years. Although I basically agree with the point Mossy was trying to make about TPF&T insurance, I know that some insurance companies or brokers will steer their clients into the right direction when faced with the circumstances as the OP. It does not necessarily follow that my opinion given in my original post on this thread was '100% wrong'.

However, it appears that the OP's insurers are not able/willing to assist in recovering the costs of the uninsured losses and as such the option for the OP is to possibly take the matter to the small claims court. This of course is all very well if the TP has provided accurate information. As the police were involved, they may be able to assist in finding this out.

I just think that continuing to 'bicker' on who is right and who is wrong serves no purpose in advising the OP. If the OP requires any further advice, then mine will be to send the TP a 'final letter before action' (as indeed suggested by Mossy) but with the advice of 'forwarding to their insurers who may wish to settle on their behalf'.

However, under the circumstances which the OP has posted, I feel that there is little chance that the TP is insured in the first place.

My GOD!

What the hell is wrong with you people? I asked a simple enough question and made my actions so far very clear. Then I read post after post of 'he said, no he didn't, yes he did.....'

I'll sort it out myself thanks. I won't be asking any further advise on here if that is how it kicks off.

My GOD!

 

What the hell is wrong with you people? I asked a simple enough question and made my actions so far very clear. Then I read post after post of 'he said, no he didn't, yes he did.....'

 

I'll sort it out myself thanks. I won't be asking any further advise on here if that is how it kicks off.

I can only apologise for that. It happens sometimes with Caggers not agreeing with each other's advice and this is not at all helpfull as I think I have pointed out during this thread. You will note that from my last post on 11th Jan, I made my feelings clear.

However, my advice (if you now want to take it), is to contact the police officer(s) who attended and ask if they have a record of the vehicle/driver's details. Explain your predicament and see if they have any suggestions. They MAY reveal if the TP was insured or not. Also I would send a final letter before action giving the TP 14 days to settle. Suggest he passes it on to his insurers and send by recorded delivery.

Good luck.

Insurance is and always has been a grey area. No one can give you a definite answer. If we made it more black & white, we wouldn't be able to be so flexible with what we offer and more would suffer than benefit. Your question wasn't easy, though I agree conflicting advice was given.

Are criminal charges pending? Do his insurers want a little more information about what he was on that night? If he can't or won't admit to the accident, it becomes a situation where a case with physical evidence must be gathered and proven.

That simply takes longer. I would reiterate that if you only have TP insurance, you should not expect your insurer to chase this for you. It's not a service you purchased so if I were you, I'd get to proving my case and chasing the matter up myself.