Hi, My car insurance company recently agreed a settlement amount with me for my car, which was set on fire a few months ago. The vehicle has major interior damage but the exterior is still perfect. I wasn't 100% happy with their first offer, but they agreed to let me have the car (with all documents) so that I may sell parts or maybe sell on complete. During their investigation, they asked me to send my Registration document, all keys and the Service book. Today, they have informed me that they have LOST everything. A garage is interested in buying the car, but wants the Reg document and keys. But DVLA won't issue one because it has been VIC marked. And I can't get a VIC because it is not drive-able. Looks like I have 3 options 1. Re-negotiate for cash, rather than the car (because they are unable to fulfil the agreed settlement) 2. Pay to have it transported for VIC, pay for VIC and pay for a new V5 issue, pay for new locks. Sell the car. 3. Ask the insurance company to arrange all of No.2, since it is their fault. Sell the car. What would you do? Incidentally, the car in its current condition is now only worth about £700 Thanks in advance

It's Churchill. They appear to have an uncanny knack of drawing things out. It took a week to get an phone 'interview', 12 days for them to send out a form they needed. And today I got a call from the garage where my car has sat since the fire saying that a salvage team contacted them to say that they were going to pick up my car. If the garage hadn't called me, my car would have been uplifted without Churchill even asking me. The car is a total loss of course, but I still own it. The FOS site explains that they will complain on my behalf. But Churchill are allowed 8 weeks to respond. It seems the system is very much in favour of the Insurers.

Hi, I have a vehicle that's currently being investigated by my insurer's verification department. 8 weeks have now elapsed since I made the claim and my question is, do car insurers have a specific time frame governed by a regulating body within which they have to make a proposal? I have posted previously on the specifics of my insurance claim if you'd like more detail. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?319219-Insurance-Claim-question&highlight=weerascal

It is now a week and a day since my interview with my Insurer, at which point they said a letter would be sent asking for specific items such as MOT etc noted above. I have not received any letter and I am now into my 6th week of no settlement since my claim. To say this is frustrating would be a huge understatement. Is there anything I can do to get them to speed up the process? Would a letter from my lawyer help?

Thanks. I guess I also have the option to challenge the claim and take it up with the FOS...

It is certainly negligence on the part of the garage since it was parked outside of their yard unlocked when it was set on fire (my car was the only one set on fire). Which means that my insurer will most probably try to claim from their insurance. And this obviously means that it is in the garage's interest to devalue the car as much as possible to make the claim against them less significant.

Having just concluded my interview, my insurers were definitely more interested in the condition of my car than anything else. At the time of the fire, the car's engine was dismantled to a degree because of the inspection required, in order to establish the problem. I was advised by my engineer that I could opt for a quick fix, but he also recommended sourcing a new engine with much lower mileage to prolong the longevity of the car. In my interview, my insurer asked me to provide: any spare keys, a copy of the MOT, my sales invoice from the dealer showing the purchase price, my driving license, the car's log book. So, two questions: does all of this sound in order? And can the assessor insist that the settlement should be based on my car needing a new engine, or can I challenge this by claiming that I had the option of a quick fix? It is a ten year old car. I'm also confused as to why my insurer can base a settlement based on current condition (ie dismantled) when I drove (a fully operative vehicle) to the garage for an inspection.

Thanks, read through that. quite informative. I chased today and they want to conduct a 30 minute telephone interview about events before the fire took place.

Thanks. Do you think my insurer may try to reduce my settlement amount from its Market value on the premise that it was in for repair?

Hi, I made a claim with my insurance company 3 and a half weeks ago because my car was set on fire while being inspected for repair in a garage. The police have been and are conducting enquiries. Meanwhile my insurer has advised that my case has been passed to their verification department, indicating that they *may* pursue the garage for this claim. My question is this: will the dispute between the garage and my insurer have to be settled before they will agree a settlement on my claim?

Thanks, I'm treating the two issues separately, but inevitably one will influence the other. Why isn't the engineer that wrote the report based on his findings independent? Before the car's issue, I had never even heard of him and his garage...

I have received a letter from the Trader and reply to mine (posted above), and thought I would share it with you. If anyone has a view on what my next move should be, please feel free to post a reply. In response to your letter date 07.08.11, I also have taken legal advice and have been in direct contact with Trading Standards. I would like to inform you that I will not be accepting responsibility for anything that has happened to the engine on your Land Rover. NOT AS ADVERTISED There were no faults advertised on the Autotrader advertisement as there were no engine faults on the vehicle at the time of sale. You also mentioned that a service was conducted and signed by myself. I informed you at the time of sale that the vehicle had only been given an oil and filter change. This is only a matter ofcourse that any vehicle I own has clean oil. NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE This vehicle was fit for purpose. I myself used this vehicle and would have noticed any problems. When you originally telephoned me regarding this you openly admitted that you had used the vehicle for over a month and found no fault. I would also like to point out that on the day of purchase your friend stated he was friendly with someone who was an expert on Land Rovers and that when you got the vehicle home it would be being put up on ramps and thoroughly checked over to make sure you were happy with it. Is this the same person who has provided you with the report? I presumed that since I did not hear from you that you had done any necessary checks to satisfy yourself of the vehicles conahion and you were happy with it. I disagree with the engineers report. To a Land Rover mechanic that I have spoken with this does not make sense that someone would replace a wrong bolt so far into an engine. There would be no reason for this. This also is not an independent report. I have no knowledge ofhow you treated this vehicle in the five weeks you were driving it. This was not a new vehicle that you bought. It is a ten year old vehicle with nearly 100,000 miles on the clock and of your own admission you used without any faults occurring. As previously stated I have no knowledge of what this car has been used for or how it has been treated.

I thought I would send you this as events have taken an extraordinary turn. I got a call today from the 4x4 garage where my car is being stored to say that the interior had been set on fire last night. Quite extensive damage to seats, roofing panels, door cards, steering wheel, and some plastic units. When I heard the news I nearly dropped to my knees. Obviously I'm insured (Churchill) and the police are currently making an investigation, but I wonder if this might be a blessing - karma, if you like. What a bloody mess. Anyway, I thought you'd like to know. Thanks for the help you've (all) imparted - much appreciated. This may or may not change my game plan. D

@kraken1 Appreciate you taking the time and offering up some serious challenges. I am not expecting this to be a walkover and I intend to follow it through. I understand that the car is old. I expected there to be faults and I found several (welded chassis, corroded wheels, very worn clutch). But £4,000 shouldn't just buy me a bag of bolts. That price is actually on the high side for a vehicle of that age and I paid the full asking price. I was of the understanding that fit for purpose meant that it had to both deliver on both its everyday purpose (ie to drive) and its specific purpose (your 10 seater analogy). As far as when the fault occurred is concerned, the 4x4 engineer has suggested that the Trader put the wrong bolt on the oil pump resulting in the fault, because he was the last person to work on that area to replace the oil and filter, plus he conducted this during a service, which is logged in the vehicle logbook. But he is not willing to commit this to paper and it is only implied. Either way, I sent the letter as you see it above with a few changes. I am certain he will reject the claim by return. D

It's not my version. See above, I have a written report from an engineer. I'll remove the refund part, for now. If he rejects the repair claim, can I go ahead and have the repairs made and pursue him through the SCC to retrieve the money?