pdfs merged, thread title updated. refer it to autonet. if there was money due from your use of the hire car that should have been sought from the other party under the settlement. Kinderton are up the creak here as they didn't get you to sign the agreement when they dropped off the car. Do Not Sign It. this is all to familiar to yea ole auxilis debacle covered here in many threads...scary very scary... Showing results for 'auxilis'. - Consumer Action Group this link points to the whole threads not the posts ..hit 'programmable' word below Programmable Search Engine CSE.GOOGLE.COM

Beware your insurer referring you to KINDERTONS for courtesy car (also AUXILIS)

this is all to familiar to yea ole auxilis debacle covered here in many threads...scary very scary... Showing results for 'auxilis'. - Consumer Action Group this link points to the whole threads not the posts ..hit 'programmable' word below Programmable Search Engine CSE.GOOGLE.COM

you have an email from a 3rd party that states their client will cover all costs etc IF THERE IS A SHORTFALL SHOULD YOU WIN. (recovered - they dont recover anything if you lose) you dont have anything in writing that says win or lose you being the claimant will cost you nothing. verbal recordings mean nothing. quite honestly you need a letter from Chief Rentals that clearly states, should you win or lose your court case against xxx, we will 100% cover all costs, the whole claim will never cost you a penny. this is exactly the semantics auxilis played and it cost people £1000's when they lost in court (court costs, defendants costs and Hire purchase still had to be paid by them) another claim was settled before court.

the only worry that came out of the auxilis situation was they wanted to make the hirer the claimant of the court claim to get their money out of the defendant , thus if there is a loss or the defendant wins, under law, the claimant is responsible for paying, thus becomes personally liable for it. i would ensure that if they do what to name you as the claimant and make you sign the claimform, you have it in writing that should any loss resulting from the whole case occur, they would be paying it not you. dx

Im about to drop my other half off at her work and then Im going to sit in the coffee shop and have a good read through the Auxilis threads. As for exactly what my claim against the third party is, Im not really sure. I mean originally the claim was damages to my vehicle with the third party admitting (and still admitting) full liability, but its clearly now going way beyond that so I dont really understand how far this is goes... After a good read in the coffee shop Im going to ring chief, Mansfield solicitors and Aviva in that order and see if anyone can give me any kind of written assurance as to exactly what my liability is and why. Im also going to make a data request for the recorded phone calls with Kirsty Harp so I have a record of her saying they would not pursue me for this 'debt', and then I will make an update here. Thank you.

I had a non fault car accident 4 years ago. Car was a write off and the other driver admitted fault car was paid off. I was paid out a year ago For injuries. Auxilis have now asked me to hire a solicitor they have instructed to get the hire car frees back. Do I have to do this? They have sent me a digital hire agreement. They cannot provide me with any documentation of me receiving vehicle or handing back as destroy after a year. I can only assume I had the car for the time length they are saying. Do I have to hire the solicitor in my name they say i don’t have to pay for ?

I am so pleased but also worried sick to find this forum. Briefly, my son was driving my husband's car last year and a third party ran into the side of it resulting in it being written off. It was a classic automatic Mercedes (this may be important). As my son required to travel 50 miles each way to his work location and my husband works in a rural location we required a car asap. We were referrred to Auxilis by Admiral and despite feeling uneasy about it all we agreed to the contract. The following day we were contacted and told that they would deliver a premium automatic car the following day to our home address. I said an auto was not necessary nor a premium and as my son was not in a position to work at this time we agreed for a car to be delivered to our home the following day as we could use the only other car available to us for a day or so. I made a separate call to Admiral and asked very specific questions regarding the hire and cost of it and our liability. I even said that I realise it is very expensive and surely it would be better to get a cheaper hire ourselves. I was told that if we did that then we would be unlikely to get our money back and as it could go on for months before being settled we would be saddled with a big bill, probably thousands. That is exactly why Auxilis is recommended and people like us are referred to them I was told. The following day I phoned Auxilis to see what time to expect the car (as they even suggested that I could choose what type) and was told that the car was already on its way. A brand new 4 x 4 auto thing because our car was a 'premium' car so they provide a premium car as a replacement. This was not agreed to or suggested by me. Cutting this short - the car arrived, it took 6 weeks to get the pay out for the car and we waited to replace it until all was sorted, as we were told we could. The cost of the hire car for 6 weeks is around £7K to my horror. Obviously even though the accident was deemed completely no fault of my son's and the excess was covered in the claim and NCB is unaffected the other insurers are refusing to pay. The court date is set for end October and my husband has to attend (as the insurance is in his name). He is actually unable to attend as he has business travel at that time. I have a few concerns. The paperwork mentions wage slips, credit card details etc. Theoretically we could have put the cost on a credit card or paid from savings - I was told not to. How will this all play out in court? What will happen because he cannot attend, does that look like he is not cooperating, as he agreed he would? We were asked months ago to provide dates he could not attend for the next 6 months. This we did. That brought us to the beginning of September. No questions were asked about any period of time after that so he was not able to tell them that October would not be possible. I am really stressed over this. Any advice please? If we tell the truth in court as above I suspect we would be seen not to try and recover Auxilis' losses.

I have to say I hadn't expected that you had any recordings and so my post was a bit sarcastic and probably over harsh. Well done on having some recordings – a huge number of people don't and they suffer as a result. Follow the advice from @unclebulgaria67 above but I think somewhere along the line you need to put down a paper trail and let Hastings know that the car you have received has been received on the basis that it is a courtesy car and it is supplied under the insurance agreement and at no time have you consented to enter into any credit agreement. This really concerns me. You've paid your insurance premium and therefore all of the service that they provide under it should be unconditional and if they are now trying to impose conditions on you which if you failed to meet then you will suddenly become liable for the "courtesy car" then I can't see that that is acceptable – unless may be something like that is buried in your terms and conditions of the insurance. Maybe you had better start taking a look. We have lots of complaints about Hastings and their conduct and we have had a couple of references now to Auxilis and I would recommend very strenuously that you record all phone calls as per our customer services guide and keep a very tight paper trail. Confirm everything in writing. If there's anything you disagree with then make it clear to them in writing that you disagree with it. Also, I'm not aware that Auxilis is a repairer https://www.auxillis.com/ I think that they are some kind of proxy/agency which has set themselves up to deal with the logistics of insurance claims including the arranging of repairs and I'm sure that they basically have bot contracts with preferred repairers and preferred hire car companies so that they can obtain those services much more cheaply because they are buying them in bulk. This is entirely reasonable of course – but at the end of the day your contract is with your insurer – and it's a shame that this is the second or third that the name of Auxilis has come up on this forum – and linked to Hastings insurance and I'm afraid it doesn't make for very nice hearing

I don't think we have capacity for tongue in cheek in respect of this problem. I'm trying to find out exactly what happened. You've posted the agreement – but is this the agreement with Hastings or is this a subsequent agreement which you have signed with Auxilis? I want to know what your agreement with Hastings is. Any agreement with Auxilis is subordinate to your Hastings agreement almost to the point of not being valid – possibly. Have you made any notes or statements in relation to his verbal statement "I just didn't see you". If you did make these notes then how soon after the accident did you make them? And you say that there was no witness other than the wife who was in the car – and didn't hear him making the statement. He was out of the car when he made the statement. You say he "accelerated" into you. Why would he have been accelerating – there was that they no attempt to slow down? The facts of this worry me because it sounds to me the kind of situation where he might change the story and say that you pulled out in front of him and gave him no time to stop.

Here's a little bit of reading to start off with https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/search/?q=auxilis &quick=1 It seems that Auxilis are going to make a name for themselves with this kind of behaviour. I see that you've been here since 2007 so this is very lucky because it means that you are well aware of the advice which we constantly give here to record your calls so luckily you've got recording of the conversation you had with your insurer about the courtesy car and that will really help us push your case forward. Bravo

All was good with my insurance until I had to make a claim after someone drove into me. I recieved an email from the claims dept and was told to contact a company called auxilis to arrange a courtesy car (their exact wording) and repairs to my vehicle. This I did and the courtesy car was delivered 2 days later. A few days after that the insurance vehicle assessor came out and looked at the damage, and a week later he sent in his report to my insurers. Some 3 weeks later, my insurance company got back to me to say they had written off my car and a with a write off offer. During this time (nearly a month) I had what I believed to be a courtesy car. I was then shocked to hear from this auxillis company that the car provided was a hire car on a credit agreement, that they had not managed to recover the fees from the 3rd party, and that I could be liable for the hire car costs unless I offered complete co-operation with their solicitors. I am now being asked to sign an agreement with their solicitors to act on MY behalf! I am finding this whole thing highly stressful and it's not over yet as I have been informed I might have to go to court as their witness!! I feel completely mislead when I was told that I was being provided a courtesy car and that I only had the car as long as it took my insurance to declare it a total loss. Any idea where I stand please?

I'm sorry but I'm losing the plot on this thread – partly because you are posting up so much detailed information and I really don't have the time to deal with it all. This really is a DIY forum – in other words we try to empower you and point the way that it isn't helpful that you post entire contracts rather than discover the part that you think is relevant and simply post that so we can have a look. In principle, you have a fully comprehensive insurance policy. This means that your insurer is responsible for everything and I find it amazing that they try to pass it off to someone else and get you to sign a contract with that person. That seems to me to be unacceptable. When you get a fully comprehensive insurance with a company then as far as I'm concerned you pay them to do it all for you and you may have to pay an excess or you may have to pay increased premiums the next year – but they are meant to be a one-stop shop. So the fact that they are involving Auxillis and attempting to put them into a direct contractual relationship with you seems to be unacceptable and unfair – not what you paid for. Secondly, it seems to me to be entirely reasonable that they should require that you cooperate with a solicitor. You pay an insurance to protect yourself from losses – not to protect and at-fault third-party from losses and so if the insurance company reckons that it is economically worthwhile going to the expense of pursuing the third party in order to recover their losses then I don't see why they shouldn't. Also, if they get their money back from the third party then it should mean that their insurance premiums for their own clients should be cheaper in the future because they are able to recover the money that they pay out. (Of course this is a load of rubbish – they will always try to get the money from both ends) – but the principal is sound. I'm still struggling to see why you should object to the fact that you have to cooperate with their solicitor. However I don't see why there should be anything to sign about this. It should be in the initial contract of insurance that they will pay you out without quibble, that you will not have to engage with any other party such as Auxilis to make it happen – and that you will assist them in any reasonable way to recover their losses. That's how I see the picture. I would be amazed if you can show me anything in any of the insurers terms and conditions which contradict this I'd be interested to see what site team member @unclebulgaria67 has to say about this

Hi ericsbrother - been trying to find this article in the Daily Mail. Do you have a link I can read it please and the date it was published? Thanks PS - car was returned a long time ago (this all happened November last year) and I asked Auxilis what the costs actually were and it was about 2.3k

this is identical to one of the 2 case studies in the daily mail so do go and read it to see if you can head off their actions before they trya dn recover monies from you. the 3rd party insurer will be expected to pick up the bill but courts are aware that the other persons insurers are being taken for a ride and are putting ther brakes on the level of compenstion they will award and that will leave you seriously out of pocket for no fault of your own. You need to really go after your insurer and let them know that you have followed their instructions and will be after them if necessary. It wont harm you to co-operate, it just amkes more money for Auxilis and their solicitor though so hold your nose. have you sent the car back now? if not do so immediately as they charge about £50k a year for a car worth £20k new

Just to add my thoughts on this. At the moment, it is only a possibility that Symbiosis will be asked to contribute towards car hire costs. With these Insurance claims, even if the driver at fault is not in question, the Insurers will quite rightly question the costs they are being asked to pay. Therefore until the moment of decision, there can be this fear that a letter will be received asking to pay amounts, that people don't feel they are responsible for. Symbiosis was told it was a courtesy car, when it was really a credit hire car. This is a bit naughty, but the courtesy car per the Insurance contract would be for a week or two, to allow for a repair to take place. If the car is found to be a write off, then a hire car can be used to cover short period, before a permanent alternative can be obtained by the policyholder. I would cooperate with the Insurers and Auxilis to get this resolved, but make sure they both have a letter on file that you are not happy with the courtesy car/hire car mix up and may take any necessary actions later, if they ever attempted to recover any costs from yourself.

You say that the Auxilis contract "apparently does". Have you not seen it? You say that the third party driver was as blind as a bat. Is there a possibility that he shouldn't have been driving? How do you know that he was so visually impaired? Can you tell us briefly how the accident occurred? Also can I say that it's very unhelpful to simply give your answers to my questions simply as an extension of my sentences. It makes it very difficult for me and other people to read. Apart from anything else I suggest that you start using the quotation function on this forum and also if you are going to give you answers a running commentary then please put them in a different colour. At least that

Hi, you should have started your own thread but hopefully the Mods will sort it for you. Tell your solicitor that your husband is away and unable to attend Court and that the trial date needs moving. Sounds like there wasn't a need for the hire car as there was another one in the family, you had funds to buy your own replacement car and/or hire a car using your own money (so you were not impecunious). Speak to your solicitor and tell them the above, Auxilis will probably be keen to settle the bill at a heavy discount.