Jump to content


My outrageous insurance company


marksmiles
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3729 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Last year I took a knock and the other party was clearly at fault, undisputed.

 

Our insurer encouraged the use of a hire vehicle during repairs. In principle this was fine

but I tried quite hard to argue that I wanted to arrange it locally. The insurers were extremely

resistant to me organising it near where I live at a reasonable cost. Despite any number of email

requests to my insurers they have refused at all times to disclose the sums involved.

 

My insurers did organise a car hire and had it driven for door step delivery from a distance

of some 100 miles away.

 

It seems that ( our side ? ) insurers have decided to use this episode of car insurance as a

platform to escalate the claim to the nth degree. They are asking the other side for £2k ++ for

a 10 day hire, for a mediocre vehicle. This seems to me flagrantly wrong, borderline fraudulent.

 

The other side are refusing to pay out ( and I for one don't blame them ).

 

Whilst aghast at the flagrant sharp practice ( of our side ? ), I have no skin in the game regarding

their fight with the other side, although it will impact on what we have to say in the future when

making any application for car insurance ( when a quoting company asks how much a previous claim was settled for ).

 

However ( our side ? ) insurers are now asking for our attendance at a court in March. I have no interest

in doing that, I would strongly resent having to attend.

 

Perhaps I do need to respond to the latest letter from ( my side's ? ) solicitors for attendance.

- I assume that there may be a clause in the insurance contract when it was taken out that the person

insured agrees to co-operate?

 

I wonder what to do now. One approach might be to do nothing? Perhaps ignoring and not responding,

and not turning up, might not be the best approach now.

 

One idea. I might write back and say I am unable to attend, short notice,etc, but to be helpful I am prepared to provide

a written statement.

 

If I have any worries at all, it is if ( our side ? ) insurers fail with their claim, they may pursue me for the

highly inflated hire charge?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mark

 

I think as you suggest the following might be the correct way to precede, 'One idea. I might write back and say I am unable to attend, short notice,etc, but to be helpful I am prepared to provide

a written statement.' The last thing they would want is a nervous witness.

 

It sounds like your really don't want to get involved, but you have possibilities to complain to the FOS, but you have to complain to your insurers first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why are you concerned with having to declare the cost of a previous "non fault" claim to a new insurance company? It's the "non fault" bit they are most interested in as the cost of repar and/or hire costs is out of your hands.

 

Insurance companies work to fixed hire costs for each level of hire car and again, this is a matter for resolution between the insurance companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there are a few questions but I see these claims a lot.

Firstly it helps if you say what kind of car you have.

was it through a claim company or insurance who gave you the car?

 

Nevertheless the company want to try and recover their costs and what the judge will decide are fair.

They will ask you questions like, did you accept the car, was it a like for like car?

Were you working? etc..

 

If the claim is for the cost of hire you are being used as a witness to aid their case.

People come in and then leave after 10mins.

 

If you sit after the case you will see they are trying to make it stand that they owe the £2000 and the other side will say we only owe less. your side will have to prove your case and they will have to prove their's. They will start hitting each other with law.

The latest I saw a insurance company saying that the "collision damage waiver" should be ignored as their is a third party company that can be used. But the judge decided to knock £1k off their £12k bill.

 

Contact your Solicitor if you dont want to go as it will be the Solicitor doing the case that would be instructing a Barraster for the credit hire company if it was through a RTA Solicitor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I assume that you have been forced to enter into a credit hire agreement even though you offered to source a replacement vehicle yourself at a lower cost. You have done nothing wrong here as you are bound by insurance principles to mitigate your loss following a road collision even though it was not your fault. If you attend court and state that you offered to find a replacement vehicle yourself but your insurer refused. Then technically, they have prevented you from mitigating your loss and they will be liable for the costs of the replacement vehicle. In my experience, the credit hire company is more likely to be the company you were speaking to who told you that you cannot source a vehicle by yourself. I would attend court and state your whole case advising the court that you were willing to source a vehicle locally but was told that you cannot do this. The credit hire company will lose their case and will have to accept the loss and cover the costs. They have obviously not explained to you that you have entered into a credit agreement when accepting the hire vehicle and therefore you have been misled. If you choose to opt for the written statement as your evidence, ensure that you state that you attempted to source a vehicle yourself rather that accept a credit hire vehicle. If you still have the rental agreement, check the mitigation statement that will be attached for further details on this matter. The outcome will not impact on your insurance policy now or in the future as the dispute is not with you but is between the at fault insurer and the credit hire company. There are many companies that make very good profits out of other peoples misfortune and credit hire companies are the biggest winners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there are a few questions but I see these claims a lot.

Firstly it helps if you say what kind of car you have.

was it through a claim company or insurance who gave you the car?

 

Nevertheless the company want to try and recover their costs and what the judge will decide are fair.

They will ask you questions like, did you accept the car, was it a like for like car?

Were you working? etc..

 

If the claim is for the cost of hire you are being used as a witness to aid their case.

People come in and then leave after 10mins.

 

If you sit after the case you will see they are trying to make it stand that they owe the £2000 and the other side will say we only owe less. your side will have to prove your case and they will have to prove their's. They will start hitting each other with law.

The latest I saw a insurance company saying that the "collision damage waiver" should be ignored as their is a third party company that can be used. But the judge decided to knock £1k off their £12k bill.

 

Contact your Solicitor if you dont want to go as it will be the Solicitor doing the case that would be instructing a Barraster for the credit hire company if it was through a RTA Solicitor.

 

Ill informed responce to this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I assume that you have been forced to enter into a credit hire agreement even though you offered to source a replacement vehicle yourself at a lower cost. You have done nothing wrong here as you are bound by insurance principles to mitigate your loss following a road collision even though it was not your fault. If you attend court and state that you offered to find a replacement vehicle yourself but your insurer refused. Then technically, they have prevented you from mitigating your loss and they will be liable for the costs of the replacement vehicle. In my experience, the credit hire company is more likely to be the company you were speaking to who told you that you cannot source a vehicle by yourself. I would attend court and state your whole case advising the court that you were willing to source a vehicle locally but was told that you cannot do this. The credit hire company will lose their case and will have to accept the loss and cover the costs. They have obviously not explained to you that you have entered into a credit agreement when accepting the hire vehicle and therefore you have been misled. If you choose to opt for the written statement as your evidence, ensure that you state that you attempted to source a vehicle yourself rather that accept a credit hire vehicle. If you still have the rental agreement, check the mitigation statement that will be attached for further details on this matter. The outcome will not impact on your insurance policy now or in the future as the dispute is not with you but is between the at fault insurer and the credit hire company. There are many companies that make very good profits out of other peoples misfortune and credit hire companies are the biggest winners.

 

I fail to see why you are suggesting the OP should act as a hostile witness against their own insurance company. IMO this may lead to future complications with their current or future insurance company.

 

All the OP has to state is that the accident was reported to their insurance company immediately and all future actions by the OP were taken under the direction of their insurance company or the insurers appointed agents at any given time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Crem

The insurance company have passed details on to a credit hire company so insurer no longer involved. This dispute is between the credit hire company and the at fault drivers insurer. If OP was to contact his own insurer, they will not be aware of any dispute at all as they are not involved. The credit hire company now wish to use OP for their own benefit. As i stated, it seems that OP was misled into signing an agreement for credit

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our insurer encouraged the use of a hire vehicle during repairs. In principle this was fine

but I tried quite hard to argue that I wanted to arrange it locally. The insurers were extremely

resistant to me organising it near where I live at a reasonable cost. Despite any number of email

requests to my insurers they have refused at all times to disclose the sums involved.

 

My insurers did organise a car hire and had it driven for door step delivery from a distance

of some 100 miles away.

 

 

From the OP it seems fairly clear that everything that was organised was done so at the behest of the OP's insurance company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When a non fault claim is reported to the insurer or in most cases the broker i.e.: AA, RAC, they instantly pass the details on to an accident management company. The brokers received a nice fee for these details. The AMC then provide a replacement vehicle on a credit hire basis for which they make a nice profit. For this reason the AMC will avoid losing the client hence "they were extremely resistant" to allowing OP to find an alternative vehicle himself. My point to the OP is that if the credit hire company go to court and loose the case, they are likely to charge the whole hire invoice to the OP as he has signed an agreement which states this in the T&C's. If he states the points that you have highlighted in red above he will be cleared of any liability for the costs and the Credit Hire Company will have to take the loss. For any further clarification that OP may need on this matter, I would suggest searching for the ABI general terms and conditions (GTA) for credit hire. This states the rules by which all credit hire companies and insurers have to abide by. It also states that the claimant has to mitigate their loss in which this case, OP tried to do so but was refused this option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go to court and just be honest. If you are concerned that you will be accused personally of not 'mitigating losses' then see if you can submit the emails you sent your insurers about the cheaper option you found. It is not unusual for Insurance companies to have deals with specific car rental companies and not everyone working there would have the authority to allow you to source your own hire vehicle. If they sorted it...they sorted it. Not your problem.

 

If you would like to make a complaint about your own insurance company's actions and ask for relevant advice, I would go to the Financial Ombudsman Service... 0800 0234 567. I think this would be right up their street.

 

I can understand you not wanting to go to court. Its not a very pleasant experience :o( Good Luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Thank you for posting your guidance., most useful.

 

I thought that I would close this by letting those interested know that this has been settled.

In the event the other side gave in and there was a settlement. I am not privy to the actual amounts but I strongly suspect that the AMC did very well from their practice.

 

As an insured person it is very difficult to see how to prevent them from their ( sharp ) practices, not that it cost me directly ( or it might do in the future when having to explain to new ins companies offering quotes the value of the claim ) but where an honest insured person disapproves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...