LV car insurance trying to brush our claim for our flood damaged car under the carpet

[t4tters]

This is just a little look into what has been going on between me and my insurance company LV. this is a copy of a letter we sent a couple of days ago!

Iwould like you to take into account the fact that the incident of flood damagehappened on the 6th may 2011, the car was taken into AW (yourapproved repairers) on the 11th may 2011. The car did not run due tothe flood, nb it was running fine before the incident, it was thereforerecovered by a slide and tilt recovery wagon, the car was pulled up from theback! There was a lot of water that ran out from the front of the car, thedriver commenting on it!

 

Itwas three weeks later after numerous phone-calls to find out what was takingplace that we were told an independent engineer from Hooper’s was to look atthe car. Again we had no correspondence, eventually we had a call three dayslater from the engineer saying he had just been to evaluate the car and thefault was not related to the incident but that it was the fuel pump! Theengineer was very abrupt and basically accused me and my husband of lying! As westated that the car ran perfectly before the incident. The engineer also statedthat there was no evidence of water damage. This bothers me as the glove-boxwas wet through so much so that the service manual was ruined and also my iPod (whichmay I add you have actually paid out although you say it was goodwill! I don’tknow any insurance companies that would pay out in goodwill!!) The interiorcarpets were also soaking. Also theamount of time the car had been at the garage before been evaluated meant thatit had plenty of opportunity to dry out and the fact that most of the water hadran out when been collected by tilt and slide wagon. All this was explained ingreat detail to the engineer and LV but this seems to have been to no avail.However we were informed by LV that the engineer had put in his report thatcosmetic work needed to be done on the bumper, grille and wheel house-cover,this damage was caused by the force of the water hitting the car. This work wasauthorised by LV, then it was declined then it was re-authorised. So the carthat purportedly had no water damage has damage caused by water!!!

 

Eventuallyafter many phone-calls, getting upset and irate my husband said he would payfor a new fuel pump and if the car still didn’t run he would take them tocourt. Surprisingly the manager at Hooper’s said he would have the fuel pumptested. Lo and behold we had a phone-call several days later from Hooper’ssaying that the fuel pump was not at fault. There was no apology!

 

Afterthe fuel pump was ruled out it was decided a fuse in the cars ECU, was at fault.We have been told the fuse was nothing to do with the incident i.e. waterdamage, we disagree electrics and water does not mix! The fuse was replaced andthe car was delivered. However it was delivered on the back of a slide and tiltwagon. The delivery driver tried to start the car, it would not start and noneof the other repairs that had been authorised had been completed. We wereadvised by AW to pay £193.50 instead of £350 excess, for repairs, however nowork was carried out and car was returned not running. So we have paid £193.50for nothing. My husband rang LV to inform them of the situation. Whilst stillon the phone to LV, the garage returned to take the car back. At this point youdid provide a courtesy car until AW arranged their own courtesy car. Again thiswasn’t a smooth process and took lots of phone-calls to sort out. In themeantime I had to take my husband to and fro to hospital for operations. ! Soto sum up, the garage, the independent engineer and the electronics specialistall came to the assumption it was a faulty fuel pump. However as it was provedit was not, nor was it the fuse that had been replaced, as it was still notrunning when this had been done, therefore your 3 specialists who claims therewas no water damage got it wrong! So do you believe there opinion there is nowater damage. I for one do not. They have been proved wrong twice.

 

 

 

Wewere then told that the garage had CONFIRMED that the intercooler had splitwhich is mechanical and not to do with the incident. We agreed to pay for thisrepair, and the garage was to inform us of a price. They have not done so. Buthave now come up with another fault which appears to be the turbo, howeverafter speaking to the garage, the engineer specialist that has been to test theturbo says the test is not showing him what he wants it to???? Does that soundprofessional? We are now waiting for him to bring some more equipment to dosome more testing???!!! I have just been informed 4th July 20115:25pm that the turbo is fine! Surprise, surprise!

 

Sonow we have several possibilities according to the garage:

 

1. The catalytic converter.

 

2. Airflow Mass Meter.

 

3. The EGR valve.

 

Or4. A combination.

 

Whichone do you think it is? A prize for the correct answer!

 

Asyou can imagine the time and money it has cost us in phone-calls, stress, upsetand being without a car when my husband is disabled and not able to get out ofthe house has been unbelievable these past ten weeks, that is why we haveinvolved the financial ombudsman. The cheque for twenty pounds is an insult.

 

Acopy of this letter is also been sent to the complaints department of LV,yourselves and the Financial Ombudsman as I believe that the way we have beentreated is unfair, we have been insulted and called liars. All this and stillno conclusion to our problem, all this through an accident when we are fullycomprehensive, which ought to be called ‘if you can provide evidence’insurance.

 

It’sreally upsetting and frustrating that your so called professionals examine thecar and state the problem, but to find out that their evaluation is wrong butthey still argue that there is no water damage. I cannot hold their opinionwith any high regards and doubt their evaluation. L! So to sum up, the garage,the independent engineer and the electronics specialist all came to theassumption it was a faulty fuel pump. However as it was proved it was not, norwas it the fuse that had been replaced, as it was still not running when this hadbeen done, therefore your 3 specialists who claims there was no water damagegot it wrong! So do you believe there opinion there is no water damage. I forone do not. They have been proved wrong twice. LV needs to find trustworthyengineers and repairers. and 11 weeks on and about 150 phone calls and another letter of complaint we are still no further. we have been appointed our very own case officer Ms M Davis, who we can never get intouch with and she never returns our calls and messages, so what a waste of LV'S money she is! we are at our wits end with it all now we have turn to the fos who are trying to sort it out. before our car was flooded it worked great! after the flood it didnt work, so ergo flood damage, we are full comp, insurance fix or rightoff car! simple? not at all! so we might aswel have been 3rd party fire n theft for all full comps worth! so fellow motorists out there beware as you may not be coverd as you think. is there anyone out there can help, we need you, badly!!!

[rebel11]

Hi L4

 

Welcome to CAG

 

The guys will be happy to advise as soon as they are available.

[unclebulgaria67]

Suggest getting an AA or RAC engineers inspection, otherwise this risks dragging on and on.

[raydetinu]

yes agree you need an independant engineers inspection, but get LV to agree to that and the enginner you propose to use.

Also would be reasonable to get them to agree to abide by the findings and if the engineer finds in your favour to refund all costs and repair the car.

did you take any photographs of the car in the flood or shortly afterwards.

I have found LV pretty good to deal with in the past? definetly not the cheapest!

[t4tters]

thankyou for the advise so far, i will try and see how things go. thanks again

[TONY BELL 60]

I have put in a claim with LV after breaking down on driving through a flood I didn't see. they have also used Hoopers, who are also trying to say there is no water damage. How did you get on? It feels like they are accusing me of fraud when it is them who are being fraudulent. How can I fight this?

 

 

thanks

[unclebulgaria67]

I have put in a claim with LV after breaking down on driving through a flood I didn't see. they have also used Hoopers, who are also trying to say there is no water damage. How did you get on? It feels like they are accusing me of fraud when it is them who are being fraudulent. How can I fight this?

 

 

thanks

 

You need to ask LV for their complaints process in regard to this claim, so you can reach a conclusion to it. Perhaps they will authorise another inspection with another assessor or you will have to get your own independent assessment. The AA &RAC can do an inspection, but they charge a fair bit, which you would not get back, if it agreed with Hoopers.

 

But that is what you would have to do. Depends on what the value of claim is, compared to the excess and future increases in premium.

[WesternHarrier]

T4tters and TONY BELL, I know exactly how you feel.

 

On Dec 26 2014, I drove through a road-wide rainwater flood, wrecking my car's engine in the process. It took AXA 12 days to collect the car and a further 43 days to properly inspect it. After the inspection they phoned me to say that there was no evidence of water ingress and that the 'blown turbo' and 'low compression in one engine cylinder' were age-related faults. The fact that my vehicle's serious engine problems had manifested themselves at the the exact moment I hit the flood was described as coincidental. I too felt that I was, in effect, being accused of fraud.

 

After their engine inspection (during which no photographs were taken of crucial components like the air filter) AXA arranged for an independent inspection to be carried out by Hoopers. The Hoopers engineer called me straight after his inspection to say he'd found no evidence of water ingress either (the most telling evidence was, apparently, the undamaged air filter). When I asked him if he could think of any way for the turbo to have been damaged without air filter damage he suggested one scenario but thought this 'unlikely'.

 

When AXA finally deigned to pass on a copy of the Hoopers report (April 16!) I was struck by its brevity and unprofessionalism. The photographic portion of the report contained a picture of a component not from my car, and an image of an electrical fault report consistent with water damage (this fault report had never been mentioned to me and wasn't referred to in the text of the report). There was an image of the filter box interior that, I believe, shows brown water staining marks. In the text, though the inspector admits he hasn't thoroughly inspected the engine...

 

"We were unable to rotate the engine, to confirm piston height, examination of the piston crowns and number 2 & 3 cylinder bores which were visible showed no evidence of water contamination. To establish the cause of the low compression in number two cylinder, the engine would require further stripping”

 

he is happy to state unconditionally...

 

“I consider that the vehicle has suffered a mechanical failure of the turbo charger, resulting in the loss of power and smoke emissions, as mechanical failure is not covered under your policy conditions I consider you have no liability in this matter”

 

Myself, my family and my friends will never use AXA ever again for any form of insurance.

 

My advice to anyone that finds themselves involved in a vehicular flood incident:

 

1.Take as many photographs as possible of the damage. Ideally, photograph the air filter.

2. Insist early on, on your insurer contacting you only by email (AXA, deliberately I believe, chose to communicate with me solely over the phone, making subsequent complaining difficult)

3. If insurer offers to organise an independent inspection, insist they don't use Hoopers.

4. Don't put too much faith in the Financial Ombudsman Service. I took my AXA complaints to FOS and though they upheld some of them, they were incredibly reluctant to challenge anything said or done by the 'experts' at AXA and Hoopers.

Edited March 13, 2016 by WesternHarrier
typos

[BazzaS]

T4tters and TONY BELL, I know exactly how you feel.

 

On Dec 26 2014, I drove through a road-wide rainwater flood, wrecking my car's engine in the process.

 

 

After their engine inspection (during which no photographs were taken of crucial components like the air filter) AXA arranged for an independent inspection to be carried out by Hoopers. The Hoopers engineer called me straight after his inspection to say he'd found no evidence of water ingress either

 

 

 

When AXA finally deigned to pass on a copy of the Hoopers report (April 16!) I was struck by its brevity and unprofessionalism. The photographic portion of the report contained a picture of a component not from my car, and an image of an electrical fault report consistent with water damage (this fault report had never been mentioned to me and wasn't referred to in the text of the report).

 

 

 

 

 

 

My advice to anyone that finds themselves involved in a vehicular flood incident:

 

1.Take as many photographs as possible of the damage. Ideally, photograph the air filter.

2. Insist early on, on your insurer contacting you only by email (AXA, deliberately I believe, chose to communicate with me solely over the phone, making subsequent complaining difficult)

3. If insurer offers to organise an independent inspection, insist they don't use Hoopers.

4. Don't put too much faith in the Financial Ombudsman Service. I took my AXA complaints to FOS and though they upheld some of them, they were incredibly reluctant to challenge anything said or done by the 'experts' at AXA and Hoopers.

 

 

Your experience with Hoopers and your insurers may well be relevant, but I'm surprised they didn't make much more of the fact you decided to drive through a "road wide" flooded road, which MIGHT distinguish your case form the OP's (OP : was it the "flood hit the car" rather than "the car was driven into a flood"?)

[WesternHarrier]

I'm surprised they didn't make much more of the fact you decided to drive through a "road wide" flooded road, which MIGHT distinguish your case form the OP's (OP : was it the "flood hit the car" rather than "the car was driven into a flood"?)

 

It's not clear from my first post but the incident happened at night - there was no time for decision-making. I spotted the unsigned 'flood' too late to take avoiding action.

[BazzaS]

It's not clear from my first post but the incident happened at night - there was no time for decision-making. I spotted the unsigned 'flood' too late to take avoiding action.

 

Were you driving such that you could avoid a hazard?

I could understand "a child ran into the road in front of me, from between parked cars : Because of the cars I had slowed up already but the only way to avoid the incident would have been to never drive past parked cars", but did the flood leap into the road in front of you?

[WesternHarrier]

"Were you driving such that you could avoid a hazard?"

 

I thought I was but as I ended up in the water, clearly I was mistaken. If I hadn't been driving fairly cautiously - if I'd entered the flood at 40mph say, rather than the approx 20mph I actually entered it (I was braking hard at the time) - I think it might have helped me. The evidence of water ingress might have been more obvious.