Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
    • Less than 1% of Japan's top companies are led by women despite years of efforts to address the issue.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Third Party claim - Vehicle replacement


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4078 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

I dont want to get into too much detail as I think this may end up in court, but I would like to hear from anybody who has had to secure a replacement vehicle from a third party insurer, and if this is a reasonable request.

 

In a nutshell, my 8 week old car was hit from behind late last year and has been declared a total loss. Aviva is the other insurance company and so far they have failed to contact me regarding this incident at all.

 

I have asked for the vehicle to be replaced with a like for like example (GAP insurance and such is not required and not suitable in this instance, and whats owed on the finance lease is way less than its pre accident condition valuation) and Aviva have declined this, although not in writing at this stage.

 

I have asked to put back to my pre accident condition; as I can no longer replace this vehicle at this price point and the only way to not suffer a financial loss is to have a direct replacement. Its easier to get the insurance company to replace the car as far as I am concerned, other wise I will then have to sue them to get back my losses and still end up without a car, and as its a credit product I cant reapply for another few months, and in any case there is no guarantee of being accepted again hence me wanting to avoid the settlement route.

 

The finance settlement plus losses comes to substantially more than the vat free price of a new vehicle, and I am of the opinion that its ludicrous of Aviva to go down this route. Its been well over 6 weeks and we have got nowhere.

 

Anyone have any similar experiences and what outcome can I realistically expect from this?

 

As an aside, Aviva customer service is truly, truly awful. The call centres are badly managed, the staff poorly trained and thoroughly unprofessional. Its no wonder why people go to Ambulance chasers and run up bills having to deal with such neolithic incompetence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More importantly, what has your insurance company done to date ?

 

Whilst you may not have booked legal cover with them, they have a responsibilitiy to ensure you are not affected by the actions of another at the time.

 

If they are not liable for anything to do with your policy following the incident (cancelled immediately ?), they are liable for your insurance worthiness at the point of impact (sic).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have fully comprehensive insurance. I told my insurance company, who in turn contacted Aviva who admitted liability pretty much straight away (next day). I have legal cover and have only consulted them so far over loss of earnings and injury stuff, I wanted to get an idea of what I realistically could expect before launching into this with them, the finance lease company have excellent customer service (Daimler Benz) and they support my claim for a replacement vehicle owing to the fact that the original agreement had only been in place 8 weeks at the time of the incident.

 

My insurer said that as they (Aviva for the other party) had admitted liability it prevents them from taking action, and that I should wait for the process at Aviva to run through. The insurance is still in place, and my insurer has also had no contact with them other than the initial admission of liability. I am told this is now normal to try and limit the cost of additional legal work and fees.

 

I currently have a rental car, but this is from my own pocket, and my medical insurance is covering the chiropractic and other med bills for now, but naturally they will want the money back also at some point. I also have a loss of earnings claim which I feel is going to be complex, as I get a days paid holiday for everyday I work, so naturally a month off work means a months lost holiday and another months earnings lost, so its starting to get a bit costly already.

Edited by antiestablishment
Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is that you need to chase them about unless there is something a miss.

 

I had a feeling this would be the case. I am very surprised that after 6 weeks I have had absolutely no written correspondence. I wrote an email to Aviva two weeks and have yet to get a response. One would assume that when you admit liability you would want to get things dealt with swiftly to avoid incurring car rental costs and storage costs for my current car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Aviva Support
I dont want to get into too much detail as I think this may end up in court, but I would like to hear from anybody who has had to secure a replacement vehicle from a third party insurer, and if this is a reasonable request.

 

In a nutshell, my 8 week old car was hit from behind late last year and has been declared a total loss. Aviva is the other insurance company and so far they have failed to contact me regarding this incident at all.

 

I have asked for the vehicle to be replaced with a like for like example (GAP insurance and such is not required and not suitable in this instance, and whats owed on the finance lease is way less than its pre accident condition valuation) and Aviva have declined this, although not in writing at this stage.

 

I have asked to put back to my pre accident condition; as I can no longer replace this vehicle at this price point and the only way to not suffer a financial loss is to have a direct replacement. Its easier to get the insurance company to replace the car as far as I am concerned, other wise I will then have to sue them to get back my losses and still end up without a car, and as its a credit product I cant reapply for another few months, and in any case there is no guarantee of being accepted again hence me wanting to avoid the settlement route.

 

The finance settlement plus losses comes to substantially more than the vat free price of a new vehicle, and I am of the opinion that its ludicrous of Aviva to go down this route. Its been well over 6 weeks and we have got nowhere.

 

Anyone have any similar experiences and what outcome can I realistically expect from this?

 

As an aside, Aviva customer service is truly, truly awful. The call centres are badly managed, the staff poorly trained and thoroughly unprofessional. Its no wonder why people go to Ambulance chasers and run up bills having to deal with such neolithic incompetence.

 

Hi antiestablishment,

 

I'd like to look into your claim for you. If you're happy for me to do so can you please email me the following details to [email protected]

I'll need your:

 

  • Full name
  • Date of birth
  • Postcode
  • Car registration number
  • Claim reference (if you have it)
  • Our customer name and address (if you have it)

As soon as we have the details I'll liaise with our Claims team and request an update.

 

Kind regards,

 

Martin Banwell

Aviva UK Social Media Support

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a follow up to this thread, I replied to Aviva Support by email and received confirmation that someone would look into.

 

However, once again I am still waiting around for information and a phone call, and the call centre is still telling me 'lots of people are calling right now, please email us' just as it has been for the last 10 days.

 

In further developments, I also learn that my car has been removed from the Accident Repair centre without my permission and much to the bemusement of the finance company. I have been advised to report this as theft....

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have legal cover with your insurer, use it to start proceedings jointly against the person who hit you and Aviva for your FULL losses including interest. Also, do as suggested and report the theft of your motor vehicle, naming the recovery person individually if he presented documentation to the repair centre. Things will speed up then and people may start being nice to you and return your calls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Thanks for the replies. I have had some progress but alas its not as I had hoped.

 

I am certainly getting the 'Aviva deal'. Despite being contacted by customer services they are just employed merely to pay lip service and limit brand damage, they have no real power to settle any complaints. I have dealt with a few people who were reasonable, however most seem to want to remind of what the company policy is and go about case clean up as quick as possible.

 

After seeking help from the FSA regarding the conduct of the Aviva, I believe I have been victim of a new insurance company process called 'third party capture.' This involves admitting liability immediately to prevent the use of Ambulance chasers and help or credit hire companies providing replacement vehicles, and then in my case the vehicle was written off within 4 days of the accident WITHOUT the assessor even looking at the car. I have a statement from the body centre that the Aviva assessor simply called up and said if its going to be more than £7k then the vehicle will be written off. By admitting liability it prevents me from claiming under my policy, which also happens to be underwritten by Aviva.

 

From the FSA:

 

'Third-party capture or (third party assistance) is when an insurer deals directly with a person who has a potential claim against their policyholder, in order to investigate and settle the claim. Typically, an insurer offers a compensation payment to settle the claim directly to a third party, rather than settling through a legal representative for that party. This is mainly used for third-party motor claims. But sometimes it’s used in other types of insurance, such as employers’ liability.

Concerns have been raised by industry bodies and consumer groups that this practice could mean third parties do not receive fair and reasonable treatment and compensation.

 

The handling of all insurance claims by insurers – including third-party claims – is regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. This means that an insurer’s conduct towards third parties must comply with our Principles for Businesses and, where relevant, the claims handling rules in chapter eight of our new Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook (ICOBS). Complying with our Principles for Businesses includes acting with integrity, due skill, care and diligence and observing proper standards of market conduct. The Principles are a general statement of the fundamental obligations of firms under our regulatory system. Breaching them makes a firm liable to disciplinary sanctions.'

 

It further states:

 

'Settlement offers made by insurers to third-party claimants should be fair and adequate and insurers should treat third-party claimants in an open and fair manner. Third-party claimants should be fully informed of their rights, including their right to independent legal advice and of the alternatives to settling directly with the insurer.'

 

I most certainly have not been treated in an open and fair manner, and I have never been adequately advised by the third party insurer, let alone received adequate communication. I have not received 'fair and reasonable' treatment. The losses claim has been submitted by my solicitor and I will be pursuing this to my satisfaction.

 

Further, when I tried to pursue the issue of vehicle replacement with my insurer, I was told that vehicle replacement is only possible if the vehicle is on straight finance or owned outright. Any form of deferred value contract or PCP is not covered by vehicle replacement, despite the policy not stating anything to the contrary, and the policy clearly stating that a replacement vehicle is available if your vehicle is written of in the first 12 months of ownership. I specifically asked this at the inception of the policy, only to find out it was not covered.

 

I was also rather annoyed to find out that RAC Legal Services, who contacted me on behalf of my insurer actually share and address with Aviva! Impartiality? I don't think so, it explains the reluctance of their legal team to actually do anything in my interest.

 

So regardless of what I can recover from the third party, I also intend to claim mis-selling against my Aviva underwritten insurers. The best bit is I have just ordered a new vehicle out of my own pocket, and when transferring the insurance policy I was told again that I would have the benefit of vehicle replacement cover in the event of it being written off in the first 12 months of ownership, despite the fact that I had just told the operator it was a lease purchase vehicle, which I now know is not covered under the policy. It still does not state that anywhere in the policy terms what is meant are included by this statement. Best of all, I have a recording of it.

 

To sum up, I still believe and have had no evidence to the contrary that Aviva are thoroughly disingenuous, condescending and unprofessional. This company is the epitome of what is wrong with the insurance industry, as my case is basically Aviva vs Aviva I was over a barrel right from the start.

 

I fully intend to have my day in court on each and every one of these issues, and I want to raise awareness of other forum users about this underhand conduct of the major insurers in the UK. Further to this, I have also received some interest from tabloid news papers regarding my insurance ordeal.

 

As an aside, despite Aviva stating this was a simple case it still took them nearly 3 months to settle the finance so I could actually get another car. I don't call that 'fair and just treatment' at all, and I am quite sure nobody else will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...