Accident Exchange - letters after 9 years ??

[rdonalds]

Hi there,

 

 

9 years ago, we hired a car from Accident Exchange after a no fault accident,

the other driver went right into the back on us on a motorway with other cars all around.

 

 

We filled in all the paperwork at the time and helped AE with everything they needed

and thought that it was then all settled.

 

 

Now, I've had a phone call from them asking me 4 times if I was the driver in the car (I wasn't),

then calling back on our home phone line and refusing to speak to me as they only wanted to speak to my wife.

 

 

We then received a number of blank letters to sign to authorise any solicitor to give them a case file

with no details of what it is we are sigining or why.

 

 

then I get a letter with copies of all our original casework suggesting they are still owed thousands of pounds

intimating that they'd like me to pay that.

 

 

Surely after 9 years and all the help we've given them that they've had enough of an opportunity to sort this out.

 

 

Any advice ?

 

 

We did hire the car, so I'm sympathetic to them getting their money back,

but on the other hand they've had plenty of time

and I'd like them to just go away and sort this all out themselves.

 

 

Roy.

[unclebulgaria67]

If the agreement you signed for the hire car was more than 6 years ago and you have not made any payments to them or admitted liability in writing, then the matter is subject to statute of limitations. i.e means that they cannot enforce this debt in court.

 

Sounds like an admin c*ck up at AE. They have obviously not been able to recover their outlay from the third party driver responsible for the accident. So 9 years later, they are trying to seek a recovery from the person who signed the hire car agreement.

 

I would be inclined to write back to them stating that the matter they are raising occured 9 years ago and any monies related to a hire car would be subject to the Statute of Limitations act 1980. Advise them that they are responsible for the administration of this account and it was up to them to handle the matter within any legal time constraints. You therefore do not wish to be involved with something this historic and do not want to be contacted again.

[rdonalds]

I mentioned this on the phone to them yesterday and they suggested it wasn't time limited as the Default occured in 2008 at a court case ?? I have no knowledge of any court case and reading the original hire, it does seem like it would be from 2004 and not 2008 ? They want access to the solicitors files that the insurance company used at the time.

[unclebulgaria67]

I mentioned this on the phone to them yesterday and they suggested it wasn't time limited as the Default occured in 2008 at a court case ?? I have no knowledge of any court case and reading the original hire, it does seem like it would be from 2004 and not 2008 ? They want access to the solicitors files that the insurance company used at the time.

 

You were liable for the hire car costs from the point the agreement was signed and this could be enforced in court for a period of 6 years. The court case is a separate matter and you did not have any involvement in any court case.

 

Don't speak to them on the phone again. Just write back to them as suggested. i.e the matter is too long ago and it was up to them to deal with it within legal time constraints.

[rdonalds]

I'm sure I've seen some stock letter for this kind of thing somewhere. Would you happen to have seen them ?

[dx100uk]

send the statute barred letter from the green library tab top left

 

 

and stay off that phone

 

 

dx

[rdonalds]

Thanks. Letter printed out just now. No intention of speaking to them again. Only spoke to them to get a feel for what they were up to.

[Ganymede]

I mentioned this on the phone to them yesterday and they suggested it wasn't time limited as the Default occured in 2008 at a court case ?? I have no knowledge of any court case and reading the original hire, it does seem like it would be from 2004 and not 2008 ? They want access to the solicitors files that the insurance company used at the time.

 

 

 

Hang on, what court case?

[unclebulgaria67]

Hang on, what court case?

 

Very valid question. Of course if it had anything that related to these hire costs, then of course it might affect whether the debt is statute barred or not. From what I read, the OP was not aware of the court case and they have no details of it.

 

Hopefully AE will respond to the statute barred letter and provide details of how the court case affects statute barring.

[SuperVillain]

I bet there's some paperwork from PCJ Solicitors knocking about somewhere... And also do you remember if the other side were insured with AXA?

 

If we're talking about reviving old claims this could be the reason - the link I posted here might not work so... an excerpt:

 

"Credit hire operator Accident Exchange is set on pursuing its legal challenge of cases involving evidence from now-defunct Autofocus that it exaggerated costs, after accusing Axa and its lawyers of complicity – a charge Axa denies.

 

The CHO has reached settlements with more than 50 insurers since December 2011 when it won appeals on four test cases where Autofocus evidence had been used by insurers to show credit hire rates provided by the CHO were too high.

 

However, it has continued to take other individual cases to the Court of Appeal, including those involving Axa, in order to renegotiate rates."

[rdonalds]

Hi there,

 

I've no idea about a court case. My wife was hit from behind on the motorway by a truck and the car was off the road for a number of weeks. We had a hire car from AE and our insurers got us money back from whiplash for my wife. She did in fact have whiplash and needed to see a chiropractor on a number of occasions as she had quite a lot of pain in her neck after being hit by the truck.

 

The latter I got with details from AE says:

 

"As discussed, we still have outstanding hire charges resulting from this accident whcih we are no longer able to recover from the third party insurers and leaving you liable for the outstanding amount. We are aware that court proceedings were issued on this claim by solicitors acting on your behalf, and that the hire charges were not included within those proceedings. We are still trying to find out why this was.

 

We were unable to make a full recovery of the hire charges and so passed our file to panel solicitors to issue court proceedings. They found out that another firm were already acting on your behalf. Although we passed the hire charges onto this second firm, they were still not included.

 

I have previously asked that you sign a release form in order to obtain a copy of the solicitors file. If they were aware of the hire charges but took no action to include them, then they will have prejudiced recovery of the hire charges. Should this be the case, then we will be seeking to recover the balance of hire from the solicitors rather than you directly. This may require further assistance from you in the future."

 

and then they've included a copy of a release form for us to sign to give them access to solicitors files.

 

Any ideas ?

 

As I said, I don't have any problems with helping them be paid for a car that was hired, I'd just really like them to go away and sort this out and stop bothering me with threats that they want the money from me ??

 

Roy.

[SuperVillain]

Looks like the solicitors dealing with your wife's injury claim didn't pursue the hire charges at the same time. Normally its because they don't know about them, as claimant's usually forget that they're ultimately liable for credit hire charges and so don't notify their solicitors that they also have this loss to pursue.

 

However its quite clear from your post above - "Although we passed the hire charges onto this second firm, they were still not included... If they were aware of the hire charges but took no action to include them, then they will have prejudiced recovery of the hire charges. Should this be the case, then we will be seeking to recover the balance of hire from the solicitors rather than you directly. "

 

AE want to see the solicitors' file to determine if your solicitors messed up or if you/your wife ever told them not to include the hire charges. For the former they'll try and pursue the solicitors for the latter they will try and pursue you/your wife.

 

I'm guessing the Defendant's solicitors have already told them to politely go away as the payment for the injury (if they're good) would have specified it was in full and final settlement of all claims arising from the incident. I would do this (and have on many occasions).

[unclebulgaria67]

On the 2 occasions Solicitors acted for you, do you know the basis of this ? Did you instruct them what to pursue ? If not, who instructed the Solicitors ?

 

I cannot see that you are liable, as the court cases do not relate to hire car charges and your responsbility for these. AE are therefore thinking that the Solicitors may be liable ? But I suspect that actually AE may be trying to prove that your lack of instruction to the Solicitors to pursue the third party for hire car charges, has prejudiced their position, therefore it cannot be right for you to argue statute barring. I am not sure what legal case precedents there are, but I suspect there are cases, where a Judge has allowed the claimants claim in similar circumstances.

 

I don't know whether they can force you to waive your right to not allow them access to your Solicitors files. I suspect that if you just wrote back to them maintaining that the matter is statute barred and that you do not wish to be inconvenienced by an event that happened 9 years ago, that they may just give up. If they can't obtain your consent, then they are a bit stuck. I can't see them going to court and requesting that a ruling that allows them access to your Solicitors files. I don't know what process this would be.

 

They are clutching at straws. Giving them consent to your files, may just allow them to continue the matter and cause more hassle.

[SuperVillain]

If they can't obtain your consent, then they are a bit stuck. I can't see them going to court and requesting that a ruling that allows them access to your Solicitors files. I don't know what process this would be.

 

I reckon it depends on the sums they've missed out on.

 

It's probably more than a £500 claim for a couple of weeks hire of a Ford Focus if they're writing to you after all this time.

 

If on the other end of the scale we're talking say 60 days hire of a Mercedes CLK or Porsche Cayenne; AE might go the extra mile to get some or all of their £15,000 or so hire charges back...

 

Maybe the OP can shed some light on how much the hire charges were roughly? Probably give us a clue on how hard AE might pursue this...

[rdonalds]

They are suggesting it's £7000 ish.

Edited December 3, 2013 by rdonalds

[SuperVillain]

lol smack in the middle of my two examples...

 

I'd be inclined to agree with Unclebulgaria's suggestion of writing back with the SB letter and see if they give up.

[unclebulgaria67]

They are suggesting it's £xxxx.

 

You should be aware that companies do read CAG posts and they are published to internet searches. Therefore you should amend the amount and never quote exact amounts or dates online.

 

I think I would respond as I advised earlier. Don't say anything about the Solicitors form. Just tell them that the matter they raise is statute barred and that you don't want to be inconvenienced by such an old matter.

[rdonalds]

Thanks. I think I'll go with the statue barred letter as suggested in the first instance. I'd really be far more inclined to help them if it weren't for the fact that every letter I get from them has a veiled threat that they want the money from me somehow. If they'd write and say that they want assistance in getting money from the other solicitors and not me at all, then I'd help them. But all they have ever done is threaten me that if i don't help then they'll come after me.

 

Not really a great way to convince me they are friendly and I should help them really is it.

[unclebulgaria67]

As AE may use the contents of the Solicitors files against you, then who in their right mind would sign a form which would grant them access. The point here is that AE had plenty of time to pursue this within the 6 years. They should have made sure of getting a recovery in whatever way was possible. You cannot be held responsible for a debt 9 years later, down to the poor standards of admin by AE. I suspect that as this was a non fault accident, it never occured to you that a recovery would not be made from the responsible third party. It would be totally unfair for you to be pursued, down to any issues caused by AE and the Solicitors dealing with the claim. Something went wrong with the claim for the hire costs, but I cannot see that this is your problem 9 years later.

[unclebulgaria67]

The other thought I had was that you could ask AE to confirm in writing that they would not pursue you for the hire car costs or anything related to your claim 9 years ago. If they provided such written confirmation, you would consider signing the consent form in regard to Solicitors files.

[rdonalds]

It is strange, as this is quite clearly an accident where we were not at fault. My wife was hit from behind by a truck on the motorway in heavy traffic. She had neck pains that were real and needed to see a chiropractor and had pain medication from our doctor for this. The car needed its chasis straightened which is why the repairers had it for such a time. We did everything to help all solicitors and ae as was asked of us.

 

I agree that in providing unlimited access to the files all it does is to provide ae with the possible option to come after us, which is ridiculous. Again I keep coming back to the way they have behaved so far and think I should send the statute barred letter. If they would be agree to not peruse us, I'd be more than willing to assist them, but their behaviour so far implies this would not be the case.

[rdonalds]

I just remembered, when I spoke to them they said that it would not be statute barred as the default occurred in 2008 at the court case (which I know nothing about).

[unclebulgaria67]

I just remembered, when I spoke to them they said that it would not be statute barred as the default occurred in 2008 at the court case (which I know nothing about).

 

No, you have already told us about this.

 

It is still statute barred, if the hire car costs were never part of the court case involving you. If the court case did not consider your liability for the hire car costs, then the statute barred date would run from the date of the agreement.

 

So still send the statute barred letter. It is up to AE to prove otherwise.

[SuperVillain]

Ahhh the perils of credit hire. Tis a murky business...

[rdonalds]

To be honest if I'd known any of this before we had the car I'd never have touched it. The other driver was completely at fault, admitted liability and my wife was injured. We both needed good cars at the time for our work and it seemed like a good option.

 

Sheesh, what a right pain and I'm probably someone how would have been entitled to use such a service.