Accident Exchange - hire car charges after accident

[Feelingdownandout]

Hello All

 

Help and strong advice is needed today.....

 

In August last year my hubby and I went out for a spot of lunch, we parked our car on a residential road, correctly parked, outside a house the way you do, locked it and off we went. We returned two hours later to find that someone driven across the front of our car as they were trying to pull onto their drive. Before you ask, our car was in no way obstructing the driveway. The driver of the aforementioned vehicle was in a hire van as he was moving house. The damage to the van was pretty awful, and he admitted liability straight away, he said that he had never driven a van before and had misjudge turning the van and realised that he has clipped the car but didn't realise how bad the damage was.....

 

This is where is gets complicated so please bear with me....

 

What we did next was this - we took his contact details, he showed us a copy of the hire agreement he had signed with the hire company, and he gave us his new address!! He contacted the hire company and advised them of what happened and when he returned the van to them had to pay a hefty charge for the damage he caused to the van. When we contacted the hire company to ask for their insurance details so that we could get our car repaired they refused to give them to us. They demanded we took the car to them so that they could repair it!! We said no we were not going to do that. After much toing and froing, and the complete resistance by the van hire company we turned to our own insurance company for advice, this is where is gets VERY complicated as I am not 100% of who did what at this point. My husband was told that he could make a claim on his own insurance or could make a claim against the third party insurance as it was a non fault accident. The next thing we know Enterprise car hire are on the phone demanding a credit card details before they would drop off a courtesy car and a body shop garage had contacted my husband to make arrangements for the car to be repaired. We can only presume at this point this was at the request of our insurance company who would make a claim against the third party insurance.

 

We refused to give Enterprise any credit card details, to this day we still don't know 'Who' instructed the garage! Wr then contacted accident exchange. Now this is where it gets interesting...

 

All the time the van hire company are chasing is for OUR insurance details and we aren't handing them over!! its a non fault claim and we not making a claim on our insurance we are looking for them to settle any repair and courtesy car charges!

 

Accident Exchange say - don't worry we will help. So we told enterprise we didn't want their car that we refused to leave credit card details. The day that the car was scheduled to be collected by the garage for repair was the day that Accident Exchange turned up with the hire car. To be honest he only have a little Peugeot, we were given a huge Insignia!! we struggled to run it as it was so expensive. We asked about the hire charges and were told that they would be claimed back from the third party insurance company.

 

Off our car went, and that was it - or so we thought.

 

We had word back from accident exchange to say that the third party insurance company was a non regulated insurance company and not even based in the UK! The repairs to our car were being carried out despite the garage not receiving authorisation from the third party insurance company, so things were starting to get messy. We were concerned by had our fears calmed by Accident Exchange that thing would be sorted. They had come across non regulated companies before and whilst they were difficult things generally got sorted.

 

So - our car came back eventually, the hire car was collected, and things seemed to have calmed down! Happy days? No - we then get a letter from the garage asking my hubby to retrospectively sign a credit agreement stating that if they cant claim back the money for the repairs that we will pay them!!! Suffice to say that letter remained in our house and was not returned!

 

We then start to get letters from solicitors acting for accident exchange as the third party were disputing the hire car charges, they admitted liability, and we have signed letter from the driver of the hire van clearly setting out that he was at fault.

 

The solicitors for accident exchange then submitted court papers for the non payment of the hire car charges and more than likely the repair to the car, and they have returned a response to the legal team over the last few days.

 

The solicitor has told my husband that although they have accepted liability they are not paying up.

 

My massive worry here is that accident exchange will come after us for the costs of the hire car an I am worried sick as its not cheap and we barely make ends meet as it is......

 

Please please can anyone offer any help here?

[Feelingdownandout]

Any advice would be appreciated.....

[SuperVillain]

Ok lets start from the top.

 

Accident Exchange are a credit hire company who offer hire vehicles to victims of non-fault accidents. Under a credit hire agreement you are liable to pay the charges, but the agreement says they will endeavour to recover these from the other side. From your post it also appears AE conducted a credit repair, which is the same thing but for repairs instead of hire. Under a credit repair AE will instruct their own engineers to authorise repairs with the garage and get them sorted.

 

So your car was repaired and you had hire whilst it was at the garage.

 

Fast forward to now. AE are trying to recover the monies from the other side's insurers. When AE say the other insurers are non-regulated I suspect they mean they are not part of the ABI (Association of British Insurers) and/or not signed up to the ABI GTA (General Terms of Agreement) - if you're interested it's here but it's a very dry read - http://apps.abi.org.uk/tphire/

 

The ABI is essentially a trade body, and the GTA is in effect a non-binding set of terms and conditions relating to specifically to credit hire and repair, which outline how a claim should be settled and provides timescales for payments and maximum rates that can be charged. Of course if the other insurers are not signed up to the GTA they are not bound by its terms and conditions. Not being part of the ABI or the GTA doesn't mean they're "unregulated" as AE put it. Insurance companies are regulated by the FCA.

 

So whilst this means they don't have to stick to the timescales for payment etc, it means that AE can pretty much charge any rate they want for the car that was provided. So my guess on the fuss that the other insurers are kicking up is that:

 

a) the rate they charged was too high

and/or

b) the hire period was too long and there were delays (because AE were conducting the repair themselves).

 

Now if they charged the actual rate for the insignia (as opposed to the rate that they would have charged for a car similar to your own) lets say hire was £60-70 a day, daily excess waiver of £5/day, Collection/Delivery £100 usually, plus VAT, so if say your car was off the road for 20 days that's about 2 grand plus whatever your repairs cost. So for argument's sake a £3.5K claim.

 

And obviously the longer the dispute drags on the more keen AE are to instruct solicitors (I suspect its PCJ Solicitors in Liverpool, it usually is with AE) and they have now issued proceedings against the other driver. As you've previously stated liability isn't an issue it's the quantum (amount) of the claim.

 

I think they have a valid dispute in that you were provided with a car significantly larger (and therefore more expensive) than your own, so it wasn't a like for like hire and regarding the hire period I can't comment without the paperwork.

 

The other side may also have raised the issue of impecuniosity. This is the notion that you could have afforded to hire directly from a hire company rather than using credit hire - which is much more expensive. If AE/PCJ are saying that you were impecunious you may have to provide some financial statements, e.g. debit, credit card, savings accounts, to prove that you couldn't have afforded to hire direct and that credit hire was the only option available to you.

 

But this is all way down the line, the claim is in its early stages. As liability is not in dispute the other side will likely put forward a settlement offer and this will probably be resolved before a court hearing takes place.

 

I think its highly unlikely that AE will come after you for anything they don't recover. There are other threads on this board suggesting its not impossible that they do, but to me it only seems to be when they think the hirer has done something to affect their chances of making a recovery.

 

So don't panic, but wait for an update from PCJ. If you haven't heard from them in two weeks (this is how long the other side have to respond to the claim before Judgment can be entered) then give them a call for an update.

 

I hope that helps but if anything is unclear just post up.

[Feelingdownandout]

Thank you so much for your post - it is a really interesting read. The reason that we went to AE for help was because two years ago someone revered into my car - they left a note, admitted full liability and the garage who I went to for a quote on repairs recommended me to them as the other side were trying to force me into having a car from Enterprise and surprise they wanted my credit card details.

 

The third party have been submitted court papers, and have responded to them. PCJ Solicitors have been back in touch and asked for a conference all with my hubby to discuss it.

 

What concerns me is the whole charges thing, and I am worried that they will try and claim money from us? We didn't ask for an Insignia! in fact we didn't want it!

[SuperVillain]

Again I think its a bit early in the day to be worried about the charges (easy for me to say I appreciate) as it's incredibly unlikely from what you describe that AE will come back to you to pay these.

 

Also I wouldn't worry about the fact you had an Insignia, it's probably just what AE had available at the time. Usually what they would do is provide the Insignia to you and charge the lower daily rate for a like for like car, but maybe they make a mistake or even thought they could chance it with the other side.

 

If the third party have acknowledged the claim they have the original 14 days plus a further 14 - total 28 days - from the date they were served the papers in which to file a defence.

 

Just wait for the conference call and see what PCJ say.

[Feelingdownandout]

what are PCJ likely to ask in a conference call?

what further information are they likely to want from us? I just struggle with the fact that it has gone on for so long and its still not sorted.

I worry as I said that they will come after us for the money, after they told us that we wont have to pay a penny. It s my understanding that PCJ are acting for AE and not us?

[SuperVillain]

Well the proceedings will be issued in your or your husband's name, so you will be the Claimant and they are acting on your behalf. Although AE is their Client and will be paying their fees and so they have to protect AE's interests as well.

 

In my opinion PCJ will just provide an update, tell you what's going to happen next and may possibly ask you to start gathering evidence regarding impecuniosity as I stated above.

 

Although from experience it is hard to predict what PCJ will do sometimes

[Feelingdownandout]

how do you mean??

should we be concerned about this? AE provided the car - we didn't ask for a monster of a vehicle, and the only reason we went to them was because they were so good when I had my incident and it all went through very smoothly.

What is the known likely outcome of a situation like this?

[SuperVillain]

Apologies didn't mean to worry you, that's just my experience being on the receiving end of some of their claims in my last job!

Like I said, don't worry PCJ are acting on your behalf.

[Feelingdownandout]

In your experience what is the outcome of this likely to be? As I expect that the third party will partly settle?

[Slimm]

It'll probably get wrapped up amicably the day before the hearing for an amount which is reasonably acceptable to both firms. I imagine AE are asking for an amount rather more than they're really entitled to and the TPI (Third parties insurers) have offered less than AE are willing to accept. Sounds like you had a car more expensive than you needed, possibly for longer than really needed and possibly at a higher rate than Enterprise car hire would have charged the TPI.

 

Whilst nothing is certain it's highly unlikely you have anything to worry about here - especially as you say nothing was signed. If AE made a habit out of going after their own customers without a very good reason they'd soon find themselves without any. In the short term if AE were looking to recover your hubby then their solicitors would have issued court proceedings against both the TPI and your hubby, with one as the first defendant and the other as the second defendant.

 

In terms of what AE's sols want in the conference it's likely to be stuff that supports the need for a hire car and evaluates how reasonable AE's claim is. They'll need to convince a court that a car was needed and then in a separate issue what the reasonable charge was. Eg, if your hubby had another car available a hire car wouldn't be needed, if the garage took your car off the road before ordering parts from Kuala Lumpur then the hire period would be excessive and so on. For example AE could claim for a 40 day hire for a BMW 520 but then find that a court feels that a 20 day hire of a Ford Focus would have been fairer.

[dacouc]

What they're more likely to mean is the Hire Companies Insurance company is based offshore and / or a captive Insurer which is typically how hire companies arrange their fleet insurance due to the tax efficiencies.

Following on from that they will not normally be signed up to the ABI agreement.

They may be using an argument that the (Defending) hire company offered a replacement car in their initial discussions and the OP did not mitigate her losses by accepting this but went to a credit hire company at circa three times the hire costs and knowing how they like to hang repairs out to boost the credit hire fees up they're probably arguing about the prolonged car repairs

[Feelingdownandout]

I think that you may be right - we told Enterprise that we were not prepared to leave credit card details, and that we should not have to, at the end of the day we were not at fault. If the TPI wanted to offer a vehicle without having do to that then fine, but they weren't. they made it very clear it was Enterprise as they were offering no other alternative.

Hence, why we went to AE, they were brilliant and helped us immediately. The issue that TPI have is with AE and not us - we didn't ask for a monster car - AE knew what vehicle we had, and it was horrendous to run, and we struggled, but we needed another car as my husband had no other way of getting to work.

It was all very stressful and still is. I do believe that the TPI are overseas AE explained previously that they have cone across people like this and it is often long and drawn out, it is just worrying me a lot, as I am worried that the TPI wont pay up at all.....

[SuperVillain]

You're right but (no matter how justified) the repair period argument is doomed to fail.

Remember OP will be the claimant in any Court Proceedings and the Defendant will have to show the OP had some control over her repairs - no county court judge is going to find that the OP could have done anything to speed up repairs unless something's gone on which the OP isn't posting. I don't think that's the case.

And on the facts of the case the OP can say to mitigte they went to the Defendant to arrange car hire but they wouldn't do it without taking credit card details, so the OP went to AE. I can't see a judge deeming this unreasonable.

To answer your previous question OP, I'm assuming the total value of the claim is below £10K, so if I was the other side I'd be looking to settle this before any hearing takes place. Given that liability isn't in dispute, in my opinion there's no point going to a hearing just on quantum in the small claims track, as you can only recover your fixed costs. There's no sense in spending £1,500 to save £500.

The doesn't appear to be anything drastically wrong with the credit hire that can't be negotiated out. With liability not in dispute costs are most likely to be awarded in your favour if the matter did go to a hearing, which is another disincentive for the other side to let this go to far.

When's the conference call with PCJ?

[Feelingdownandout]

the conference call isn't until the 12 March! My hubby was offered one other date but he works in a supermarket and its not easy getting 30 mins to take a phone call, plus he doesn't feel so comfortable taking the call on his own so he arrange for the next available date which happens to be March.

 

What 'IF' AE aren't able to claim all that they are asking for? Will they try to pursue us for the rest of the money?

 

BTW - I have posted all the info that I have. The car seemed to be in the garage for what seemed like ages, there was a dispute about the repairs not being authorised yet the parts being ordered. I think there was an issue over waiting for an assessor to look over the car - we only got bitty information on this. It just was not straight forward and seemed really messy and Im not sure why it had to be this way...

 

So stressful

[SuperVillain]

Totally understandable regarding taking the call himself, but I think the best thing to do is not stress about it (again easy for me to say I know!) and wait to see what PCJ say. 12th March seems far away but it'll fly by, trust me on that!

 

As I said before and as Slimm said it's highly unlikely they will pursue you for anything.

 

Sounds like the repairs dragged on a bit but it happens all the time... was your car usable after the accident or was the damage too bad? If there was a delay with inspection/authorisation I would expect any reductions to be negotiated out between the two sets of solicitors.

[Feelingdownandout]

no, that's the thing the repairs not bad at all, it was damage to a headlight and bumper. Should have been relatively straight forward, even when the car came back it wasn't right the head lamp was out of kilter....

 

still, we have it back!

 

I just don't know who to trust...?

[Feelingdownandout]

**UPDATE AND ADVICE NEEDED**

 

Hello everyone, the update following the conference call today is that, the solicitors have stated that the third party are disputing ALL car hire charges. From what I understand they are saying that they agreed to have the car repaired but not provide a car whilst ours was off the road.

 

The solicitors have said that we signed the hire agreement with AE and therefore (and there is a clause in the agreement) we are technically liable for the costs of the hire car!!

 

The solicitors have also said that there is a built in insurance policy which in 9 out of 10 cases covers the cost of the hire car, but that they will pursue the third party to the end. They have asked that we provide bank statements to prove that we couldn't afford to hire a car ourselves.

 

The whole situation is ludicrous, we are involved in a non fault accident, and yet we have to prove that we couldn't afford to hire a car?? We were offered a car by the third party, but the condition of taking the car was that we had to hand over credit card details, as we refused to hand over credit cad details we spoke to AE who said that they could help, and they would sort things out for us.

 

I am in shock, upset and now extremely worried. The charges that are outstanding are £1,500 (which we cannot afford to pay), my husband has been asked to sign a statement following his conversation this morning.

 

Any help and advice please.....

[unclebulgaria67]

Your personal financial situation re the hire car is not relevant here. If you had no other car to use to meet your transport needs, it would be reasonable for an at fault third party to be liable for these reasonable costs. There is then an argument about what reasonable costs the third party is liable for. Theses credit hire companies charge excessive amounts, but if the third party was not paying for a cheaper alternative, then they will have to pay the amount due.

 

This is a silly situation. I think the only way to resolve is to take the third party driver to court and let the court decide.

 

There is another CAG poster Ganymede who may have more knowledge of this, so I will PM them to see if they can respond.

[Feelingdownandout]

Hi UB67,

 

I cant take the third party driver to court, as it was a hire van who hit us. The driver of van who hit us admitted liability, and was heavily charged lots of money for the damage to the van.

 

The driver has albeit washed his hands of the situation.

 

I just don't know what to do about this. I am worried sick.

[unclebulgaria67]

I can't see that it makes any difference whether it was a hire van or not. Liability is caused by the action of another person and therefore the vehicle they were driving at the time should make no difference.

The Insurers Solicitors 'acting' for you (?) probably just think it is easier to get the money from you or third parties insurers, than the driver of the van.

[Ganymede]

unclebulgaria67 said:

Your personal financial situation re the hire car is not relevant here. 

Not true I'm afraid. The Claimant will need to prove that they were impecunious at the time of the accident and couldn't have afforded to hire a replacement car from their own pocket on 'spot rates' rather than the very more expensive credit hire rates.

As the OP has identified, they have signed a credit hire agreement so they are responsible for the hire costs. However, most credit hire companies will simply write off what they are not awarded by the Court and will usually not chase the Claimant for the balance.

[Ganymede]

Feelingdownandout said:

Hi UB67,

I cant take the third party driver to court, as it was a hire van who hit us.

Yes you can as he is the tortfeasor.

The driver will be the other party named as the Defendant on the Court proceedings.

[unclebulgaria67]

Thanks for the clarification.

Perhaps the OP should have been given the advice not to go down the credit hire route, if they could have sorted out their own hire car. Or maybe they were told this and said they could not afford a hire car.

[Ganymede]

Yeah they probably should have been but the OP decided not to use their own insurers, and I assume could not afford a solicitor for a small claim, so took AE word for it. Hindsight is always 20/20.

The Court can, and probably will, Order the Claimant to produce bank statements, credit card statements, details of wages etc for 3 months before the accident and the duration of the hire period to see if they were in fact impercunious or not. If the Court decides that the Claimant was not impecunious and could have afforded their own hire car to mitigate their losses then the rate at which the hire is claimed will be limited to the 'spot rates' instead of the credit hire rates claimed.

I also note that there is a dispute as to the repairs and the OP has said that their car was potentially roadworthy but this will need to be clarified by the OP. If the car was roadworthy then they should not have hired a car.

Maybe yeah. It looks like AE have intentionally put the Claimant in a car of a much higher class than their own in an attempt to recover more hire charges.