Insurance claim - not at fault

[Ruscik12]

Hi All,

 

Got a bit of an issue.

 

In Jun 2016 I got rear ended while on my motorbike by a car.

 

In short driver jumped out of bus lane to hit me on purpose.

After he hit me I tried to block him he reversed and hit ambulance, hit my bike again and drove off.

I did take photo of his car, plate and gave correct description of driver.

 

Took police over a month to trace him but he was found.

 

His insurance company is not contesting liability but their offer for vehicle is pitiful and leaves me in huge minus.

 

My vehicle is PCP so total value with credit is 11000 for bike alone. Bike was 6 months old when he hit me so brand new.

 

They offer 11000 exactly plus I keep the bike so 6600 in cash plus bike on CAT D. Bike is PCP so they cannot keep it they have to give it to me allegedly.

That does not cover value of outstanding credit and leaves me worse off as I would have to pay it ASAP as soon as CAT D is recorded on V5.

 

At the same time cost of accessories is 3k they say they are accessories and I should claim via uninsurable losses but not sure I agree with that:

 

New exhaust, new heated grips, crush bungs, front forks cardrige kit upgrade while all are aftermarket accessories they are not an add-on but rather replacement integral part.

 

Am I right in thinking they have to bring me back to pre-accident state?

 

If so can I demand they fix the bike no matter if value of fix is higher then 50% or not. Bike is lightly damaged its the vehicle rental cost that made this claim big and that is their problem as their 3rd party decided to run away.

 

If I cannot demand they fix it can I contest the value they offer as I was told I have to accept it which I know is not correct.

 

Cheers,

Lukas

[king12345]

Isn't the police pursuing the driver for leaving the scene of an accident?

If so, that could play a good leverage with insurance if you don't accept their offer and start legal proceedings in county court against driver.

[unclebulgaria67]

They have to put you back in the same position as before the accident. So either full repair or full market value including accessories fitted.

 

You are claiming off the third party insurers, so i am not sure why they are saying fitted accessories should be dealt with as uninsured loss recovery. That just seems to be delaying them paying out what they are liable for.

 

Speak to the PCP company as they should be interested. You might have to threaten taking this third party insurers to court, by sending them a formal demand/letter before action. If you have legal cover on your policy, they might help you.

[Ruscik12]

Ok I sent them a polite e-mail with full brake down of bike cost including PCP (it is not the same as cash value obviously) plus brake down of all accessories and cost.

 

I have also reminded them it was their customer that hit me, another vehicle, me again and run away hence the vehicle higher in particular is so high but also hence why damage is higher (2nd hit broke one part off that is not cheap), it took police over 40 days to find him.

Added word ombudsman in there

 

Funny thing is I was told at first I have to accept their claim and PCP is my cost as per company handling the claim. Only when I called 3rd party someone started listening.

 

I think they tried playing silly buggers as first he said you gave us total value of bike at 11000 I said yes bike. Your guy never asked what was changed or modified, he had a look at exhaust and did not even include that as additional just added it to 11000.

[unclebulgaria67]

I don't know whether you have misunderstood, but Insurance claims where there is a write off is purely about the current market value of a vehicle and any accessories, plus you can claim for uninsured losses such a hire vehicle.

 

The financing of a vehicle is not something that is usually considered, as that is an agreement you entered into and not related directly to the accident. If there was a direct finance implication caused by this accident e.g a fee you had to pay now for some reason that would not have been due had the finance been for longer, then you need evidence to pursue it.

[Ruscik12]

I don't know whether you have misunderstood, but Insurance claims where there is a write off is purely about the current market value of a vehicle and any accessories, plus you can claim for uninsured losses such a hire vehicle.

 

The financing of a vehicle is not something that is usually considered, as that is an agreement you entered into and not related directly to the accident. If there was a direct finance implication caused by this accident e.g a fee you had to pay now for some reason that would not have been due had the finance been for longer, then you need evidence to pursue it.

 

I kind off get it but saying that I did not plan to pay off remainder of PCP now or frankly ever, was going to give it back at end and get another bike. That is the point of the PCP I took. By write off I need to pay full value that I would not have done.

 

That is not in my book returning me to pre-accident condition.

 

Give me back my deposit, all the money I paid for accessories and they can then keep the bike and pay off PCP.

[Ruscik12]

Uh also bike was less then 6 months old at time of accident and I think that changes things yes, no?

[unclebulgaria67]

I kind off get it but saying that I did not plan to pay off remainder of PCP now or frankly ever, was going to give it back at end and get another bike. That is the point of the PCP I took. By write off I need to pay full value that I would not have done.

 

That is not in my book returning me to pre-accident condition.

 

Give me back my deposit, all the money I paid for accessories and they can then keep the bike and pay off PCP.

 

It won't work that way. I can see your point though.

 

Could you not claim off your own Insurance ? Does that cover new bike value if written off within first 12 months of registration ?

 

Did you take any GAP type Insurance when buying the bike ?

 

You would always have to pay interest on PCP for a relevant period. If you think you are going to suffer a loss, other than the bike, then you need to get a full breakdown/explanation from the PCP company. Speak to them about the situation. If this goes to court at some point, you need to evidence a loss you will definitely suffer.

[ukguy2k]

this is why its best to have a actual helmet camera for proper evidence

 

 

I would of thought insurance pay off the finance and keep the bike and then you after start a new purchase

[Ruscik12]

It won't work that way. I can see your point though.

 

Could you not claim off your own Insurance ? Does that cover new bike value if written off within first 12 months of registration ?

 

Did you take any GAP type Insurance when buying the bike ?

 

You would always have to pay interest on PCP for a relevant period. If you think you are going to suffer a loss, other than the bike, then you need to get a full breakdown/explanation from the PCP company. Speak to them about the situation. If this goes to court at some point, you need to evidence a loss you will definitely suffer.

 

Well I got every penny back for bike, extras plus interest for PCP.

In short told them for me total value of bike plus accessories is x amount.

They got two options pay me that amount (gave them proof of value) or I will go after them for paying me less then my actual damages.

[Ruscik12]

this is why its best to have a actual helmet camera for proper evidence

 

 

I would of thought insurance pay off the finance and keep the bike and then you after start a new purchase

 

I have two opinions on helmet cameras.

 

1. They only work for victim if victim was 100% innocent. Now be honest does it happen? Remember police will review entire accessible footage.

 

I have a friend who was in accident no fault of his own. He got hit from side while on junction on green light. If there was no helmet camera it would have been 100% in his favour. But as there was it was confiscated when he went to hospital. After police review the footage they said accident was 20% his fault as his manner of driving indicates aggressive dr8ver/attitude with assumption he is always right. As such they believe it was due to that attitude and fact he was doing 46 in 40 that he was hit by a driver that did not observe red light. If he was going at speed limit or less and had correct attitude he could have avoided it.

[unclebulgaria67]

Well I got every penny back for bike, extras plus interest for PCP.

In short told them for me total value of bike plus accessories is x amount.

They got two options pay me that amount (gave them proof of value) or I will go after them for paying me less then my actual damages.

 

Good result !

 

Given what their driver did, i suspect that they thought that it was not worth arguing too much, as if it ever got to court, a Judge might not be very sympathetic towards them.

 

People reading the thread should think that they will get the same result for their own claims. It is worth making the argument about finance costs being included if a loss can be proven, but some Insurers will argue the toss that they are only responsible for direct accident costs e.g market value for write off.

[unclebulgaria67]

That should read.

 

People reading the thread should NOT think they will get the same result.

[ukguy2k]

but if you was to ever have no witness around to prove who was at fault it would go 50/50 because a lot of people will blame the other person even though they could be the actual person at fault or even worse if there was a hit and run

 

 

I had a crash once where a van reversed on a main road into me I had no camera and witness drove off so I was worried the driver was going to tell the insurance that I crashed into him but lucky enough he admitted he was the one that caused it

 

 

but I guess with a camera if you drive normal then its fine to have it but if you drive like a mad man then that's where the problem is if the police checked the video and see you speeding about then your stuffed

 

 

so there is up and downs to having a camera

[Ruscik12]

but if you was to ever have no witness around to prove who was at fault it would go 50/50 because a lot of people will blame the other person even though they could be the actual person at fault or even worse if there was a hit and run

 

 

I had a crash once where a van reversed on a main road into me I had no camera and witness drove off so I was worried the driver was going to tell the insurance that I crashed into him but lucky enough he admitted he was the one that caused it

 

 

but I guess with a camera if you drive normal then its fine to have it but if you drive like a mad man then that's where the problem is if the police checked the video and see you speeding about then your stuffed

 

 

so there is up and downs to having a camera

 

You do not have to ride/drive like an idiot for that it all depends from situation as you might have had a bad day. Granted then you should have stayed home but how many do.

 

As to previous behavior while I agree a bit it should have influence mostly it should not.

 

You can be speeding all day long on motorway, get off at your exit go on to final stretch home at speed limit. Someone pulls out on you from side road you T bone him/her.

 

Your previous motorway speeding that day will impact your claim for T bone even when it had no relevance to incident.

[Ruscik12]

That should read.

 

People reading the thread should NOT think they will get the same result.

 

That is true but if you have correct PCP deal you can try and argue.

 

My one is quite clear that best option for you is to return bike after 3y deal.

It says monthly payments and deposit are low so you can enjoy the bike cheap and at the end of the deal trade it in for new one, return it and walk away or purchase it.

[unclebulgaria67]

That is true but if you have correct PCP deal you can try and argue.

 

My one is quite clear that best option for you is to return bike after 3y deal.

It says monthly payments and deposit are low so you can enjoy the bike cheap and at the end of the deal trade it in for new one, return it and walk away or purchase it.

 

Yes, i can see the point, that after an accident where you have no fault, that you are put in a position not of your making, which would result in a differenf financial position.

 

Just make sure the third party insurers are doing what they need to do, to satisfy the PCP company, in terms of handling salvage and settlement of the PCP. The settlement should go to the finance company and they need to engage with them in regard to the salvage. Where a vehicle in on finance and owned by a finance company, Insurers should always deal with the finance company.

[Ruscik12]

Interesting because 3rd party said they cannot approach pcp company as I have a deal with them so I have to deal with it.

 

No matter will pay it off on my own this week so not problem I hope but good to know.

 

I have two questions for future.

 

1. Both company handling my claim and 3rd party told me that I have to accept settlement as is. That is their valuation and I cannot negotiate. That sounds like a lie is it not? 3rd party only changed tone when I mentioned ombudsman and fact I have invoice for bike alone of 11k.

 

2. What is the deal with replacement vehicle. Should it be like for like or can they give you anything? Anyone I know that ever had a car accident receive a replacement car of similar or better spec. So for MPV you get MPV, for 4 door Mercedes a Merc or BMW of same size and for sports car a sports car.

Is that a rule by low that they have to supply you with similar vehicle or is it their choice as long as it does a job. Frankly I feel like claiming for loss of use. 2 months of summer on a cheapest Suzuki in replacement for a bike twice the value of rental one.

[Ruscik12]

And another one.

 

So far no letter saying what I need to do with V5 of the bike. 3rd party says my responsibility but no info given. My insurance company only cares about seeing MOT after repair is done to confirm all road worthy and my insurance continues as normal.

 

Who should be notified about Cat D write off and who should be notifying that entity and how?

[unclebulgaria67]

And another one.

 

So far no letter saying what I need to do with V5 of the bike. 3rd party says my responsibility but no info given. My insurance company only cares about seeing MOT after repair is done to confirm all road worthy and my insurance continues as normal.

 

Who should be notified about Cat D write off and who should be notifying that entity and how?

 

Thought you had a result and it was all resolved ?

 

You can't normally go to the Ombudsman about a third party Insurers.

 

The settlement should put you back in the same position as pre accident. So if a replacement bike were offered, it would be same bike model in same condition or as near as possible.

 

If on your own policy provides for a new bike, if written off within 12 months of first registration, that might be worth looking at.

 

If the bike is being repaired, i am not sure a cat d write off would be notified to DVLA. I think you need to get confirmation of roadworthiness, which you would need anyway. You really should speak to the PCP company. It is their bike, unless you are buying it from them in full.

[unclebulgaria67]

I was going to add that i find the situation confusing.

 

Is it a write off or are they paying full costs of repair ? Or has this not yet been decided ?

 

The PCP company own the bike, yet they seem to be ignored. Seems totally wrong to me. I can't believe they would be happy about this, bearing in mind your comments that you planned giving it back after the contract period. Are they happy about extensive repairs ? If it is to be written off, do they have any input into this process.

 

If the bike is written off, the PCP company i would have thought would have to agree this. The third party insurers basically buy the bike in lieu of settlement of the bikes value. The V5 reg doc would be sent to DVLA regarding change in ownership. They might negotiate selling the bike back and you then send the request to re-register again. This process is covered on the DVLA or gov.co.uk website.

 

You can negotiate the settlement to make sure it is at the level required, so you don't suffer a calculable loss that you can evidence. There is nothing stopping you issuing a court claim, if the settlement is not adequate.

 

In regard to the hire bike, they will argue that it was about providing replacement transport, but it should really be on a like for like basis, but claiming the difference might be difficult,