Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Hastings/Principia/Auxillis - Tricked into a car hire when told it was a courtesy car!


symbiosis
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1519 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

Here's a little bit of reading to start off with https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/search/?q=auxilis &quick=1

 

It seems that Auxilis are going to make a name for themselves with this kind of behaviour.

I see that you've been here since 2007 so this is very lucky because it means that you are well aware of the advice which we constantly give here to record your calls so luckily you've got recording of the conversation you had with your insurer about the courtesy car and that will really help us push your case forward. Bravo

Link to post
Share on other sites

and by the way it would be helpful if you would let us know who your insured it is and also something about the kind of insurance that you have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I hadn't expected that you had any recordings and so my post was a bit sarcastic and probably over harsh. Well done on having some recordings – a huge number of people don't and they suffer as a result.

Follow the advice from @unclebulgaria67 above but I think somewhere along the line you need to put down a paper trail and let Hastings know that the car you have received has been received on the basis that it is a courtesy car and it is supplied under the insurance agreement and at no time have you consented to enter into any credit agreement.

This really concerns me. You've paid your insurance premium and therefore all of the service that they provide under it should be unconditional and if they are now trying to impose conditions on you which if you failed to meet then you will suddenly become liable for the "courtesy car" then I can't see that that is acceptable – unless may be something like that is buried in your terms and conditions of the insurance.

Maybe you had better start taking a look.

We have lots of complaints about Hastings and their conduct and we have had a couple of references now to Auxilis and I would recommend very strenuously that you record all phone calls as per our customer services guide and keep a very tight paper trail. Confirm everything in writing. If there's anything you disagree with then make it clear to them in writing that you disagree with it.

Also, I'm not aware that Auxilis is a repairer https://www.auxillis.com/

 

I think that they are some kind of proxy/agency which has set themselves up to deal with the logistics of insurance claims including the arranging of repairs and I'm sure that they basically have bot contracts with preferred repairers and preferred hire car companies so that they can obtain those services much more cheaply because they are buying them in bulk.

This is entirely reasonable of course – but at the end of the day your contract is with your insurer – and it's a shame that this is the second or third that the name of Auxilis has come up on this forum – and linked to Hastings insurance and I'm afraid it doesn't make for very nice hearing

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I think that you are dealing with things very well and I think your comments are absolutely correct.

Presumably you have got their telephone denial that they ever emailed you about a courtesy car. This is important because the email together with the recording is itself extremely evidential of unfair treatment.
Can you tell us what kind of insurance you got. Is it fully comprehensive?

Do you have the details of the third party who ran into?

It's a long time since I've looked at an insurance policy that I have a feeling that there is generally speaking a provision that you will cooperate with any legal action which is taken against 1/3 party. I have to say that this seems to be quite reasonable to me. Can you check to see that there is such a thing. Of course, making it subject to conditions such as you may be liable for fees et cetera is totally unacceptable.
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutely no need to concern yourself with the third party insurers.

Read through this thread and you will understand why.

 

Can we just sum up the situation now.

Somebody ran into you – they were at fault.
Your car was written off.
The value of your car was agreed with you and you have now received compensation for the value of the car.

Ancillary to all this, you used a courtesy car which they are now trying to describe as a hire car.
They are now trying to claim the cost of the hire vehicle from you unless you cooperate with their solicitors against 1/3 party.

At the moment because the value of your car has been reimbursed to you, you are not actually out-of-pocket – but you feel that there is a risk that they may proceed to claim the cost of the hire car from you.

They ask you to sign an agreement to cooperate with the solicitor and they are threatening you that if you don't, then they will pursue you for the cost of the hire car.

Have you had to pay any excess?

Why do you feel so reluctant agreeing to allow solicitors to handle your case?

Have you checked your policy or anything about your insurance contract which refers to this? I've already suggested to you a couple of times that I feel that this is probably not unusual and at the moment I don't see anything unreasonable about it – although I find that the threat that they are making is completely unacceptable

Link to post
Share on other sites

What can you tell us about the identity of the third party – without actually naming them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that the Auxilis contract "apparently does". Have you not seen it?

You say that the third party driver was as blind as a bat. Is there a possibility that he shouldn't have been driving? How do you know that he was so visually impaired?

Can you tell us briefly how the accident occurred?

Also can I say that it's very unhelpful to simply give your answers to my questions simply as an extension of my sentences. It makes it very difficult for me and other people to read.

Apart from anything else I suggest that you start using the quotation function on this forum and also if you are going to give you answers a running commentary then please put them in a different colour.
At least that

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we have capacity for tongue in cheek in respect of this problem. I'm trying to find out exactly what happened.

You've posted the agreement – but is this the agreement with Hastings or is this a subsequent agreement which you have signed with Auxilis?

I want to know what your agreement with Hastings is. Any agreement with Auxilis is subordinate to your Hastings agreement almost to the point of not being valid – possibly.

Have you made any notes or statements in relation to his verbal statement "I just didn't see you". If you did make these notes then how soon after the accident did you make them? And you say that there was no witness other than the wife who was in the car – and didn't hear him making the statement. He was out of the car when he made the statement.

You say he "accelerated" into you. Why would he have been accelerating – there was that they no attempt to slow down?

The facts of this worry me because it sounds to me the kind of situation where he might change the story and say that you pulled out in front of him and gave him no time to stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need to see any photos. We do need to see the original agreement with Hastings so that we can understand the status of the subordinate agreement and whether it has any validity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Hastings/Principia/Auxillis - Tricked into a car hire when told it was a courtesy car!

I'm sorry but I'm losing the plot on this thread – partly because you are posting up so much detailed information and I really don't have the time to deal with it all.

This really is a DIY forum – in other words we try to empower you and point the way that it isn't helpful that you post entire contracts rather than discover the part that you think is relevant and simply post that so we can have a look.

In principle, you have a fully comprehensive insurance policy.
This means that your insurer is responsible for everything and I find it amazing that they try to pass it off to someone else and get you to sign a contract with that person. That seems to me to be unacceptable. When you get a fully comprehensive insurance with a company then as far as I'm concerned you pay them to do it all for you and you may have to pay an excess or you may have to pay increased premiums the next year – but they are meant to be a one-stop shop. So the fact that they are involving Auxillis and attempting to put them into a direct contractual relationship with you seems to be unacceptable and unfair – not what you paid for.

Secondly, it seems to me to be entirely reasonable that they should require that you cooperate with a solicitor. You pay an insurance to protect yourself from losses – not to protect and at-fault third-party from losses and so if the insurance company reckons that it is economically worthwhile going to the expense of pursuing the third party in order to recover their losses then I don't see why they shouldn't. Also, if they get their money back from the third party then it should mean that their insurance premiums for their own clients should be cheaper in the future because they are able to recover the money that they pay out. (Of course this is a load of rubbish – they will always try to get the money from both ends) – but the principal is sound.

I'm still struggling to see why you should object to the fact that you have to cooperate with their solicitor. However I don't see why there should be anything to sign about this. It should be in the initial contract of insurance that they will pay you out without quibble, that you will not have to engage with any other party such as Auxilis to make it happen – and that you will assist them in any reasonable way to recover their losses.

That's how I see the picture. I would be amazed if you can show me anything in any of the insurers terms and conditions which contradict this

I'd be interested to see what site team member @unclebulgaria67 has to say about this

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, this is quite a nice summary.

In that case I suggest that you write to Auxillis – copy to Hastings

Tell them that although you are happy to cooperate with any attempt to recover Hastings losses, you will not be held liable for any costs should they not recover all of their outgoings and that you consider that your entire legal relationship is between yourself and Hastings and that your insurance agreement with Hastings covers all eventualities.

You refuse to sign anything else.

Furthermore if they persist in hassling you about this, you will begin a complaint to the financial ombudsman service.

I can't really think of any other appropriate response

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very helpful information. Thank you.

If the OP does get one of these witness statements to sign then maybe they would be kind enough to post it up here so everybody can look – and learn.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...