Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello,    I'm looking for some advice regarding my david lloyd membership,  I was a linked member to my now ex-partner's member unfortunately over the last lockdown our relationship broke down and we've gone our separate ways. To put it mildly we're not on friendly terms, he goes to the gym with his close friends and it would be a pretty hostile environment to be around.    He sent me a brief message just over a month ago to say that I was no longer a member and basically i'm not allowed to return once they'd re-opened. I'd left it at that and rejoined a new gym.    Anyway, i've now received an email staying I have unpaid fees and need to make a payment and they've set me up as stand alone member - i've tried to speak to someone but apparently have to wait 3-5 days and i'm assuming they're now going to make me do the three months cancellation fee.    I can't afford to pay three months worth of membership for a gym i'm not going to go to. From reading some of the other conversations it looks like DL can be pretty brutal and not really have any empathy and i'll soon get a letter from a debt agency if i don't comply. What would be the best way forward? I'd rather offer a resolution then ignore and worry for a few months.     
    • Its a common wheeze to put a no parking outside opening hours on KFC and other places like cinema complexws with fast food outlets, The original planning permission doesn't permit such stuff quite often,
    • Good afternoon.   I am a member of Anytime Fitness on a rolling-monthly contract.   In March 2021, my home gym (Aldgate) sent an e-mail asking members to continue paying, freeze, or cancel their membership. If you didn't reply they would automatically keep taking payments.   Me (being naive and stupid), didn't reply to their email. My £40 a month D/D payments continued. These would be reduced to 50% once gyms opened again. I paid 100% (£40) Apr, May, Jun, Jul, and 50% (£20) in Aug, Sep, Oct.   I DID attend the gym July - October, so I am owed 3 'half-months' and around a week (from July) of payments from Aldgate.   My home gym then switched to Lewisham in November by default as I had visited that gym more. Lewisham charged me the 50% for Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar, and this went back up to 100% (£40) in April.   Again I DID attend Lewisham in Nov and Dec outside of restrictions. I have also attended the gym this month. Therefore I have overpaid them by at least a month, plus the latter part of December. It gets even more confusing as their basic membership fee is £24.95.   Aldgate will not refund me, nor will they transfer what I essentially overpaid to Lewisham, despite the gym being one-brand it is ran by a different franchisee. Lewisham are not so quick at replying to e-mails. They said I can talk to their management when I next visit, but I want to keep everything written (even if it is electronically) for now. I am however going in there tomorrow to give them a piece of my mind.    Anytime Fitness don't have a central 'complaints/info' e-mail, they essentially just push you off to the individual clubs.   Should I just try claiming a refund though my bank? All payments are made to a company called Clubwise, which I am told is a membership payment system that all ATF gyms use.   Many thanks.  
    • Hi all,   I'll try and summarise this mess briefly.   I have approximately £45,000 in credit card debt from the UK. I moved abroad a number of years ago (outside of EU). Up until now I was making minimum repayments, and had never missed a payment. It's got to a point where I can no longer continue making the payments, and I never told them of my address change (the address listed is my last UK address, which is my parent's home). I was basically using one of the cards with money available to pay off the other minimum payments using Revolut, and now of course i've run out of money. I have no spare money available, nor anyone that can help, so I believe my only choice of action is to stop paying. My CC accounts are with Lloyds Group, Tesco & HSBC.   From asking a different forum, my understanding is that if I do not intend to make payments I should cancel the direct debits first of all, then eventually all the accounts will default. I also was recommended to send letters with proof of postage to the creditors regarding my address change so they don't hound my parents, and have my correct contact info. I managed to find the address to use for Lloyds & Tesco, but I cannot find a postal address for HSBC anywhere. Is anyone able to help me with that please?   To answer some questions, I don't plan to return to the UK anytime soon. I don't have any assets in the UK, my bank account that had the direct debits is not connected to the creditors, does not have an overdraft, and the only money that was in there was to cover the payments. Also, I've been out of the country longer than the amount of time bankruptcy would be an option. I'm not particularly proud of what i'm doing, but feel like the only option is to have a fresh start from the worry of my UK debts.   Does anyone have any advice, or suggestions on my plan, and if i've missed anything? When the phone calls/letters/emails start should I respond/respond in a particular way/ignore? I guess at this stage without missed payments, this month will be the 1st time anything is noted, so i'm not sure when the messages will start.   Thanks for your time.
    • But I was fighting this claim thanks to you lot and your help last year. I genuinely don't know what happened to the court papers or the LBA that preceded it, and can only assume that it defaulted due to my having returned one envelope unopened back to ELMS Legal that maybe contained the LBA etc. A costly lesson although I'm inclined to just ignore it and swallow the CCJ for 6 years rather than give them a penny!
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Car written off - should insurer pay 'fair market value' or put you back in the position you were in?


Recommended Posts

Hi

 

We had an offer of £4184 for a written-off '14 plate Kia Ceed 1.6 CRDi 2, 90k miles, full main dealer history, good condition.

 

I understand the typical next step is to send examples of cars for sale, but after reading further I'm not sure.

 

An email from the insurer says

"The valuation placed on your vehicle will reflect the amount you could reasonably expect to sell your vehicle for on the open market"

but my understanding was always that one should be put back in the position they were in before the accident.

The latter seems it would provide for a higher payout.

I don't know if it would depend on fault.

 

Our insurer told us it was not our fault when we first made the claim but I don't know if that was just them being kind given they hadn't heard from the other party. We naturally think it was third party fault, they reversed towards us on the left side of the road and swung round catching the entire side of the car through the arc. Their opinion was we were too close.

 

The examples I have seen on autotrader are below.

I think some might be spec 3 or spec 1 so not exact equivalents so take this as a broad range.

 

4,190 - no service history
4,195 - much higher mileage, not main dealer history
4,200 - white....? not main dealer history
4,500 - not main dealer history
4,995 - higher mileage, not main dealer history
5,000 - lower mileage, main dealer history
5,700 - lower mileage, not main dealer history
5,990 - not main dealer history, low mileage

 

If it matters, we had tyres and major service done at end of November and a full tank of diesel. I assume this only matters if it was a non-fault claim?

 

Thanks for any guidance you can help with!

 

Kris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurer have sent us a cheque for the rejected amount as an interim payment, and say we only have the hire car until Friday. Where do we stand on that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Information link on vehicle valuations from the FOS

 

Vehicle valuations and write-offs (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

 

Insurers claim settlement should be for what it would cost you to replace with a similar car, less any excess on the policy, less remaining Insurance premium if you pay monthly ( some Insurers do this).  

 

Insurers are entitled to withdraw the hire car, when there is an offer for the write off value.  They don't have to provide hire car or pay toward a hire car, while the settlement value is being argued about.

 

What you have to remember is that advertised prices are not what most people pay.  People will normally advertise  their cars for more and accept less.  As a guess, I would say 5% or more discount will normally be  negotiated.

 

So provide the Insurers with information and they may increase their offer, but not pay you the advertised prices of the examples you provide.

  • Thanks 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kp278 said:

"The valuation placed on your vehicle will reflect the amount you could reasonably expect to sell your vehicle for on the open market"

but my understanding was always that one should be put back in the position they were in before the accident.

The correct measure is what it would cost you to buy the equivalent vehicle of same age and condition etc immediately before the accident.

 

However, surely the way the insurer has expresed it amounts to the same thing?  In effect  both prices amount to the price that a willing buyer and willing seller would have (hypothetically) agreed so whether you are buying or selling it's the same price. (The test imagines a private seller and private buyer and avoids the complkications of buying or selling through a garage.)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kp278 said:

If it matters, we had tyres and major service done at end of November and a full tank of diesel. I assume this only matters if it was a non-fault claim?

 

Missed that question.

 

Whether it was a fault or non-fault accident should make no difference to how a vehicle is valued . Its value is its value, whoever caused the accident.

Edited by Ethel Street
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ethel Street said:

The correct measure is what it would cost you to buy the equivalent vehicle of same age and condition etc immediately before the accident.

 

However, surely the way the insurer has expresed it amounts to the same thing?  In effect  both prices amount to the price that a willing buyer and willing seller would have (hypothetically) agreed so whether you are buying or selling it's the same price. (The test imagines a private seller and private buyer and avoids the complkications of buying or selling through a garage.)

I did wonder that as I was running it through my head. Fair market value sounds like it should be taken directly from the guide books. Being put back in a position we were before the accident sounds like you can take an average of what is currently available for sale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what the insurer sent us with most of the filler removed:

 

Quote

 

Your vehicle is uneconomical to repair, we will be paying the Market Value of your vehicle, as outlined by your policy terms. Our valuation is explained below, along with the next steps of our process.

You must notify the DVLA that you are no longer the registered keeper of the vehicle. To do this, please complete Section9 of your V5C Vehicle Registration Certificate, with the name of the trader detailed below (their signature is not required) and send this to the DVLA, or you can use the link below:

www.gov.uk/written-off-vehicle

Please send the following items to our address below.

- V5C Vehicle Registration Certificate
- MOT Certificate if the vehicle is over 3 years old.
- All spare sets of keys, please remove any key rings.
- Any fascias and security codes of audio equipment.
- Please do NOT send any vehicle manuals.

Copart
Acrey Fields
Woburn Road
Bedford
MK43 9EJ

 

The valuation placed on your vehicle will reflect the amount you could reasonably expect to sell your vehicle for on the open market immediately before your accident or loss, we have placed a value of:

Valuation:

£4184

Net Settlement:

£4184

 

 


 

 

And my response:

 

Quote

 

Hi, many thanks for your second offer. We note it is almost identical to the first offer, and we respectfully reject the offer.
 
The reasons we reject the offer:
The amount offered does not return us to the position we were in before the accident.
The value of similar cars currently for sale range between approx. £4500-£6000, with one urgent sale at £4000.
The costs recently incurred in running our vehicle and keeping it in good condition amount to approx £450 (new tyre, service and MOT, a full tank of diesel). As we will not benefit from this expense we should be partially compensated for this expenditure.
Our vehicle was in very good condition, with a Full Kia Service History.
 
The amount we believe is a fair settlement figure:
£5136
 
Why we believe this figure is a fair settlement:
The cost to replace our car with an average of the similar cars currently available is £5144. We appreciate that cars do not sell for their asking price (although current Financial Ombudsman Service advice suggests cars are selling close to their asking price) and that 5% may be deducted, bringing the value to £4887. Add very reasonable compensation of £250 for recent expenses incurred brings the total to £5136.
 
Below are current examples for sale, dated 25.01.2021.  
 
We look forward to your response.
 
Many thanks, Kristian
 
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We heard from the insurer, they say £4184 is their final offer and if we were unhappy we would need to go to the financial ombudsman. 😕

 

I don't really get the whole undervalue thing. It's not like we're trying to make a profit out of it, we just want to replace the car with a similar car and £4184 doesn't do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

£4,184 is net of any policy excess by the look of it.  If you add back the policy excess from your own money would you have enough to buy an equivalent car (after doing some bargaining with the seller)?

 

It appears the insurer has considered your comments and are saying this is their final offer, take it or leave it. Is that what you understand?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ethel Street said:

£4,184 is net of any policy excess by the look of it.  If you add back the policy excess from your own money would you have enough to buy an equivalent car (after doing some bargaining with the seller)?

 

It appears the insurer has considered your comments and are saying this is their final offer, take it or leave it. Is that what you understand?

 

The policy excess is £250, but when we spoke to them to raise the claim they said something about waiving the excess, and again when we received the first offer it was:

 

value = £4,100

minus policy excess = £0

final settlement = £4,100

 

Either or, £4184 or £4434 would not be enough to buy an equivalent car. Based on the average value of 7 similar cars current available, a similar car would cost £5000. Assume 5% bartering, £4750.

 

Yes this is their final offer. I had a look at their website complaints page just now and their final offer closes step 1 of the complaint. Step 2 on their complaints page would be to write their customer relations exec (they neglected to mention that on the call). Step 3 is the FOS.

 

 

 

 

Edited by kp278
Link to post
Share on other sites

They called to speak to my partner, aside from being rude, curt and a bit of a (insert bad word here) they said £4184 was the higher of the three book prices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the below on the FOS site, it appears to suggest the insurers are right to use the trade guides. The only out I can see in the information below is whether the autotrader adverts are enough to prove the trade guides are wrong? The FOS certainly don't appear to support the idea that one must be put back in the position they were in before the accident.

 

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/complaints-deal/insurance/motor-insurance/vehicle-valuations-write-offs

 

Quote

 

Where the customer says the vehicle valuation is unfair

  • To decide whether a valuation is fair, we compare it with prices in online motor trade guides such as Parkers, Glass, CAP and Cazana.

    We’re likely to agree with your valuation if the amount is in line with the guides. But if we think your valuation is unfair, we’ll tell you to adjust it using the guide prices.

    If a guide price is significantly higher or lower than the others, we may think it’s reasonable to ignore it. This depends on the value of the vehicle. For example, a difference of £200 would be significant for a £1,000 car, but not for a car worth £9,000.

    Advertisements

    Customers sometimes say the amount they’ve been paid is unfair because they’ve seen similar vehicles advertised at higher prices.

    We wouldn’t normally place much weight on adverts to decide whether a valuation is fair. Differences in mileage or year of registration can significantly affect value, and in sometimes the vehicle actually ends up selling for a lower price than advertised.

    Although, you should be aware that more recently, we’ve been told by some trade guides that generally cars are selling at or close to advertised prices.

    Adverts may be helpful if the complaint involves a classic or rare model. Or if they strongly indicate that the guides could be wrong.

 

  •  

Edited by kp278
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Denied. Here's the full response from FOS:

 

Dear Mr x

 

Miss x complaint about  esure Insurance Limited  trading as Sheilas' Wheels

 

Thank you for your patience while I’ve been looking into the complaint. I now have enough information to provide an answer.

 

As the complaint relates to a claim the case has been set up against the underwriter, esure Insurance Limited (esure). So, to avoid confusion I’ve referred to them throughout this correspondence.

 

About the complaint

 

Miss x is unhappy with the settlement esure has offered to pay for her vehicle, after it was deemed a total loss.

 

Background

 

In January 2021, Miss x vehicle was involved in an accident which resulted in significant damage to the vehicle. Following this, contact was made with her motor insurance provider, esure, to notify them about what had happened and start the claims process.

 

esure looked into the claim and deemed the vehicle a total loss, they then calculated a value for her vehicle and offered her a settlement.

 

Miss x wasn’t happy with esure’s offer, as she felt the vehicle was worth more, so she registered a formal complaint. To support her complaint, she sent esure examples of similar vehicles currently for sale listed higher than what esure were prepared to pay for her claim.

 

esure reviewed the complaint and provided Miss x with their final response on 29 January 2021, which said:

 

When we look at valuation disputes we follow the same process as the Financial Ombudsman Service. We compare the selling price of similar vehicles in specialist on-line motor trade guides called Parkers (if the complaint is close to the date of the loss or damage), Glass’s, CAP and Cazana. These represent selling prices rather than advertised prices. The link below will take you to their guidelines:

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html 

 

The guides are used to establish the current market value. The retail values shown for your car are as follows:

 

Glass’s – £4750

Parkers – £3855

CAP – £3886

Cazana – £4244

 

This indicates that a fair value for your car would be between £3855 and £4750.

 

esure explained they took an average of the four guides to reach a final value of £4,184 for the vehicle. Based on this information, they felt their valuation was fair.

 

Miss x remained unsatisfied with this response, as she said the amount esure offered wouldn’t be enough to cover a replacement vehicle. She calculated a fair value to be approximately £5,000 based on similar vehicles currently for sale online.

 

She also spoke to a couple of dealerships who explained the current market is saturated with buyers who don’t want to use public transport due to the risk associated with Covid19 and this has pushed up demand and reduced availability. She believes this explains why the book price reached by esure has undervalued her vehicle.

 

Considering this, Miss x brought her complaint to our service for an independent review.

 

Findings

 

I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, unfortunately, we’re unable to ask esure to do any more. I appreciate this will come as a disappointment to Miss x, so I’ll explain the reasons why.

 

Within the policy booklet, under the heading ‘Damage to your car– Section 2’ it says:

 

What is covered

 

All loss and damage to your car unless it’s by fire, lightening, explosion, theft or attempted theft. We will:

 

  • pay to repair the damage or
  • replace what’s been lost or damaged if it’s more cost effective than repairing it; or
  • pay to settle your claim.

 

Things you need to know

 

  • We’ll decide which method we use to settle your claim.
  • We won’t pay more than the market value of your car at the time of loss, less the total excess payable.

 

And market value is defined as:

 

market value - The market value is the amount you could reasonably have expected to sell your car for on the open market immediately before your accident or loss. Our assessment of the value is based on cars of the same make and model and of a similar age, condition and mileage at the time of accident or loss. This value is based on research from motor trade guides including: Glass’s, Parkers and CAP. This may not be the price you paid when you purchased the car.

 

Therefore, esure has acted in accordance with their terms and conditions by basing their valuations on research from the motor trade guides. These terms were agreed upon when Miss x entered into a contract with esure and unfortunately, I can’t say the terms aren’t clear.

 

Additionally, at the Financial Ombudsman Service, we are set guidelines which mean we use a similar approach. We input the details of a vehicle into the online guides: Glass’s, CAP, Cazana and Parkers and use them to determine a fair valuation of the vehicle.

 

This is a set approach which has been confirmed by the regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). And we must keep this approach consistent in fairness to other businesses and consumers who experience similar circumstances.

 

If we’re provided with other evidence of a vehicle’s valuation, such as the opinion of another expert engineer, then we also take this into account when assessing if a business has acted fairly.

 

I’ve checked the motor trade guides myself, and the values I can see for Miss x vehicle were:

 

  • Glass’s: £4,750
  • CAP: £4,100
  • Cazana: £4,260
  • Parkers: £3,855

 

Looking at the values above I can see the average calculation reached by esure of £4,184 is within the motor guide range we would say is fair.

 

Miss x wasn’t happy with the guides, as she found several vehicles advertised on Auto Trader where the price was listed higher than what esure had offered. I understand these adverts were based on vehicles of a similar make, model and age to what Miss x had, so she felt the settlement should’ve been higher in order to replace her vehicle for something equivalent.

 

This evidence has been considered and unfortunately, it’s not enough to say esure have valued the vehicle unfairly.

 

Advertisements are often negotiable and reflect the seller’s highest expectation. So, we don’t consider advertisements to be as accurate as the online motor trade guides we use, unless the vehicle is a classic or unique model. This is because if a vehicle is rare the guides may not hold enough information about it to conclude a reasonable valuation. But as the vehicle isn’t a classic or rare model, I can see the guides have a large amount of data to base their valuations on. So, in this case we think the guides are fair.

 

Conclusion

 

For the reasons I’ve explained, unfortunately I’m unable to say the value of £4,184 esure has offered to pay for Miss x vehicle isn’t fair and reasonable.

 

This offer is in line with what the Financial Ombudsman Service feel is fair for such cases as this. And we would’ve recommended a similar offer had they not already provided this to her.

 

So, while I understand how difficult this matter has been for Miss x and completely appreciate the disappointment she may have, unfortunately we can’t ask esure to increase their offer any further.

 

I’m sorry this wasn’t the outcome she was hoping for, and after going through the case in detail and speaking with you over the phone, it’s with regret that we’re unable to uphold the complaint.

 

Next steps

I think this is a fair outcome in the circumstances, for the reasons I’ve explained. But if Miss x decides that she doesn't accept what I’ve said, then please let me know by 20 April 2021. If I can’t resolve things then an ombudsman here can look at everything again and make a final decision. If I don’t hear from you by that date we might not be able to look at Miss x complaint again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

You have a deadline of 20 April if you do not agree with that decision and want an actual* ombudsman to look at it.

 

Are you taking it further?

 

*I'm not certain of the precise terminology but as I understand it what you quote in #15 is not the ombudsman's "decision" as such, but simply some sort of preliminary finding following a FOS investigator looking into the complaint.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I think we are leaning towards waiting for 3rd party to admit liability and then pursuing 3rd party insurer/3rd party employer for the difference.

 

I think there is no harm in responding to the ombudsman email, I need to construct an email, but there is nothing extra I can add that I haven't already said. I'm also not sure if an actual ombudsman decision would go against us in court (if it got that far) versus an investigators decision, I don't want to jeopardise my position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...