Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Ade,   Stop speaking to them by phone and keep contact in writing only, which you've said you prefer.   Send TT a SAR by post immediately. The data you get back should enable you to see what they think you owe, and how it's made up.   Also write to BW Legal confirming you dispute the alleged debt owed to TT and have written to TT seeking data, so BWL must stop demands until TT have replied to the SAR you've sent them.
    • Please do although obviously I don’t know the facts from your side but at least I can tell you how much of a cut and paste job it is.
    • Please check back for a full reply tomorrow. However, it would help if you would introduce pergo spaces into a story full stop it's very long and especially for people with small screens it's very difficult to follow when it is so compacted.   I think this straight has become rather confused because of the third party account which we received at the outset. I think it will probably be helpful if you could repost your story but on a new thread and more openly spaced please.   Then we can start to have a closer look at it. However, as I've already suggested, I think there are two issues. The question of your liability in the accident and the problem of how you have been persuaded to take a rental car at such a high rate.    I would suggest that you hold off telephoneing anyone until we have had a closer look.before you do anything on the telephone. You have obviously had some very important conversations but you don't have any evidence of them. Although the other side may say that they have recorded them, you you may find it difficult to get hold of those recordings if in fact those recordings incriminate them in any way. for instance if they have promised you that you don't have to pay anything for the hire car, that would be an extremely useful conversation to have but you may find that it is difficult to get hold of.   please start a new thread it will be much easier to continue from there                                
    • When I sadly lost my job a while back, i reportd it immpediately to DWP as you are supposed to, but didnt realise at the time that the day I reported to them was the day before I was paid out for the last month. I was actually paid extra whem I left as it was cheaper than redundancy fort the business and at the time it was a good financial move (so I thought).   I was paid on Fri 26th Jan, they paid me out 2 months in one go. I reported to DWP on the 22nd of Han that I was made unemployed, had the letters and evidence. As they spun the story, because of their assesment dates and that, my first payment was on the 1st May and reassured that it works the other way around. That when work starts again, if I dont actually receive money from the company during the assesment period, there wont be an issue as it balances up.   Can I believe this or was it another spun story? I'm concerned that as I'll be paid monthly, (Starting on the 15th paid on the last day of the month), assment ends on the 22nd. Tha they'll take that money into consideration.   I'm just concerned due to the disparity it would cause between 4 odd months I endured with zero income because of how their system works and whatever they ahe in place to counter at this end of the claim.   Anywa, it's just awonder.   Cheers,   Ade    
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies
  • 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

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...