|
streaky
18,246 posts
118 months
|
It used to be that if you had to ask what a Roller did to the gallon, you couldn't afford one. It followed that if you owned a prestige vehicle such as a Rolls or Bentley, the cost of insuring it was a matter of no significance. How times change, eh?  Streaky
|
|
|
SmoothCriminal
995 posts
68 months
|
This is going to go 50/50 all day long silly billy for not letting him sort it out privately.
Unless you have good CCTV footage or multiple independent witnesses you've got no hope.
|
|
|
LoonR1
12,484 posts
46 months
|
Jujuuk68 said: TBH, I had every stympathy til you said you had gone to an AMC.
Now I hope it does go 50/50, just so when they present you with the remaining £10k of the £20k hire invoice that wasn't paid and refer you to the small print, and it finally sinks it it wasn't a FREE car, you understand what you did by lining these vultures pockets. (Bentleys on credit rates are about £700 a day), and parts might take a while if an AMC is involved to arrive, as the longer the repair process,the bigger the hire. Oh, and you can expect the labour figure to be well inflated too.
The reasons premiums in the UK are down largely to AMC's. If judges had correctly understood the issues and treated this "credit" like they do other forms and abolished it, we'd all be paying so much less today.
Perhaps if you'd just done what was suggested by the other driver, or put it in hands of a properly regulated business like your insurers, it wouldn't have gone so badly for you. Certainly when the cost outcome is now going to be so high, it's going to be WORTH the while of the opposing insurer disputing the claim. Providing theres no evidence either way, your actions turned a non fault claim into a fault one. 100% agree I also wanted to add that, whilst not being part of the spelling police, I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the OP overall. He claims to drive a Bentley, but doesn't understand the first thing about insurance, money, or legal forms and is worrying about an increase on his insurance. Unless he's a footballer then this thread is definitely b  ks, even then he'd have an agent to do all the work for him.
|
|
|
speedyguy
1,468 posts
72 months
|
LoonR1 said: 100% agree I also wanted to add that, whilst not being part of the spelling police, I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the OP overall. He claims to drive a Bentley, but doesn't understand the first thing about insurance, money, or legal forms and is worrying about an increase on his insurance. Unless he's a footballer then this thread is definitely b ks, even then he'd have an agent to do all the work for him. A bit like Mr Pidgley, on back to the floor who admitted to being unable to read or write, it didn't stop him though, some people seem to make such crass assumptions
|
|
|
LoonR1
12,484 posts
46 months
|
speedyguy said: And I'm sure he came onto PH asking for help once he'd made his fortune. More likely he'd ring one of his people to sort it for him. Oh and just to cheer the OP up, I'm going to use a fancy word; IMPECUNIOSITY He might want to look it up, as it's highly likely he could end up in a spot of bother with his credit hire vehicle.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Rollcage
9,223 posts
61 months
|
LoonR1 said: 100% agree I also wanted to add that, whilst not being part of the spelling police, I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the OP overall. He claims to drive a Bentley, but doesn't understand the first thing about insurance, money, or legal forms and is worrying about an increase on his insurance. Unless he's a footballer then this thread is definitely b ks, even then he'd have an agent to do all the work for him. His posting history is fairly consistent about having a Bentley, to be fair. I'd also hazard a guess that English is not his first language.
|
|
|
Durzel
1,511 posts
37 months
|
Why oh why go to a AMC? Can well understand why the other party pulled the shutters down as soon as he realised he was being set up for a shafting.
There was absolutely no need to involve an AMC. There has been no mention of injury, both parties seem to be insured. It is true that had the OP insisted on going via insurance that the other party might have argued 50/50, but that still would've cost the OP less than it will dealing with an aggressive AMC that he has engaged.
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,089 posts
19 months
|
Just a few corrections:
1. Some insurance companies charge extra for non fault accidents, some don't. To say they all do or none of them do is wrong.
2. If your insurance company charges you extra for a non fault accident, you cannot claim that extra back from the third party as an uninsured loss.
That's all, I'll go now.
|
|
|
chriscpritchard
232 posts
34 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: Just a few corrections:
1. Some insurance companies charge extra for non fault accidents, some don't. To say they all do or none of them do is wrong.
2. If your insurance company charges you extra for a non fault accident, you cannot claim that extra back from the third party as an uninsured loss.
That's all, I'll go now. Why not? it's a direct result of them causing the accident that you have to pay more - if you get 2 quotes one with the accident declared and one not and the one with it declared is higher than the one without it why shouldn't you be able to claim the difference
|
|
|
F i F
18,408 posts
120 months
|
LoonR1 said: I also wanted to add that, whilst not being part of the spelling police, I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the OP overall. He claims to drive a Bentley, but doesn't understand the first thing about insurance, money, or legal forms and is worrying about an increase on his insurance. Unless he's a footballer then this thread is definitely b ks, even then he'd have an agent to do all the work for him. Agreed, about 5 or so posts in my thoughts were that the smell of troll is strong on this one.
|
|
|
LoonR1
12,484 posts
46 months
|
chriscpritchard said: Why not? it's a direct result of them causing the accident that you have to pay more - if you get 2 quotes one with the accident declared and one not and the one with it declared is higher than the one without it why shouldn't you be able to claim the difference Because it's too remote. You couldn't sue if the accident prevented you from putting your lottery ticket on either even if it won and you could prove that you played those numbers every week.
|
|
|
F i F
18,408 posts
120 months
|
Rollcage said: His posting history is fairly consistent about having a Bentley, to be fair. I'd also hazard a guess that English is not his first language. I can recall another poster on a forum whose history was consistent about owning a Vincent Black Shadow. Turned out he was proven to be a student with a Lada.
|
|
|
balders118
3,225 posts
37 months
|
TallbutBuxomly said: Dont be stupid. My dad had something like this. Some tit drove into his bmw in a scrapper. When my dad spoke to him he refused to hand over his details as "if you can afford to drive a bmw you can afford to fix it too" my dad could afford to fix it but it wasn't his fault so why should he suffer from someone else stupidity.
Just because you own a fancy car doesnt mean you dont care about repair costs or fault etc. On top of which if you own an expensive car its likely you have spare you can use.
To the op. May i advise that you call the claims management company with a view to cancelling their services. Due to the nature of the accident it is likely the claim will go 50/50 or possibly even against you. That being the case you could be pursued for the loan car cost whilst yours is repaired. You've completely missed my point. I wouldn't expect a bentley driver to be happy paying for £x000 of repairs when it's someone elses fault but I would have thought their main concern would be getting it sorted, and getting it sored right and wouldn't be too concerned about £100 (if that) insurance rise next year.
|
|
|
TallbutBuxomly
11,977 posts
85 months
|
balders118 said: You've completely missed my point.
I wouldn't expect a bentley driver to be happy paying for £x000 of repairs when it's someone elses fault but I would have thought their main concern would be getting it sorted, and getting it sored right and wouldn't be too concerned about £100 (if that) insurance rise next year. No I havent got it wrong. It doesnt matter how much money you have why should you put up with shelling out more money for someone elses stupidity or mistake.
|
|
|
balders118
3,225 posts
37 months
|
TallbutBuxomly said: No I havent got it wrong. It doesnt matter how much money you have why should you put up with shelling out more money for someone elses stupidity or mistake. 1. Because it's against the law not to tell your insurers anyway 2. Because it's the only way you can gurantee it will be done how you want it 3. Because you don't have to deal with someone who wants you probably to do it as cheaply as possible to save you money 4. Because if you end up getting it fixed and the other guy doesn't want to pay up you end up massivly down, or with an awkward convo with your insurers 5. Would it really be a massive concern is my main gripe, it certainly wouldn't be the main thing I was worried about if someone pranged my bentley. 6. On top of all of that, you really probably can afford £100!
|
|
|
TallbutBuxomly
11,977 posts
85 months
|
balders118 said: 1. Because it's against the law not to tell your insurers anyway
2. Because it's the only way you can gurantee it will be done how you want it
3. Because you don't have to deal with someone who wants you probably to do it as cheaply as possible to save you money
4. Because if you end up getting it fixed and the other guy doesn't want to pay up you end up massivly down, or with an awkward convo with your insurers
5. Would it really be a massive concern is my main gripe, it certainly wouldn't be the main thing I was worried about if someone pranged my bentley.
6. On top of all of that, you really probably can afford £100! Balders whether you really can afford the 100 pounds is irrelevant. If someone hits my car I am happy to give them the ooportunity to pay for it to be repaired without insurer interference. WHy? Because getting the insurers involved raises insurance costs for everyone not just those involved. My premiums will also go up for no reason other than money grabbing from my insurers for up to three to 5 years in my personal opinion statistics be buggered. Also its much like calling the police if someone calls you names. Its immature. Settle things like adults. There are plenty of ways to make sure you are not ripped off. If they ask to settle independently take ALL their details and confirm them. Tel them yu will get three estimates from varying bodyshops and you will pick the best bodyshop. You will send them all three quotes. if they are not happy to pay what is required you will then go through insurers. If they are happy to pay required cost ask them to send you the funds prior to commencement of work or to pay the workshop directly otherwise yet again you will go through insurers direct. This position protects you both. The law regarding informing insurers is wrong.
|
|
|
balders118
3,225 posts
37 months
|
TallbutBuxomly said: Balders whether you really can afford the 100 pounds is irrelevant. If someone hits my car I am happy to give them the ooportunity to pay for it to be repaired without insurer interference. WHy? Because getting the insurers involved raises insurance costs for everyone not just those involved. My premiums will also go up for no reason other than money grabbing from my insurers for up to three to 5 years in my personal opinion statistics be buggered.
Also its much like calling the police if someone calls you names. Its immature. Settle things like adults. There are plenty of ways to make sure you are not ripped off.
If they ask to settle independently take ALL their details and confirm them. Tel them yu will get three estimates from varying bodyshops and you will pick the best bodyshop. You will send them all three quotes. if they are not happy to pay what is required you will then go through insurers.
If they are happy to pay required cost ask them to send you the funds prior to commencement of work or to pay the workshop directly otherwise yet again you will go through insurers direct. This position protects you both.
The law regarding informing insurers is wrong. We've shifted from the original point. I would also be happy settling cots outside of insurers; I have done it for myself and for my OH in the past. My point was the OP's question to PH was because he was unsure what to do, as he was worried about the cost of his insurance going up - making a big deal about it as to go through them or not. My point being if I ownded a £100,000 this would probably not even cross my mind, and certainly wouldn't be a massive issue. If the guy was happy to pay £x000 to fix the bently, fine. However I can't see this being the case and it would probably have been a whole lot of hassle. If not, go through the insurers, it wouldn't be an issue at all for me, especially not one worth posting on a forum to see what others think I should do.
|
|
|
10 Pence Short
27,632 posts
86 months
|
balders118 said: We've shifted from the original point.
I would also be happy settling cots outside of insurers; I have done it for myself and for my OH in the past. And you immediately informed your insurer at the time that you'd been involved in an accident and settled it privately?
|
|
|
balders118
3,225 posts
37 months
|
10 Pence Short said: And you immediately informed your insurer at the time that you'd been involved in an accident and settled it privately? I did not. The reason I mentioned the law was because I was giving reasons for somone to go through insurers, not because I'm a stickler for the law - i.e. adding weight to my POV. I think tbh, we've got terribly off topic hence my last post trying to bring it back around to my original point - which essentially was I probably don't believe the OP as if I drove a bently I wouldn't be posting on PH, worrying about pocket money.
|
|
|
TallbutBuxomly
11,977 posts
85 months
|
balders118 said: We've shifted from the original point.
I would also be happy settling cots outside of insurers; I have done it for myself and for my OH in the past.
My point was the OP's question to PH was because he was unsure what to do, as he was worried about the cost of his insurance going up - making a big deal about it as to go through them or not. My point being if I ownded a £100,000 this would probably not even cross my mind, and certainly wouldn't be a massive issue. If the guy was happy to pay £x000 to fix the bently, fine. However I can't see this being the case and it would probably have been a whole lot of hassle. If not, go through the insurers, it wouldn't be an issue at all for me, especially not one worth posting on a forum to see what others think I should do. balders i slid my audi into a crash barrier. I weighed up the costs and to my mind was better off spending 2.5k pounds fixing it rather than going through insurance as i would have had a higher premium for up to 5 years which might have ended up being more than the cost of the repair overall. You cannot predict the cost of insurance for the future but you can know what it will cost now to fix the damage. Therefore you hedge on fixing now rather than paying an increase of premium outweighing present repair cost. How much everything costs is relative and worth factoring into the course of action regardless of wealth. Yearly the premium increase would not have been a big issue for me to pay but it was the principle of the long term year on year cost versus short term that mattered.
|
|
