No Fault Accident Help

Author
Discussion

pork911

7,080 posts

182 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
CYMR0 said:
pork911 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
pork911 said:
so you agree an amc isn't the only way, we got there in the end!
So you don't have a better option. No, thought not.
huh? you spelt out two yourself
So unless you have a fleet of cars and don't need this one, and/or enough money that you can fix this one without any hardship or disruption, you should bear the loss at the convenience of the person who insured whoever caused it?

If your argument is that the innocent party accepted the risk by choosing to go TPF&T, they certainly accepted some risk but it's hard to see how that includes the risk of unreasonable delay while an insurer sorts its own systems out, which is entirely within its control. In any event, the insurer accepts the risk that innocent parties will seek to overcome their losses if it fails to deal promptly.
My 'argument' is we do not know what his circumstances are and hassle, own money and or time aren't of themselves justifications

but let's not let such things get in the way of immediate advice to call in an AMC to save the day wink

pork911

7,080 posts

182 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
pork911 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
pork911 said:
so you agree an amc isn't the only way, we got there in the end!
So you don't have a better option. No, thought not.
huh? you spelt out two yourself
You really think that "Paying for it yourself" and "Waiting for months" are better options?
depends on the circumstances - of which we know nothing

...and when you say 'better' what do you mean? better now, later, in the round, taking into account his duty to mitigate, the general degradation of society by the existence and practices of AMCs, not wanting to involve oneself in a sham, the need to rag a hire car or what?

CYMR0

3,940 posts

199 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
pork911 said:
My 'argument' is we do not know what his circumstances are and hassle, own money and or time aren't of themselves justifications
I think it's fair to say that we don't know the circumstances, but someone who has a car parked in a back lane that's not comprehensively insured ... probably isn't minted. (Of course he could be frugal and have squillions saved, so I accept it's not a guarantee). Clearly if he can make his own arrangements, he should do so.

Hassle, own money and time are very much justifications however. Loss of use is an established head of claim. If the car comes back valued at £700 and the victim has already paid £1k to fix it, would you be raising an argument of failure to mitigate? That even assumes that he can pay to fix it; if he can't then he will continue to suffer inconvenience and loss of use, if the car is either undrivable or unsafe.

Otherwise what is the answer - let an insurance company string things out indefinitely? Should we raise the same argument about court fees if he eventually loses patience and issues proceedings?

pork911

7,080 posts

182 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
CYMR0 said:
pork911 said:
My 'argument' is we do not know what his circumstances are and hassle, own money and or time aren't of themselves justifications
I think it's fair to say that we don't know the circumstances, but someone who has a car parked in a back lane that's not comprehensively insured ... probably isn't minted. (Of course he could be frugal and have squillions saved, so I accept it's not a guarantee).

Hassle, own money and time are very much justifications however. Loss of use is an established head of claim. If the car comes back valued at £700 and the victim has already paid £1k to fix it, would you be raising an argument of failure to mitigate? That even assumes that he can pay to fix it; if he can't then he will continue to suffer inconvenience and loss of use, if the car is either undrivable or unsafe.

Otherwise what is the answer - let an insurance company string things out indefinitely? Should we raise the same argument about court fees if he eventually loses patience and issues proceedings?
'aren't of themselves'

Randomthoughts

917 posts

132 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
pork911 said:
depends on the circumstances - of which we know nothing

...and when you say 'better' what do you mean? better now, later, in the round, taking into account his duty to mitigate, the general degradation of society by the existence and practices of AMCs, not wanting to involve oneself in a sham, the need to rag a hire car or what?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that if the car is in the street on TPFT cover, they don't have the weekend Sagaris to use instead, or a chauffeur to bring the other Bentley around.

If it was a case of sit and stare at a car I can't move, pay for repairs that I can't afford or call someone else to take the case, the latter would be my choice.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
pork911 said:
the general degradation of society by the existence and practices of AMCs
Can you expand upon this one?

CYMR0

3,940 posts

199 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
pork911 said:
'aren't of themselves'
Given that loss of use (i.e., loss of convenience multiplied by the time factor) is well established as being recoverable, explain why this is the best option for the individual and society.

If it is that this reduces the insurer's costs, there is another option that they have bizarrely rejected.

pork911

7,080 posts

182 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
desolate said:
pork911 said:
the general degradation of society by the existence and practices of AMCs
Can you expand upon this one?
as evidenced by this thread

someone's car has been damaged - the only option is to inflate the costs regardless of whether that is in any reasonable or even necessary on circumstances we do not know - without any thought at all for the affect that has on everyone's premiums while I'm pretty sure the same advisors here aren't too keen on the whole whiplash compo culture and their unthinking approaches highlighting and adding to the general stupidity and cognitive dissonance of the population....for a start

pork911

7,080 posts

182 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
CYMR0 said:
pork911 said:
'aren't of themselves'
Given that loss of use (i.e., loss of convenience multiplied by the time factor) is well established as being recoverable, explain why this is the best option for the individual and society.

If it is that this reduces the insurer's costs, there is another option that they have bizarrely rejected.
it would be a very long wait indeed before loss of use made much of a dent in the AMC alternative (even if there would be any loss of use here - assumptions assumptions)

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
pork911 said:
as evidenced by this thread

someone's car has been damaged - the only option is to inflate the costs regardless of whether that is in any reasonable or even necessary on circumstances we do not know - without any thought at all for the affect that has on everyone's premiums while I'm pretty sure the same advisors here aren't too keen on the whole whiplash compo culture and their unthinking approaches highlighting and adding to the general stupidity and cognitive dissonance of the population....for a start
Right-oh.

sim16v

Original Poster:

2,176 posts

200 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Thanks for all of the replies, certainly some constructive comments.


A bit more info.

My mate spoke to the insurance co of the woman that hit his car, and they said to get his own insurance co to sort it and put a bill in as it was in dispute internally.

He said that was not an option as he was TPF&T, and he really wasn't interested in their own internal arguing as it was the woman that hit his car and not his problem.

If they didn't want to sort it with minimum expense, he would simply go to an AMC, expect a courtesy car and a speedy solution.

They said they couldn't sort anything until a supervisor returned, but they would phone him by close of play today, and they didn't!

So he is going to contact Europa Consultants tomorrow.


For info, the car isn't normally parked in a back lane, and the fact it was TPF&T has no real bearing on what he could afford or not.

The car was his tip run/park anywhere car, with no great value, so a bit of a waste insuring fully comp.

He thinks the car will most likely be a write off due to age/cost of repair, and he said he didn't need another car straight away, as he has at least 4 other cars on the road that I can think of!

His main concern was that he will have to find a replacement for his trusty, tatty workhorse!



It really is no wonder that our insurance gets so expensive when someone genuinely wants to save them some money, and this is the response he gets!

CYMR0

3,940 posts

199 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
sim16v said:
So he is going to contact Europa Consultants tomorrow.


For info, the car isn't normally parked in a back lane, and the fact it was TPF&T has no real bearing on what he could afford or not.

The car was his tip run/park anywhere car, with no great value, so a bit of a waste insuring fully comp.

He thinks the car will most likely be a write off due to age/cost of repair, and he said he didn't need another car straight away, as he has at least 4 other cars on the road that I can think of!

His main concern was that he will have to find a replacement for his trusty, tatty workhorse!
I am now going to change my tune and make it clear that at this stage, I would urge him to be *very* careful with any AMC.

If this is literally a spare car, and he has other cars that can do everything that this does, he does not need a rental car, let alone one at an inflated daily rate to cover the cost of credit (and a bit more besides). It also seems as though he is not "impecunious" and could make his own arrangements for a replacement if he needed to. In that case, the question becomes: why doesn't he do so?

If he is completing forms to that effect, he is at risk in terms of an insurance policy that he may need to take out in case the other side doesn't pay a credit hire claim.

While I referred to the potential loss of use, it seems that in these extremely surprising circumstances, that loss is likely to be absolutely minimal. As you say, his major concern is that he will have to replace it, and the inconvenience that searching for a replacement would bring.

I have no issues with AMCs being used in circumstances where defendant insurers can't or won't provide appropriate replacements to people who are in need (and effectively mitigating their loss). This appears not to be one of those claims and any defendant insurer faced with a long credit hire claim (even if it's partially self-inflicted) will resist paying out in this scenario.

pork911

7,080 posts

182 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
sim16v said:
Thanks for all of the replies, certainly some constructive comments.


A bit more info.

My mate spoke to the insurance co of the woman that hit his car, and they said to get his own insurance co to sort it and put a bill in as it was in dispute internally.

He said that was not an option as he was TPF&T, and he really wasn't interested in their own internal arguing as it was the woman that hit his car and not his problem.

If they didn't want to sort it with minimum expense, he would simply go to an AMC, expect a courtesy car and a speedy solution.

They said they couldn't sort anything until a supervisor returned, but they would phone him by close of play today, and they didn't!

So he is going to contact Europa Consultants tomorrow.


For info, the car isn't normally parked in a back lane, and the fact it was TPF&T has no real bearing on what he could afford or not.

The car was his tip run/park anywhere car, with no great value, so a bit of a waste insuring fully comp.

He thinks the car will most likely be a write off due to age/cost of repair, and he said he didn't need another car straight away, as he has at least 4 other cars on the road that I can think of!

His main concern was that he will have to find a replacement for his trusty, tatty workhorse!



It really is no wonder that our insurance gets so expensive when someone genuinely wants to save them some money, and this is the response he gets!
the problem is your last line fails more if he then uses a AMC!



pork911

7,080 posts

182 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
CYMR0 said:
I am now going to change my tune and make it clear that at this stage, I would urge him to be *very* careful with any AMC.

If this is literally a spare car, and he has other cars that can do everything that this does, he does not need a rental car, let alone one at an inflated daily rate to cover the cost of credit (and a bit more besides). It also seems as though he is not "impecunious" and could make his own arrangements for a replacement if he needed to. In that case, the question becomes: why doesn't he do so?

If he is completing forms to that effect, he is at risk in terms of an insurance policy that he may need to take out in case the other side doesn't pay a credit hire claim.

While I referred to the potential loss of use, it seems that in these extremely surprising circumstances, that loss is likely to be absolutely minimal. As you say, his major concern is that he will have to replace it, and the inconvenience that searching for a replacement would bring.

I have no issues with AMCs being used in circumstances where defendant insurers can't or won't provide appropriate replacements to people who are in need (and effectively mitigating their loss). This appears not to be one of those claims and any defendant insurer faced with a long credit hire claim (even if it's partially self-inflicted) will resist paying out in this scenario.
the greater risk (if the insurers ever wanted to end the merry go round;) and anyway if OP's mate is not keen on a bit of sham and fraud) is not the insurance policy for non-recovery itself but ending up being persuaded to give evidence to the court failing to mention that policy and anyway justifying the hire along standard lines that have no bearing on reality - more than a bad taste will be left for most I'd imagine (if they understood)

pork911

7,080 posts

182 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
where's twomany2cvs anyway?

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
pork911 said:
as evidenced by this thread

someone's car has been damaged - the only option is to inflate the costs regardless of whether that is in any reasonable or even necessary on circumstances we do not know - without any thought at all for the affect that has on everyone's premiums
How about the option where the insurer gets their act together and quickly sorts out the third party?

sim16v

Original Poster:

2,176 posts

200 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Sorry, I probably wasn't particularly clear.

He doesn't want a replacement hire car, his reasoning being he doesn't want to be responsibly for someone elses property.

He said he used that line to try and get the insurance company to actually do something constructive.

He simply doesn't have the time to devote to chasing the insurance company, with one phone call he was on hold for more than half an hour!

I think that is why it will be passed over to a management company.

CYMR0

3,940 posts

199 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
sim16v said:
He simply doesn't have the time to devote to chasing the insurance company, with one phone call he was on hold for more than half an hour!

I think that is why it will be passed over to a management company.
How will they get paid? This is a non-injury claim with no hire car commission and below the small claims limit unless his tip car is worth over £10k.

pork911

7,080 posts

182 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Mave said:
pork911 said:
as evidenced by this thread

someone's car has been damaged - the only option is to inflate the costs regardless of whether that is in any reasonable or even necessary on circumstances we do not know - without any thought at all for the affect that has on everyone's premiums
How about the option where the insurer gets their act together and quickly sorts out the third party?
not apparently available at this very instant so the only course of action is to multiply the costs to punish 'them' for failing to keep costs low????


(especially since we now know Op's mate has no real need etc)

sim16v

Original Poster:

2,176 posts

200 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
I have no idea.

I'll let you know how he gets on.