No Fault Accident Help

Author
Discussion

sim16v

Original Poster:

2,176 posts

200 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
A friend's car is usually parked in a quiet back lane as they tend to lose wing mirrors if parked in the front street.


Anyway, two cars have ended up colliding in the back lane, with one car then crashing in to his parked car.

As it is obviously not his fault, he wanted to go directly to the other party's insurance and claim direct from them.

He has spoken to them and they say they actually insure both other parties involved in the collision, but there is a dispute to liability.

Because of this it could take a long time to get sorted, so the other insurer has told him to get his own insurer to fix his car and claim from them.

He is only TPF&T and he doesn't want to lose any no claims, whether temporary or not, so i've told him to go through a claims company.

There is a chap on here that does this, but I can't for the life of me remember his name!

Could someone please point me in the right direction.

Randomthoughts

917 posts

132 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Annies dad is it? Don't take it for gospel though.

randlemarcus

13,504 posts

230 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
anniesdad on here. Google Europa Consultants.

Has he told the 3rd party insurer that he is TPFT, and unless they play ball, will be off to an AMC? As good as EC are, this might inject a little more urgency into the claims handler smile

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
sim16v said:
so the other insurer has told him to get his own insurer to fix his car and claim from them.

He is only TPF&T
So he _can't_ claim from his own insurer. That simple.

If they won't entertain a claim directly, then AMC is the only way to go.

Nezquick

1,451 posts

125 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
I've never understood this about insurers.
One of their insured's is at fault....regardless of which one that might be, they should just pay the non-fault parties claim ASAP and sort it out internally later on!

Fools!

pork911

7,080 posts

182 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
sim16v said:
so the other insurer has told him to get his own insurer to fix his car and claim from them.

He is only TPF&T
So he _can't_ claim from his own insurer. That simple.

If they won't entertain a claim directly, then AMC is the only way to go.
yes seems OPs mate needs to call them again and explain

however if they still won't play an AMC is NOT the only way to go

sim16v

Original Poster:

2,176 posts

200 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Thanks everyone, I knew it was Europa something and had been looking through user names with Europa in them!

I've passed the details on, he's giving them until the end of the day then he will make contact with Europa Consultants

mcflurry

9,077 posts

252 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
pork911 said:
yes seems OPs mate needs to call them again and explain
however if they still won't play an AMC is NOT the only way to go
Why not?
For all the AMC "pricing issues", the insurer has been given the chance to fix it in-house and sort the OP a car at their expense.
Why should the innocent party have the hassle, and upfront costs of an Enterprse/AVIS bill?

pork911

7,080 posts

182 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
mcflurry said:
pork911 said:
yes seems OPs mate needs to call them again and explain
however if they still won't play an AMC is NOT the only way to go
Why not?
For all the AMC "pricing issues", the insurer has been given the chance to fix it in-house and sort the OP a car at their expense.
Why should the innocent party have the hassle, and upfront costs of an Enterprse/AVIS bill?
because the innocent party may not want to unnecessarily inflate the costs, novel idea i know

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
pork911 said:
because the innocent party may not want to unnecessarily inflate the costs, novel idea i know
At what point does it cease being "unnecessary"? If it's the only answer short of spending your every waking moment giving the insurer grief and/or waiting until they've decided who was at fault out of the other pair, I'd say that was starting to become justified. The "inflating costs" is in the hands of the insurer, and they seem uninterested.

AyBee

10,521 posts

201 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
pork911 said:
because the innocent party may not want to unnecessarily inflate the costs, novel idea i know
At what point does it cease being "unnecessary"? If it's the only answer short of spending your every waking moment giving the insurer grief and/or waiting until they've decided who was at fault out of the other pair, I'd say that was starting to become justified. The "inflating costs" is in the hands of the insurer, and they seem uninterested.
yes The issue is with the insurance company. This appears to be an incredibly easy thing for them to solve and yet they don't want to play ball and they wonder why people get AMCs involved. Most people don't have hours and hours to spend on the phone sorting out issues that weren't of their making.

randlemarcus

13,504 posts

230 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
What's this magic "other way" then? The guy is TPFT, the third party has admitted liability rests with them (they are just uncertain which policy to attach the claim to), and they are refusing to help.

Granted, the average Pher should be able to replace from the petty cash tin, and let the housekeeper deal with it, but I am intrigued...

pork911

7,080 posts

182 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
pork911 said:
because the innocent party may not want to unnecessarily inflate the costs, novel idea i know
At what point does it cease being "unnecessary"? If it's the only answer short of spending your every waking moment giving the insurer grief and/or waiting until they've decided who was at fault out of the other pair, I'd say that was starting to become justified. The "inflating costs" is in the hands of the insurer, and they seem uninterested.
the inflating costs is in every parties' hands
(and Op's mate is under a duty to mitigate)

no grief is needed to be given let alone every waking moment

and of itself waiting isn't an issue


you've made huge assumptions - not least also having mentioned a hire from the off


OP's mate's concerns were apparently premiums / NCD



yet credit repair and credit hire boots come flying in - with irrelevant justifications


i hope you are never critical of a whiplash victim wink

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
pork911 said:
you've made huge assumptions
Are you reading the same thread you're replying in?

Because I'll recap the thread I'm reading...
- Somebody else's collision involves parked car.
- Both other vehicles insured with same insurer.
- Parked car TPFT.
- Insurer refuses to pay for repairs to parked car until liability settled between other two.

There is nobody else who is going to pay for this parked car's repairs, bar the one and only insurer who covers the other two. How they apportion the costs between their policyholders is internal. Unless you've got a better option then, without an AMC, the OP's mate faces paying for his repairs himself or waiting on the insurer to decide that - oh, look - yes, they are liable, one way or another.

ralphrj

3,500 posts

190 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
There is nobody else who is going to pay for this parked car's repairs, bar the one and only insurer who covers the other two.
I imagine that 999 times in 1,000 cases they will be liable but it is possible for 2 cars to collide and damage a 3rd without either driver being liable. Rare and unlikely but not impossible.

pork911

7,080 posts

182 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
pork911 said:
you've made huge assumptions
Are you reading the same thread you're replying in?

Because I'll recap the thread I'm reading...
- Somebody else's collision involves parked car.
- Both other vehicles insured with same insurer.
- Parked car TPFT.
- Insurer refuses to pay for repairs to parked car until liability settled between other two.

There is nobody else who is going to pay for this parked car's repairs, bar the one and only insurer who covers the other two. How they apportion the costs between their policyholders is internal. Unless you've got a better option then, without an AMC, the OP's mate faces paying for his repairs himself or waiting on the insurer to decide that - oh, look - yes, they are liable, one way or another.
so you agree an amc isn't the only way, we got there in the end!


of course all of this is irrelevant until op's mate phones the insurer and tells them he's TPFT as he should have done in the first call - if they still don't want to play then he can consider his options [plural;)] and you can explain how hassle and or time is any justification for credit repair and hire without reference to such left field things as need and impecuniosity


TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
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.

pork911

7,080 posts

182 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
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

CYMR0

3,940 posts

199 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
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.

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
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?