Legal Advice needed re: Hire car solicitors letter
Discussion
LoonR1 said:
There's no point contacting More Than, it's not their problem ,or anything to do with them. I can tell you now what the problem is. Enterprise will have billed for both the initial repair period and the subsequent 7-10 days. The other insurer is not responsible for the extra hire as that was poor workmanship, not as a result of their driver's negligence.
Either the repairer pays Enterprise for those7-10 days, or Enterprise write it off.
Find out what the solicitor wants you to do, but 10-1 on that's the issue.
Regarding your point that the extra hire was due to poor workmanship: in that case doesn't liability rest with More Than for not selecting a competent garage to repair the car? Either the repairer pays Enterprise for those7-10 days, or Enterprise write it off.
Find out what the solicitor wants you to do, but 10-1 on that's the issue.
DJ_AS said:
Regarding your point that the extra hire was due to poor workmanship: in that case doesn't liability rest with More Than for not selecting a competent garage to repair the car?
Did More Than select the garage? Has the OP told us that? Either way this isn't Enterprise going after the OP. It's just Enterprise asking for his help with their pursuit of money from the other driver. Don't confused over who's after who.
Edited by LoonR1 on Friday 30th January 23:24
Edited by LoonR1 on Friday 30th January 23:24
LoonR1 said:
Did More Than select the garage? Has the OP told us that? Either way this isn't Wnterprise going after the OP. It's just Enterprise asking for his help with their pursuit of money from the other driver.
Do they confused over who's after who.
According to the OP's previous post it went to a "priority" repairer as chosen by the Insurer.Do they confused over who's after who.
OP - send it on to the insurer, I'd be fairly confident they will deal with it if you used their network.
desolate said:
LoonR1 said:
Did More Than select the garage? Has the OP told us that? Either way this isn't Wnterprise going after the OP. It's just Enterprise asking for his help with their pursuit of money from the other driver.
Do they confused over who's after who.
According to the OP's previous post it went to a "priority" repairer as chosen by the Insurer.Do they confused over who's after who.
OP - send it on to the insurer, I'd be fairly confident they will deal with it if you used their network.
OP it wasn't a courtesy car or a hire car someone else was paying for. You entered into a contract hiring the car on credit. The large debt is yours. You are the only person who can sue the other driver / their insurer to pay your debt.
Your options are probably :-
1. Not sue the other driver / their insurer. You then pay the hire bill or attempt to defend yourself against a claim from the hire company for such if they pursue you (but remember you signed the contract and had the car).
2. Co-operate with these solicitors (you will be their client...well sort of
) and give an absolutely truthful account in your evidence to the Court of what went on and refuse to go along with any suggestions of what it might be better for you to say. You then pay the entire hire bill / the remainder depending on how much if anything the Court orders the other driver / their insurer to pay or attempt to defend yourself against a claim from the hire company for such if they pursue you.
3. Co-operate with these solicitors and go along with all suggestions as to what you might be best saying and lie to the Court (eek!). The hire company may not then seek from you any shortfall between what the Court might order the other driver / their insurer to pay for the hire and the full bill. You may have had a side comfort letter / agreement concerning this, possibly even an insurance policy for it, though of course the suggestion will be that you do not mention this in your evidence to the Court (eek!).
Some might say 3 happens all the time and a lot of the credit hire industry is based on careless people kidding themselves and being led along into a situation that is absolute bulls
t if not outright fraud and for which they then have to be a willing and eager participant.
Your options are probably :-
1. Not sue the other driver / their insurer. You then pay the hire bill or attempt to defend yourself against a claim from the hire company for such if they pursue you (but remember you signed the contract and had the car).
2. Co-operate with these solicitors (you will be their client...well sort of
) and give an absolutely truthful account in your evidence to the Court of what went on and refuse to go along with any suggestions of what it might be better for you to say. You then pay the entire hire bill / the remainder depending on how much if anything the Court orders the other driver / their insurer to pay or attempt to defend yourself against a claim from the hire company for such if they pursue you.3. Co-operate with these solicitors and go along with all suggestions as to what you might be best saying and lie to the Court (eek!). The hire company may not then seek from you any shortfall between what the Court might order the other driver / their insurer to pay for the hire and the full bill. You may have had a side comfort letter / agreement concerning this, possibly even an insurance policy for it, though of course the suggestion will be that you do not mention this in your evidence to the Court (eek!).
Some might say 3 happens all the time and a lot of the credit hire industry is based on careless people kidding themselves and being led along into a situation that is absolute bulls
t if not outright fraud and for which they then have to be a willing and eager participant.Edited by pork911 on Friday 30th January 23:38
LoonR1 said:
Ok ,so if it did go to More Than's choice of repairer I'm still not sure what you want them to do. Enterprise are well within their rights to try to recover the full amount of the hire costs (they might not succeed but they can try) amd the OP signed a contract saying he will give them his full support in doing this. Why the confusion. If he doesn't want to help then he shouldn't have signed the form. As he did sign it them he should help, or be in breach of the contract.
It's a standard motor claim.RSA need to sort this out (Providing the OP went via the approved repairers)
If the OP went via a CMC then it's between him and them, but should have the same result in the end.
If the Op's broker, or the insurer, sent him via a CMC without clearly explaining what happened then it all starts getting a bit complicated.
desolate said:
It's a standard motor claim.
RSA need to sort this out (Providing the OP went via the approved repairers)
If the OP went via a CMC then it's between him and them, but should have the same result in the end.
If the Op's broker, or the insurer, sent him via a CMC without clearly explaining what happened then it all starts getting a bit complicated.
No, you're completely wrong. See Pork911's comments above. RSA need to sort this out (Providing the OP went via the approved repairers)
If the OP went via a CMC then it's between him and them, but should have the same result in the end.
If the Op's broker, or the insurer, sent him via a CMC without clearly explaining what happened then it all starts getting a bit complicated.
And for info More Than are the direct arm of RSA. There will be no broker involvement at all.
All Enterprise are asking is for the OP to fulfil his contractual duties that he agreed to when he hired the car and help Enterprise in their efforts to recover the hire charges from the other driver's insurer. I really don't see what you are trying to achieve by posting incorrect info and clearly don't understand what's happening here.
LoonR1 said:
No, you're completely wrong. See Pork911's comments above.
And for info More Than are the direct arm of RSA. There will be no broker involvement at all.
All Enterprise are asking is for the OP to fulfil his contractual duties that he agreed to when he hired the car and help Enterprise in their efforts to recover the hire charges from the other driver's insurer. I really don't see what you are trying to achieve by posting incorrect info and clearly don't understand what's happening here.
I'll try and get my brain in work mode. (Have been on the vino)And for info More Than are the direct arm of RSA. There will be no broker involvement at all.
All Enterprise are asking is for the OP to fulfil his contractual duties that he agreed to when he hired the car and help Enterprise in their efforts to recover the hire charges from the other driver's insurer. I really don't see what you are trying to achieve by posting incorrect info and clearly don't understand what's happening here.
OP has an accident that isn't his fault, calls his insurer, who puts him into their "approved" network which includes a credit hire contract. (it's not a "courtesy car")
Someone owes enterprise their reasonable costs. Ultimately it's the Third party for the first part of the hire and then probably the garage that did the dodgy repair for the next bit,
A decent customer service operative could sort this out in about 2 minutes.
Or we could argue about the fine print until we achieve the same result.
Do you think RSA should smooth this over or not?
desolate said:
Someone owes enterprise their reasonable costs. Ultimately it's the Third party for the first part of the hire and then probably the garage that did the dodgy repair for the next bit
Only the OP owes the hire company anything.He owes them the full hire subject to any side comfort letters / agreements etc or subject to being the defendant in a claim from the hire company and persuading the court the hire contract is unenforceable or persuading the court to reduce the bill.
Alternatively he pursues the other driver / their insurer for his loss (this debt he owes, denying any side letter etc).
It's then for him to prove its an enforceable contract against himself and the reasonableness of his hire (and all that involves).
The garage don't owe any hire due to the delay / extra repairs and that element of it (depending on exactly what went on) will unlikely be recoverable from the other driver / their insurer.
Edited by pork911 on Saturday 31st January 00:53
pork911 said:
desolate said:
Someone owes enterprise their reasonable costs. Ultimately it's the Third party for the first part of the hire and then probably the garage that did the dodgy repair for the next bit
Only the OP owes the hire company anything.He owes them the full hire subject to any side comfort letters / agreements etc and subject to being the defendant in a claim from the hire company and persuading the court the hire contract is unenforceable or persuading the court to reduce the bill.
Alternatively he pursues the other driver / their insurer for his loss (this debt he owes, denying any side letter etc).
It's then for him to prove its an enforceable contract against himself and the reasonableness of his hire (and all that involves).
The garage don't owe any hire due to the delay / extra repairs and that element of it (depending on exactly what went on) will unlikely be recoverable from the other driver / their insurer.
But don't you think RSA just need to "sort this out"?
If they don't it just shows us all up for the bunch of venal t
ts we are.desolate said:
pork911 said:
desolate said:
Someone owes enterprise their reasonable costs. Ultimately it's the Third party for the first part of the hire and then probably the garage that did the dodgy repair for the next bit
Only the OP owes the hire company anything.He owes them the full hire subject to any side comfort letters / agreements etc and subject to being the defendant in a claim from the hire company and persuading the court the hire contract is unenforceable or persuading the court to reduce the bill.
Alternatively he pursues the other driver / their insurer for his loss (this debt he owes, denying any side letter etc).
It's then for him to prove its an enforceable contract against himself and the reasonableness of his hire (and all that involves).
The garage don't owe any hire due to the delay / extra repairs and that element of it (depending on exactly what went on) will unlikely be recoverable from the other driver / their insurer.
But don't you think RSA just need to "sort this out"?
If they don't it just shows us all up for the bunch of venal t
ts we are.Even if they wanted to they couldn't even attempt to just sort this out.
I did make a suggestion to loonR1 some time ago about how to decimate the credit hire industry but understand the various reasons why that's not at all favoured (and in that it would be someone like the OP who would be on the receiving end).
I'm partly surprised more people in the OP's position aren't screaming about their experiences yet those that have been there and do fully understand and care can't really then scream since they typically then knowingly play an absolutely central part in the sham.
In the OP's position I'd go for option 1 or 2 above but only because I know what it's all about, have deep pockets, don't give a f
k and hate credit hire - but it's for the same reasons I'd never be in his position since I'd never credit hire.desolate said:
I appreciate what you are saying, and I am sure you are correct
But don't you think RSA just need to "sort this out"?
If they don't it just shows us all up for the bunch of venal tts we are.
More Than (that's the branding not RSA), have done no more than introduce the OP to another company who offered him a car with a shedload of paperwork. You could argue a vicarious liability and all that entails, but that really only comes when the OP becomes absolutely and exclusively liable for the debt. At this point he isn't, Enterprise are saying "you signed this form, promising to help us recover our hire costs. We need you to honour that amd help us." I don't think that's unreasonable. But don't you think RSA just need to "sort this out"?
If they don't it just shows us all up for the bunch of venal t
ts we are.The OP might not like it, but he's danced with the Devil in the pale moonlight.
LoonR1 said:
More Than (that's the branding not RSA), have done no more than introduce the OP to another company who offered him a car with a shedload of paperwork. You could argue a vicarious liability and all that entails, but that really only comes when the OP becomes absolutely and exclusively liable for the debt. At this point he isn't, Enterprise are saying "you signed this form, promising to help us recover our hire costs. We need you to honour that amd help us." I don't think that's unreasonable.
The OP might not like it, but he's danced with the Devil in the pale moonlight.
I'm off to bed, but all he tried to do was sort out a claim, no dodgy dealings, sounds very straightforward.The OP might not like it, but he's danced with the Devil in the pale moonlight.
Why did "more than" intro him to a credit hire org. It wasn't for customer service. Was it for money?
The customer isn't in this for cash, he just wants his none fault claim sorted.
Just another load of old tosh,
desolate said:
I'll try and get my brain in work mode. (Have been on the vino)
OP has an accident that isn't his fault, calls his insurer, who puts him into their "approved" network which includes a credit hire contract. (it's not a "courtesy car")
Someone owes enterprise their reasonable costs. Ultimately it's the Third party for the first part of the hire and then probably the garage that did the dodgy repair for the next bit,
A decent customer service operative could sort this out in about 2 minutes.
Or we could argue about the fine print until we achieve the same result.
Do you think RSA should smooth this over or not?
It's unlikely the OP claimed from his own policy as he didn't pay his excess which would indicate the repairs were Credit Repairs arranged by an accident management company or the credit hire company.OP has an accident that isn't his fault, calls his insurer, who puts him into their "approved" network which includes a credit hire contract. (it's not a "courtesy car")
Someone owes enterprise their reasonable costs. Ultimately it's the Third party for the first part of the hire and then probably the garage that did the dodgy repair for the next bit,
A decent customer service operative could sort this out in about 2 minutes.
Or we could argue about the fine print until we achieve the same result.
Do you think RSA should smooth this over or not?
BHML said:
No I wasn't asked to pay any of my excess.
Which would explain why the repairs ending up taking longer than expected...desolate said:
I'm off to bed, but all he tried to do was sort out a claim, no dodgy dealings, sounds very straightforward.
Why did "more than" intro him to a credit hire org. It wasn't for customer service. Was it for money?
The customer isn't in this for cash, he just wants his none fault claim sorted.
Just another load of old tosh,
It wasn't for customer service? If your insurer only offered you a standard courtesy car in a non-fault accident would you be happy? Look at SP&L amd the plethora of recommendations to use Europa where the insurer hasn't given them like for like. Of course the insurer gets a referal fee, but it's chicken and egg. The OP is of course welcome to turn it down and take the lower value car with no comeback ever. He chose the former and now he needs to live up to his side of the bargain. That's all. Why did "more than" intro him to a credit hire org. It wasn't for customer service. Was it for money?
The customer isn't in this for cash, he just wants his none fault claim sorted.
Just another load of old tosh,
LoonR1 said:
It wasn't for customer service? If your insurer only offered you a standard courtesy car in a non-fault accident would you be happy? Look at SP&L amd the plethora of recommendations to use Europa where the insurer hasn't given them like for like. Of course the insurer gets a referal fee, but it's chicken and egg. The OP is of course welcome to turn it down and take the lower value car with no comeback ever. He chose the former and now he needs to live up to his side of the bargain. That's all.
Credit hire is a dirty sham and insurers should have no business getting involved with it referring even without a fee and no matter how long their arms are. Their focus on credit hire should be killing it (which we've discussed before).It's not their first rodeo but often it is their customer's first. Even the most savvy customer who reads all the documents (and has need, is impecunious, acts entirely reasonably etc.) doesn't know the likely consequences of the assurances the credit hire company give of them not being on the hook as long as they co-operate. Those being that if litigated the customer will have to lie to the court about those assurances. The insurer knows these consequences and know that their customer won't.
LoonR1 said:
desolate said:
I'm off to bed, but all he tried to do was sort out a claim, no dodgy dealings, sounds very straightforward.
Why did "more than" intro him to a credit hire org. It wasn't for customer service. Was it for money?
The customer isn't in this for cash, he just wants his none fault claim sorted.
Just another load of old tosh,
It wasn't for customer service? If your insurer only offered you a standard courtesy car in a non-fault accident would you be happy? Look at SP&L amd the plethora of recommendations to use Europa where the insurer hasn't given them like for like. Of course the insurer gets a referal fee, but it's chicken and egg. The OP is of course welcome to turn it down and take the lower value car with no comeback ever. He chose the former and now he needs to live up to his side of the bargain. That's all. Why did "more than" intro him to a credit hire org. It wasn't for customer service. Was it for money?
The customer isn't in this for cash, he just wants his none fault claim sorted.
Just another load of old tosh,
This confirms my view that most insurance companies aren't much above crooks. And don't reply that it's all in the conditions and terms. If I had a contract law degree, and unlimited time, I could sit and read the terms and conditions of every single thing or service I pay for each day. But I haven't just, like the man in the street. I pay my insurance premium. If I get shunted off the road by another, I expect a painless service that provides me with a replacement vehicle whilst it's sorted.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff