Legal Advice needed re: Hire car solicitors letter
Discussion
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.
The insurers don't give you a choice do they? In my experience at NO stage do the insurers say, you are entering a credit agreement, you can have a corsa for nothing or potentially be liable for £000's in hire car charges. Unless you read the small print you have NO idea. You think it's the guaranteed curtesy car you paid the extra £40 for.My mate is quite well off, he had an accident on a hot summers day, he was driving his "daily" A4 convertible that was seriously damaged, 2 days before he went on Holliday. He ended up with £16k plus hire charges, met by the 3rd party in the end but not sure how. The replacement A4 was parked in Heathrow for 10 days at a cost of £249 per day, he called the hire firm and asked if they would rather he got a taxi at a cost of £200 total, you can guess their response.
He was really pissed off when his insurers asked him to clIm he did not have access to other cars, and could not afford his own hire car at the time between him and his wife they had a Vanquish S, Porsche Boxter, Focus estate, and RAnge Rover sport all insured with the same company.
It's jut the insurance co's scamming as usual. When I had an accident the other year, I had a non fault my insurer put me through to the claim managers who got me a credit hire car, no mention that this was not a "free" car no mention I needed not to be able to afford the hire, a week before the accident I sold an investment flat and had £60k in the bank.
I think you would have a point if the terms and conditions are explained prior to signing the agreement, they are not, they are hidden in pages of docs and booklets you get given and don't read.
While referral fees are a relatively minor point in the whole dirty sham I don't agree with the insurers' own business case for recouping a fraction of their losses in that way.
It's akin to a gamekeeper who is losing 10 pheasants a day to a poacher. He decides to sell at a discount 1 pheasant a day to the poacher. The appetite for pheasants grows and the poacher is then stealing 20 a day and the gamekeeper is selling him 2 a day. The gamekeeper could go to the trouble and cost of building a better fence to restrict the poaching and in time kill the appetite for pheasant. He doesn't but anyway it's not his money. The estate is owned by a collective of people who are required by law to pay for it. All the information about what's going on is in the estate's accounts but the gamekeeper never specically raises and pushes it with the estate or considers it part of his remit to build the bloody fence.
It's akin to a gamekeeper who is losing 10 pheasants a day to a poacher. He decides to sell at a discount 1 pheasant a day to the poacher. The appetite for pheasants grows and the poacher is then stealing 20 a day and the gamekeeper is selling him 2 a day. The gamekeeper could go to the trouble and cost of building a better fence to restrict the poaching and in time kill the appetite for pheasant. He doesn't but anyway it's not his money. The estate is owned by a collective of people who are required by law to pay for it. All the information about what's going on is in the estate's accounts but the gamekeeper never specically raises and pushes it with the estate or considers it part of his remit to build the bloody fence.
dacouch said:
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.
He said he did, and certainly we claimed off our policy with LV= when someone ran into the back of our car. LV= took care of the whole thing, and waived the excess.To my mind that's the whole point of fully comp insurance - I've never understood why people takes these things on themselves and deal with the 3rd parties insurer directly. For one thing, you have no leverage if there are any problems as you're not that insurance companies customer.
Sheepshanks said:
He said he did, and certainly we claimed off our policy with LV= when someone ran into the back of our car. LV= took care of the whole thing, and waived the excess.
To my mind that's the whole point of fully comp insurance - I've never understood why people takes these things on themselves and deal with the 3rd parties insurer directly. For one thing, you have no leverage if there are any problems as you're not that insurance companies customer.
The OP probably thought the same as you before yesterdayTo my mind that's the whole point of fully comp insurance - I've never understood why people takes these things on themselves and deal with the 3rd parties insurer directly. For one thing, you have no leverage if there are any problems as you're not that insurance companies customer.
Wow. This is amazing, I think ill use this thread as a pointer to everyone who comes in bleating that they've been crashed I to and everyone on here suggests a Crefit Hire company to them.
I'm pretty ambivalent about this in all honesty, but as I said, the OP has danced with the Devil and now has to pay his dues.
I'm pretty ambivalent about this in all honesty, but as I said, the OP has danced with the Devil and now has to pay his dues.
LoonR1 said:
Wow. This is amazing, I think ill use this thread as a pointer to everyone who comes in bleating that they've been crashed I to and everyone on here suggests a Crefit Hire company to them.
I'm pretty ambivalent about this in all honesty, but as I said, the OP has danced with the Devil and now has to pay his dues.
I've seen threads warning against them.I'm pretty ambivalent about this in all honesty, but as I said, the OP has danced with the Devil and now has to pay his dues.
And it's a bit rich for you, as an industry representative, to rail against them - many insurers farm out no-fault claims to AMCs. Isn't there one insurer that owns an AMC and claims it's a good thing as the money they make helps keep premiums down?
Sheepshanks said:
I've seen threads warning against them.
And it's a bit rich for you, as an industry representative, to rail against them - many insurers farm out no-fault claims to AMCs. Isn't there one insurer that owns an AMC and claims it's a good thing as the money they make helps keep premiums down?
How many times have Inexplaind that the income is a byproduct of the incurred cost. Get rid of the cost and I'd happily give up then income as it's c30% of the cost we incur. And it's a bit rich for you, as an industry representative, to rail against them - many insurers farm out no-fault claims to AMCs. Isn't there one insurer that owns an AMC and claims it's a good thing as the money they make helps keep premiums down?
Edited by LoonR1 on Sunday 1st February 18:36
LoonR1 said:
How many times have Inexplaind that the income is Assad by product of the incurred cost. Get rid of the cost and I'd happily give up then income as it's c30% of the cost we incur.
The 70% could be 0.What will the income be on an ABS for you?
Regardless, what's the approximate cash value of the cost to other insurers of your referrals?
pork911 said:
The 70% could be 0.
What will the income be on an ABS for you?
Regardless, what's the approximate cash value of the cost to other insurers of your referrals?
Forget the ABS. I'm not opening that can of worms again. Income and cost and fairly standard across the industry. Referal income c£300-500 max. Cost c£1650 per claim. Plus all the associated staff and operational crap to deal with it. What will the income be on an ABS for you?
Regardless, what's the approximate cash value of the cost to other insurers of your referrals?
LoonR1 said:
pork911 said:
The 70% could be 0.
What will the income be on an ABS for you?
Regardless, what's the approximate cash value of the cost to other insurers of your referrals?
Forget the ABS. I'm not opening that can of worms again. Income and cost and fairly standard across the industry. Referal income c£300-500 max. Cost c£1650 per claim. Plus all the associated staff and operational crap to deal with it. What will the income be on an ABS for you?
Regardless, what's the approximate cash value of the cost to other insurers of your referrals?
)Edited by pork911 on Monday 2nd February 00:50
pork911 said:
Cheers for that. Build the bloody fence. (actually, stop stealing your neighbours pheasants to sell to the poacher )
I agree. The industry was hoping for something more substantive from the recent CMA investigation. What they first proposed was good, but outside their ability to enforce legally. What they watered it down to was a waste of paper. )Edited by pork911 on Monday 2nd February 00:50
There are quite a few reciprocal agreements not to shaft each other on this, but any market wide agreement would be seen as a breach of competition law and a cartel. Ironically it would reduce premiums and make the market more competitive, but it would screw CHOs and they would cry too loudly.
Standing on principle is great, but that income does go towards lower premiums. Nobody would last long if they were the priciest and losing market share due to a principled stance against Credit Hire. It's a shame but harsh reality n
BHML said:
Small update - my old insurers asked me to send them the letter for processing & advised me not to enter any discussions with ERAC solicitors at this stage. So I feel a tiny but relieved that at least they are taking an interest in the matter...
perhaps ask them how much a referral fee they got? just for s
t and giggles - even more so if you had courtesy car entitlement or were led to believe it was this etcregardless, please do keep this thread updated to help warn others
LoonR1 said:
I agree. The industry was hoping for something more substantive from the recent CMA investigation. What they first proposed was good, but outside their ability to enforce legally. What they watered it down to was a waste of paper.
There are quite a few reciprocal agreements not to shaft each other on this, but any market wide agreement would be seen as a breach of competition law and a cartel. Ironically it would reduce premiums and make the market more competitive, but it would screw CHOs and they would cry too loudly.
Standing on principle is great, but that income does go towards lower premiums. Nobody would last long if they were the priciest and losing market share due to a principled stance against Credit Hire. It's a shame but harsh reality n
understood, though at the very least a few well placed media articles might raise the public awarenessThere are quite a few reciprocal agreements not to shaft each other on this, but any market wide agreement would be seen as a breach of competition law and a cartel. Ironically it would reduce premiums and make the market more competitive, but it would screw CHOs and they would cry too loudly.
Standing on principle is great, but that income does go towards lower premiums. Nobody would last long if they were the priciest and losing market share due to a principled stance against Credit Hire. It's a shame but harsh reality n
(edit - how often do Part 18s query at all or in detail comfort letters, side agreements or separate policies covering people from being on the hook for any charges as long as the co-operate with the hire company?)
Edited by pork911 on Monday 2nd February 16:41
pork911 said:
understood, though at the very least a few well placed media articles might raise the public awareness
(edit - how often do Part 18s query at all or in detail comfort letters, side agreements or separate policies covering people from being on the hook for any charges as long as the co-operate with the hire company?)
You don't challenge others when that's your own practice. See the lack of real challenge to Coles for retail repair models. (edit - how often do Part 18s query at all or in detail comfort letters, side agreements or separate policies covering people from being on the hook for any charges as long as the co-operate with the hire company?)
Edited by pork911 on Monday 2nd February 16:41
LoonR1 said:
You don't challenge others when that's your own practice. See the lack of real challenge to Coles for retail repair models.
not ranting (i promise) but....nothing will ever change then (we can't do anything Vs we won't do anything)
and the key difference between referral fees for injury and anything else is right there - that lead to money leaking to private individuals, credit hire etc it all stays in the industry
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff