3rd party refusing hire costs?
Discussion
Burwood said:
Loon, without hijacking the thread may i ask you a question please. If I have a non fault accident, am i not entitled to a hire car on the basis I am suffering loss of use of my car whilst it is repaired? I didn't take out the hire car on my last renewal. thanks
This should answer your question.I had a no fault claim late last year and my insurance company put me through on the phone to Albany Assistance that are a credit hire Accident management company who deal is Admiral non fault claims.They wanted me to sign a credit agreement for a hire car and take out an insurance policy to cover the third party not paying by body shop repairs.I was a bit confused with all these requirements and told my insurance company Admiral that I was not happy to do this.
As the third party insurance rang me and admitted liability they asked if they could repair my car and sort out a hire car.My insurance company were happy for me to do this.
I told the third party insurer what I had to do using the AM company and they told me that if I went with them it would be likely we would refuse payment due to their high costs.The third party repaired my car at a body shop of my choice with the hire car company Enterprise 100 yards down the road and everything went very smoothly.The only cost to me was that when I picked up the hire car I had to pay £1 deposit and that was refunded to me when I took the car back.Aslo I was allowed a like for like car up to 3600cc but I chose a Mercedes C Class 2000cc as I was interested in buying one so I could have a sort of extended test drive.
The third party insurance will look after you as they realise that you using them will save them money.
If you are in the same position with a no fault claim I would say go with the third party insurance as you will get a hire car.You would probably get a hire car from the AM company with strings attatched as they are claiming off the third party.
As you realise if the accident was your fault and your insurance company was dealing with the claim then you would not get a hire due to your policy.
Edited by btcc123 on Wednesday 1st April 19:43
Edited by btcc123 on Wednesday 1st April 19:45
Zod said:
Credit hire is clearly allowed as part of the claim for damages by way of restitution (injured party is without his car and has a right to be provided with a car until his car is repaired), but the cost of it is difficult to reconcile with the duty to mitigate your loss.
But you were saying that the insurance companies should be able to get rid of it 
RYH64E said:
Wouldn't it make sense for the insurance companies themselves to supply hire cars themselves? Surely it's better to build the provision of a hire car into every policy than get ripped off by credit hire companies?
I'm sorry but that just shows a complete lack of understanding. The claimant is a third party not a policyholder. The insurer can't control where or how a third party makes their claim. Unless your suggestion is that all insurers provide a hire car for free on their policies so that nobody has a need for a credit hire car. I think I've already explained this but here we go again.
It would take the whole industry to agree to do it. That would be a cartel and that would be illegal under Competition Law. Even if we did stick two fingers up to the law would you be happy to pay extra for this? Would everyone? Remember we have to pay for that hire somehow.
I'm starting to feel like I'm repeating myself over and over again. For clarity some of the finest legal minds in this country have been trying to get rid of or limit the impact of Credit Hire for the past 20 years. They haven't succeeded. I doubt anyone on here will.
LoonR1 said:
Zod said:
Credit hire is clearly allowed as part of the claim for damages by way of restitution (injured party is without his car and has a right to be provided with a car until his car is repaired), but the cost of it is difficult to reconcile with the duty to mitigate your loss.
But you were saying that the insurance companies should be able to get rid of it LoonR1 said:
I'm sorry but that just shows a complete lack of understanding.
True, I know next to nothing about the insurance industry.LoonR1 said:
Unless your suggestion is that all insurers provide a hire car for free on their policies so that nobody has a need for a credit hire car.
Yes, that's exactly what I was suggesting, build the cost of a cheap hire car into every policy sold to negate the need for a really expensive, rip off hire car in a few cases.Zod said:
LoonR1 said:
Zod said:
Credit hire is clearly allowed as part of the claim for damages by way of restitution (injured party is without his car and has a right to be provided with a car until his car is repaired), but the cost of it is difficult to reconcile with the duty to mitigate your loss.
But you were saying that the insurance companies should be able to get rid of it RYH64E said:
Yes, that's exactly what I was suggesting, build the cost of a cheap hire car into every policy sold to negate the need for a really expensive, rip off hire car in a few cases.
But I don't want a cheap car. I want my like for like. It's my Ooman rights innit. Actually it is my legal right. Why should I have to have a cheap car when someone will lend me a car that matches mine and then send the bill to you for settlement?Loon, I know it's early days since Stevens but have you seen a rise in hire cases being thrown out or alternatively significantly reduced due to the Claimant being unable to prove impecuniosity. I know it's always been an argument that's always been available to Defendants but was just wondering whether this has been bolstered by the recent case.
pork911 said:
lots of old ground here 
anyhow, regardless of it being a fraction of the cost etc, how common is it for insurers to tell their policy holders of the fee they earn by referring them on?
Non-existent. You know that already though. There is no duty of disclosure, just like we don't tell them now their premium is made up. anyhow, regardless of it being a fraction of the cost etc, how common is it for insurers to tell their policy holders of the fee they earn by referring them on?
KungFuPanda said:
Loon, I know it's early days since Stevens but have you seen a rise in hire cases being thrown out or alternatively significantly reduced due to the Claimant being unable to prove impecuniosity. I know it's always been an argument that's always been available to Defendants but was just wondering whether this has been bolstered by the recent case.
Too early to tell IMO. it's one hell of an own goal though by AE on this one. Lots of nervousness amongst the CHO community, lots of posturing from insurers at the moment. Impecuniosity is such a great word. It's a hell of a job to prove you are skint though. GTA could be about to crumble as CHOs Rush to join and insurers look to withdraw. I'd be posturing if the Court of Appeal backed lowest of the low comparable spot hire rates, spanked garages for stripping cars down and backed up impecuniosity arguments.
To be fair, impecuniosity is always hard to argue. One man might think he was skint with £5k in an ISA. Another might think he was loaded with £100 in his back pocket. Do you expect people to use their financial buffer to hire a car?
I'm also suprised the Claimant himself didn't get a strip tore off him by the Judge for not knowing that he was entering into a hire agreement and saying he wouldn't have hired at all if he knew the real scenario.
To be fair, impecuniosity is always hard to argue. One man might think he was skint with £5k in an ISA. Another might think he was loaded with £100 in his back pocket. Do you expect people to use their financial buffer to hire a car?
I'm also suprised the Claimant himself didn't get a strip tore off him by the Judge for not knowing that he was entering into a hire agreement and saying he wouldn't have hired at all if he knew the real scenario.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff