3rd party refusing hire costs?
Discussion
pork911 said:
you'll see in the earlier linked thread and elsewhere discussions between me and LoonR1 regarding this - despite his explanations i still can't see any real reason why insurers haven't gone all out to decimate the current credit hire model rather than just arguing over minor issues on the fringes
I'm running it past a couple of specialist credit hire legal partners as we speak, so I'll come back when I get their stance. Oh yeah. AE love to litigate as their top man loves an ego trip. Not sure how he feels about Stevens vs Equity though.
LoonR1 said:
pork911 said:
you'll see in the earlier linked thread and elsewhere discussions between me and LoonR1 regarding this - despite his explanations i still can't see any real reason why insurers haven't gone all out to decimate the current credit hire model rather than just arguing over minor issues on the fringes
I'm running it past a couple of specialist credit hire legal partners as we speak, so I'll come back when I get their stance. Oh yeah. AE love to litigate as their top man loves an ego trip. Not sure how he feels about Stevens vs Equity though.
pork911 said:
cheers, it wasn't a dig as I hope you know, just thought better to mention previous discussions rather than going over old ground
It's fine, I didn't read it as a dig. The OP really has got into a mess, but there's a modus operandi for AE at the moment in sting for time on total losses and extending hire unnecessarily. Wouldn't be surprised if the claim is against us as we're kicking loads of them into touch currently. Ok. Here we go with an answer, of sorts.
This has been tested in W vs Veolia where the policy paid out to create a subrogated loss so that they could claim for the hire. The ruling was that as the policy paid out then the hirer did incur the cost and so it is recoverable. There was another load of mumbo jumbo about the enforceability of the credit agreement in that too.
The policy does actually exist as well and the word on the street is that it's underwritten by AIG.
This has been tested in W vs Veolia where the policy paid out to create a subrogated loss so that they could claim for the hire. The ruling was that as the policy paid out then the hirer did incur the cost and so it is recoverable. There was another load of mumbo jumbo about the enforceability of the credit agreement in that too.
The policy does actually exist as well and the word on the street is that it's underwritten by AIG.
hora said:
Right I'm not a legal eagle/Solicitor etc but I am a right pain in the f
king arse.
Your insurer (who you have hire car included on your policy) - trasferred you through to their partner who I presume managers their hire car facility. Either that or they palmed you off hoping they'd mitigate their own costs/admin by subcontracting it out/getting rid of you.
I don't think they manage their hire car facilities, I think they are a completely different company all together.king arse.Your insurer (who you have hire car included on your policy) - trasferred you through to their partner who I presume managers their hire car facility. Either that or they palmed you off hoping they'd mitigate their own costs/admin by subcontracting it out/getting rid of you.
hora said:
Ask your insurer for a copy of the call between yourself and them when you were pushed towards AMC.
Will they give me it? Simple as that? I wasn't 'pushed' as such, more told that my details would be passed on to the company who deal with it on their behalf.hora said:
Tell them you'll raise a complaint to the Insurance Ombudsman. Why were you pushed to an external party? In my view (possibly) they were referring you to their co-supplier.
I was referred to a third party.hora said:
Why is the third party refusing the hire car costs? They are disputing the cost? Or is your own insurer not doing a proper job representing you- i.e. if its 100% no fault why aren't they handling everything for you?
I would assume it's the length of hire, and the huge cost.I've been told it's a no fault by my InsCo and Accident management co.
hora said:
Ask to be escalated to someone more senior
Ask for a recording
Ask why a hire car is included in your policy yet their own representative 'fobbed you off'. What does that mean- ask for a recording.
Etc. Kick up a fuss and report them if need be.
Will do.Ask for a recording
Ask why a hire car is included in your policy yet their own representative 'fobbed you off'. What does that mean- ask for a recording.
Etc. Kick up a fuss and report them if need be.
hora said:
Mad. You pay for something then you have to pay for it yourself. It doesnt make sense.
Nope. It doesn't.Which is why I assumed it was the car I had paid premium for.
hora said:
Right I'm not a legal eagle/Solicitor etc but I am a right pain in the fking arse.
Your insurer (who you have hire car included on your policy) - trasferred you through to their partner who I presume managers their hire car facility. Either that or they palmed you off hoping they'd mitigate their own costs/admin by subcontracting it out/getting rid of you.
Ask your insurer for a copy of the call between yourself and them when you were pushed towards AMC.
Tell them you'll raise a complaint to the Insurance Ombudsman. Why were you pushed to an external party? In my view (possibly) they were referring you to their co-supplier.
Why is the third party refusing the hire car costs? They are disputing the cost? Or is your own insurer not doing a proper job representing you- i.e. if its 100% no fault why aren't they handling everything for you?
Ask to be escalated to someone more senior
Ask for a recording
Ask why a hire car is included in your policy yet their own representative 'fobbed you off'. What does that mean- ask for a recording.
Etc. Kick up a fuss and report them if need be.
Mad. You pay for something then you have to pay for it yourself. It doesnt make sense.
You're not understanding the issue here. It's not about a hire car. It's about a credit hire car. king arse.Your insurer (who you have hire car included on your policy) - trasferred you through to their partner who I presume managers their hire car facility. Either that or they palmed you off hoping they'd mitigate their own costs/admin by subcontracting it out/getting rid of you.
Ask your insurer for a copy of the call between yourself and them when you were pushed towards AMC.
Tell them you'll raise a complaint to the Insurance Ombudsman. Why were you pushed to an external party? In my view (possibly) they were referring you to their co-supplier.
Why is the third party refusing the hire car costs? They are disputing the cost? Or is your own insurer not doing a proper job representing you- i.e. if its 100% no fault why aren't they handling everything for you?
Ask to be escalated to someone more senior
Ask for a recording
Ask why a hire car is included in your policy yet their own representative 'fobbed you off'. What does that mean- ask for a recording.
Etc. Kick up a fuss and report them if need be.
Mad. You pay for something then you have to pay for it yourself. It doesnt make sense.
Why do you think the OP has a hire car included in his policy? If he does then he's on even shakier ground having gone into a credit hire vehicle.
btcc123 said:
justanother5tar said:
I'm more confused than ever now, having read the last couple of posts.
What exactly is this having to mislead and leave out facts to the court? I don't like the sound of that one bit!
You have said that you received a letter from the AM company saying that the third party are not fully settleng but have so far not told you if you are liable for anything.What exactly is this having to mislead and leave out facts to the court? I don't like the sound of that one bit!
I would ring or E-mail them tomorrow and find out if you are in their view are liable.They may say no but if they say yes ask them how much and why their free insurance policy is not covering the liability and then post the details on here.
btcc123 said:
OP you seam concerned so have you contacted the AM company today to find out what the situation is regarding your possible liability.
I haven't rang the AM, no.I have rang the broker and explained to them what is happening. They requested a copy of the letter, which I have emailed over to them. They have said they will look at it tomorrow and contact me tomorrow about it.
hora said:
LoonR1 said:
Blind alley.
Possibly but youre supposed to be the Insurer's customer.The only part of the blind alley that I agree with is signing a credit agreement..
I am not sure but guess if you have an accident that is your fault the insurance company will handle the repair and hire car themselves as cheap as possible.But if it a non fault claim they will use a Accident Management company that they know will be very expensive and screw the third party insurers.
But ultimately they all screw themselves.
Its interesting that the Association of British Insurers approves car hire on credit to motorists in non fault accidents using Accident Management companies that also owns the hire car companies they use.
Perhaps the ABI should only authorise AM companies to use normal car hire.
They all seam to be in bed together.
Perhaps the ABI should only authorise AM companies to use normal car hire.
They all seam to be in bed together.
Edited by btcc123 on Monday 23 March 20:07
btcc123 said:
Its interesting that the Association of British Insurers approves car hire on credit to motorists in non fault accidents using Accident Management companies that also owns the hire car companies they use.
Perhaps the ABI should only authorise AM companies to use normal car hire.
They all seam to be in bed together.
That shows such a lack of understanding it's scary. Perhaps the ABI should only authorise AM companies to use normal car hire.
They all seam to be in bed together.
Edited by btcc123 on Monday 23 March 20:07
LoonR1 said:
btcc123 said:
Its interesting that the Association of British Insurers approves car hire on credit to motorists in non fault accidents using Accident Management companies that also owns the hire car companies they use.
Perhaps the ABI should only authorise AM companies to use normal car hire.
They all seam to be in bed together.
That shows such a lack of understanding it's scary. Perhaps the ABI should only authorise AM companies to use normal car hire.
They all seam to be in bed together.
Edited by btcc123 on Monday 23 March 20:07
btcc123 said:
...using Accident Management companies that also owns the hire car companies they use.
And thats approved ones. Have a crash in one of the [insert area name]-istan to a car that suddenly braked with passengers named later who may or may not have been in the car. Your insurer will not only end up with a massive claim, but the back street accident management firm will know every rule and loophole to ensure your insurer pays up to the last penny that can be squeezed.
LoonR1 said:
Ok. Here we go with an answer, of sorts.
This has been tested in W vs Veolia where the policy paid out to create a subrogated loss so that they could claim for the hire. The ruling was that as the policy paid out then the hirer did incur the cost and so it is recoverable. There was another load of mumbo jumbo about the enforceability of the credit agreement in that too.
The policy does actually exist as well and the word on the street is that it's underwritten by AIG.
£860 per day / £138k total hire while waiting on repair for a 21 year old bentley worth £16k This has been tested in W vs Veolia where the policy paid out to create a subrogated loss so that they could claim for the hire. The ruling was that as the policy paid out then the hirer did incur the cost and so it is recoverable. There was another load of mumbo jumbo about the enforceability of the credit agreement in that too.
The policy does actually exist as well and the word on the street is that it's underwritten by AIG.
- PH's pro-credit hire lobby can form an orderly queue behind that one!
Anyhow, (on my brief reading) that the (hire) insurance paid the hire seems very unusual and with a deliberate eye on the litigation here, that being so questions of enforceability generally where cut out (i'm not entirely clear why) and it all then really turned on cancellation notices.
I'd be interested to see (but never will) what if anything was pleaded regarding the insurance's effect on the act of contracting - in as much as the claimant enters into that hire with the insurance - its not some add on that is offered afterwards that no representations have been made for beforehand.
To me it's absolutely part of the contract itself, the claimant wouldn't have hired without it and right from the off there is no loss ever possible to the claimant himself - he's contracting to benefit from a hire car which the defendant or the (hire) insurer will pay and no one else. To me it's beyond bogus but that's just me and as I say I don't know how (if at all) such issues were pleaded.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
LoonR1 said:
btcc123 said:
Its interesting that the Association of British Insurers approves car hire on credit to motorists in non fault accidents using Accident Management companies that also owns the hire car companies they use.
Perhaps the ABI should only authorise AM companies to use normal car hire.
They all seam to be in bed together.
That shows such a lack of understanding it's scary. Perhaps the ABI should only authorise AM companies to use normal car hire.
They all seam to be in bed together.
Edited by btcc123 on Monday 23 March 20:07
The first line is correct as it is from the website and when my insurance company wanted me to use the AM company for a no fault claim they told me that they own the hire car company before I turned down their off of help and went with the third party insurer.
The second part,it seams to be the general opinion that signing a credit agreement for a hire car is not a wise thing to do so why not stop it.
If they were not in bed together perhaps they would sort this mess out as I was told by an insurance company this practice cost the industry over £200 million a year.
I am sure people will slag me off again as thats the game you like to play.
btcc123 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
LoonR1 said:
btcc123 said:
Its interesting that the Association of British Insurers approves car hire on credit to motorists in non fault accidents using Accident Management companies that also owns the hire car companies they use.
Perhaps the ABI should only authorise AM companies to use normal car hire.
They all seam to be in bed together.
That shows such a lack of understanding it's scary. Perhaps the ABI should only authorise AM companies to use normal car hire.
They all seam to be in bed together.
Edited by btcc123 on Monday 23 March 20:07
The first line is correct as it is from the website and when my insurance company wanted me to use the AM company for a no fault claim they told me that they own the hire car company before I turned down their off of help and went with the third party insurer.
The second part,it seams to be the general opinion that signing a credit agreement for a hire car is not a wise thing to do so why not stop it.
If they were not in bed together perhaps they would sort this mess out as I was told by an insurance company this practice cost the industry over £200 million a year.
I am sure people will slag me off again as thats the game you like to play.
Not signing a credit agreement is down to the individual. The CHOs are independent companies run separately to the insurers. Their business model is hiring cars an credit and billing to the at fault insurer at a high cost. Insurers can't regualte this.
They are "in bed together" to try to generate some income, as the cost is coming their way no matter what. The "mess" is a legal piece, until courts ban it (never going to happen), or it gets regulated out of existence (again, never going to happen, see the recent CMA cop out for that) then it's here to stay.
The £200m is too low. That's a figure that Swiftcover estimated across the industry in inflated claims form these CHOs. It takes. O account of the practices of other insurers and was widely discredited in 2012 when first published.
LoonR1 said:
Errrrrrr no. The ABI is a trade body for insurance companies. It has agreed a general protocol (aka truce) between the Credit Hire companies and insurers for those who want to sign up to it. There are a few on either side who have chosen not to sign up to it. This piece around insurer owned CHOs is interesting. I can't think of any off the top of my head.
Not signing a credit agreement is down to the individual. The CHOs are independent companies run separately to the insurers. Their business model is hiring cars an credit and billing to the at fault insurer at a high cost. Insurers can't regualte this.
They are "in bed together" to try to generate some income, as the cost is coming their way no matter what. The "mess" is a legal piece, until courts ban it (never going to happen), or it gets regulated out of existence (again, never going to happen, see the recent CMA cop out for that) then it's here to stay.
The £200m is too low. That's a figure that Swiftcover estimated across the industry in inflated claims form these CHOs. It takes. O account of the practices of other insurers and was widely discredited in 2012 when first published.
Thanks for that.I did have a good laugh reading Accident Exchange and Albany Assistance websites.Not signing a credit agreement is down to the individual. The CHOs are independent companies run separately to the insurers. Their business model is hiring cars an credit and billing to the at fault insurer at a high cost. Insurers can't regualte this.
They are "in bed together" to try to generate some income, as the cost is coming their way no matter what. The "mess" is a legal piece, until courts ban it (never going to happen), or it gets regulated out of existence (again, never going to happen, see the recent CMA cop out for that) then it's here to stay.
The £200m is too low. That's a figure that Swiftcover estimated across the industry in inflated claims form these CHOs. It takes. O account of the practices of other insurers and was widely discredited in 2012 when first published.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff