Car Accident & Subsequent (Lengthy) Claim
Discussion
desolate said:
Here we have another example of a person simply trying to make a claim on his own policy.
Fundamentally, surely that's a significant point of having fully comp insurance?When someone ran into the back of our car, I rang our insurer and they took care of it, handling the claim in-house. Car was driveable and garage supplied a courtesy car when it went it. My insurer waived our excess.
I can't imagine anything more straightforward and that's what I pay for. But it was a few years ago - perhaps now they'd ship the claim out to an AMC.
desolate said:
The insurance industry is it's own worst enemy when it comes to this s
t.
There must be some reason why it's done, but it seems like madness.t.OP a solicitor will be appointed for you and should owe you duties as their client but sadly the reality is a bit more complex. You need a frank discussion with your claims company and those solicitors.
Ask them- under what circumstances could I find myself billed for any part of the credit hire charges?
(Likely they will say none as long as you co-operate with their efforts with you as the Claimant to recover as much as the Court awards)
And - will my evidence to the Court include full and correct reference to their answer above?
(Likely - absolutely not)
You'll then find out their attitude. Either they will threaten you with the bill (but you are forcing me to lie to the Court etc) or they'll decide not to proceed at all, accept what may have already been offered and write the remainder off).
If it's threats, you'll have to make your own decision. Everyone knows and this is how it is, but I couldn't.
Ask them- under what circumstances could I find myself billed for any part of the credit hire charges?
(Likely they will say none as long as you co-operate with their efforts with you as the Claimant to recover as much as the Court awards)
And - will my evidence to the Court include full and correct reference to their answer above?
(Likely - absolutely not)
You'll then find out their attitude. Either they will threaten you with the bill (but you are forcing me to lie to the Court etc) or they'll decide not to proceed at all, accept what may have already been offered and write the remainder off).
If it's threats, you'll have to make your own decision. Everyone knows and this is how it is, but I couldn't.
Had similar a few years ago. Like for like car supplied through BMW, other driver admitted full liability (recorded by sharp BMW accident management shyster)
Then surprise surpise, takes them 3 months to fix my car. Got all the speil form credit hire divs, basically told them to do one. i didn,t drive into the cause of the accident, they drove into me.
Then surprise surpise, takes them 3 months to fix my car. Got all the speil form credit hire divs, basically told them to do one. i didn,t drive into the cause of the accident, they drove into me.
desolate said:
pork911 said:
Hidden insurance / assurances aside, no one in their right mind would credit hire. Those who can afford the risk don't need to and those that 'need' to can't afford the risk.
I don't agree.Lot's of people need a replacement car and cant afford to fund the hire themselves.
Here we have another example of a person simply trying to make a claim on his own policy. The insurance industry is it's own worst enemy when it comes to this s
t.real and reasonable 'need' is a very wide church, especially against type of car, daily rate, length of hire, alternatives, impecunious it's etc etc. All of which are never of any consideration to a hirer who never believes they will be on the hook for a penny. Yet justifying the credit hire involves pretending they were and knew they were on the hook and so made an entirely reasonable decision, kept it under constant review and were fully engaged with keeping it all to an absolute minimum.
Someone who really needed a replacement car but had no alternative other than credit hire simply wouldn't take on that debt, but since it's a bogus contract they and others do.
Edited by pork911 on Friday 20th January 21:40
pork911 said:
justifying the credit hire involves pretending they were and knew they were on the hook and so made an entirely reasonable decision, kept it under constant review and were fully engaged with keeping it all to an absolute minimum.
There's the issue right there then. I signed away for hire vehicles unknowingly accepting to the terms of hire-credit, not caring the blindest as to keeping it under review and the costs to an absolute minimum.I was inconvenienced from the accident and just took what I thought I was 'entitled' to me at the time.
Not advice that I would listen to but when my car was rear ended the insurer took it away to be repaired but as it was a rather rare Mx5 it took 4.5months. During this time they gave me a "like for like vehicle" which in their eyes was a RCZ - I dread to think of costs p/d. Anyway, my car arrived back looking amazing followed 2months later with numerous letters from an insurance company chasing me for about 70% of the hire charges. I ignored all letters as I was due to go to Australia for a year. Came back a stack of letters which were used in the fire place to heat the house. Havent heard anything since.
desolate said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It's a complete myth that with credit hire, if they can't recover from the tp, the hirer has to pay. All credit hire firms carry insurance to cover them for the bill if the tp insurer won't pay up. It's a legal requirement of credit hire operators. And it hardly ever happens as they don't give you a credit hire car unless they are sure it's 100% non fault and the guilty driver's insurance details are known.
The only time the hirer would have to pay would be if they refused to assist the credit hire firm in recovering their money, ie. refused to attend court or whatever. That's the agreement you sign.
Whilst it's true that it's incredibly rare for a hirer to end up paying the hire charges. It's not true that it is a legal requirement for the Credit Hire firm to be insured for their own bill. Most will just swallow the loss if they don't get paid.The only time the hirer would have to pay would be if they refused to assist the credit hire firm in recovering their money, ie. refused to attend court or whatever. That's the agreement you sign.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
OK, they have to have insurance if they don't intend on sucking it up themselves. They can't come back to the client for the charges. Unless they wish to go after the tp to recover their charges and the client won't cooperate.
They just write it off, unless the client lied or didn't cooperate, in which case they will try to recover.desolate said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
OK, they have to have insurance if they don't intend on sucking it up themselves. They can't come back to the client for the charges. Unless they wish to go after the tp to recover their charges and the client won't cooperate.
They just write it off, unless the client lied or didn't cooperate, in which case they will try to recover.1453 days after the initial accident and just 24 hours before I was due to give evidence in court, the claim settled between the insurers & hire credit provider.
Initial offering was around 50% of total costs. Eventually settled out of court for approx 65% of the total. Somewhat relieved.
Lesson learned; do not enter into hire credit agreement.
Initial offering was around 50% of total costs. Eventually settled out of court for approx 65% of the total. Somewhat relieved.
Lesson learned; do not enter into hire credit agreement.
What are you suggesting instead - hire a replacement car at your own cost for 400 days and then take the other party to court to recoup your costs (and lost opportunity costs)? it looks like the credit her thing went your way, so other than the hassle of receiving a few letters, it wasn't all that bad.
My sis just had her car rear ended. First thing I told her was don't let them use an AMC and if they do you want the sttyest cheap and nasty courtesy car you can get as you can be held liable for the costs :-) They gave her a new Micra. It looks nice but it meets the requirements of cheap and nasty no probs!
Also the post about getting the 3rd party to repair your car. We did this when my missus got rear ended, again to avoid the hire car catch. It didn't end well. The repair looked good but after a few months we started to notice loose interior trim, they'd broke most of the clips ad then other subtle things like a smashed parcel shelf clip etc..
In hindsight, what we should have done is find a good local company who specialises in accident repair and provides a cheap courtesy car as part of the deal.
ttyest cheap and nasty courtesy car you can get as you can be held liable for the costs :-) They gave her a new Micra. It looks nice but it meets the requirements of cheap and nasty no probs! Also the post about getting the 3rd party to repair your car. We did this when my missus got rear ended, again to avoid the hire car catch. It didn't end well. The repair looked good but after a few months we started to notice loose interior trim, they'd broke most of the clips ad then other subtle things like a smashed parcel shelf clip etc..
In hindsight, what we should have done is find a good local company who specialises in accident repair and provides a cheap courtesy car as part of the deal.
syl said:
What are you suggesting instead - hire a replacement car at your own cost for 400 days and then take the other party to court to recoup your costs (and lost opportunity costs)? it looks like the credit her thing went your way, so other than the hassle of receiving a few letters, it wasn't all that bad.
No, you go directly to the third party at fault insurer and avail yourself of their services. They will provide a like for like hire car at no cost to yourself with their own service providers who will not be charging them anywhere near credit hire rates. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff