Thanks to ph, insurance pitfall avoided

[paul789]

Wife had a small knock last year. 3rd Party ins co are being slow to pay our then insurer and we're in the process of being asked to define losses.

Thanks to this site, I had been made aware of the pitfalls of the credit hire replacement car rabbit hole and the wife knew to knock it back when it was offered.

Thanks guys - ;-)

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Or perhaps not. There's a lot of rubbish talked on PH about credit hire, and how you'll end up footing the bill if the tp insurers don't, which is largely bks.

[paul789]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Or perhaps not. There's a lot of rubbish talked on PH about credit hire, and how you'll end up footing the bill if the tp insurers don't, which is largely bks.

Ok, but I can look at the section of the letter in front of me stating "Please note that failure to notify us [of the details of any replacement vehicle provided by a credit hire company] may result in those charges being sought from you by the credit hire company at a later date.", safe in the knowledge that it will definitely not happen, all thanks to the hours I spend on here. :-)

[KungFuPanda]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Or perhaps not. There's a lot of rubbish talked on PH about credit hire, and how you'll end up footing the bill if the tp insurers don't, which is largely bks.

It is largely bks but most people who avail themselves of credit hire vehicles can't be arsed providing the last six months of bank and financial statements or going to the disposal hearing to give evidence as to why they needed a car on credit. It's an absolute ball ache if the TP insurer refuses to pay at first instance.

[mmm-five]

What happened to me, when my claim finally threatened to go to court, was that the lawyers appointed by the insurer strongly suggested that if I didn't play ball and go along with their version of the statement, they'd hold me liable for the cost of the credit hire. This was despite them assuring me at the outset that there was 100% no way that I could EVER be held liable for the costs.

After 3 months of negotiations, pre-court, they settled on about 50% of the costs.

It was only during this period, and having to correct their factually incorrect statements for them, that I realised the car cost £350/day and did not include all the little extras that had been added on. These extras included like-for-like insurance (2 drivers, European & track day cover - £20/day), delivery/collection (£100 each), sat-nav (£10/day), etc.

I wasn't asked whether I wanted or needed these extras, I was simply asked what optional extras my car had.

Total claim for credit hire, for 2 weeks, was over £7k. The repair was only £2k.

They only 'settled' because my statement clearly said - and is one of the bits they suggested I omit - that I didn't need a like-for-like vehicle and that I'd be happy with a £20/day Enterprise car.

[paul789]

I think the practices around this really stink.