Insurance write off
Discussion
My car was written off recently. The insurance company representing the other driver has admitted liability, no probs. It has made me an offer and an estimate of value but how much wriggle room do I have with the opening gambit, how best can I argue my case to increase the offer and what factors might help me apply pressure?
How long can I reasonably hold onto the hire car for as we negotiate and ultimately, who has the final say? What are my rights to insist it gets fixed?
On another note, my insurance company gave me the offer - I asked why it wasn't the other party approaching me. I was told that in the initial stages, the offer would come from my insurer. Sod that - surely, even if my company gets reimbursed by the other (as was suggested to me) wouldn't there still be a claim, technically at least, registered against me as well as the other halfwit?
Thank you in advance.
How long can I reasonably hold onto the hire car for as we negotiate and ultimately, who has the final say? What are my rights to insist it gets fixed?
On another note, my insurance company gave me the offer - I asked why it wasn't the other party approaching me. I was told that in the initial stages, the offer would come from my insurer. Sod that - surely, even if my company gets reimbursed by the other (as was suggested to me) wouldn't there still be a claim, technically at least, registered against me as well as the other halfwit?
Thank you in advance.
Sarnie said:
Either way, you'll have to disclose the accident for the next five years even though it wasn't your fault....
CheersSarnie. Sure, happy with that. I was wondering if there was a difference between disclosing it though, and making the claim. The customer rep at the insurance company told me that my premiums might go up anyway. What's that all about?! Magic,
Enough other people are hard on me as it is without me chipping in.
On the three occasions where other cars have struck me, in every case the payout was from the other insurer and I did not have to claim on MY insurance. I got the other party's details and lodged the claim with them. Not my insurer.
I don't see why your premium/NCD should suffer as a result of someone else's action.
I don't see why your premium/NCD should suffer as a result of someone else's action.
Simpo Two said:
I don't see why your premium/NCD should suffer as a result of someone else's action.
Supposing your car got hit twice whilst parked outside your house. Both times the guilty party left a note/knocked on your door.Who has the higher chance of being hit again, by an unknown third party, you, or your next door neighbour who has a driveway?
That's why some insurers charge a higher premium for those involved in non fault accidents.
Simpo, agreed. Twig, without volunteering information in case the other driver is a PHer, I was hit at speed from behind - blame was definitely not mine, the other driver simply didn't notice the traffic infront of him had slowed right down. I do agree though, your scenario does indicate some circumstances which give your argument merit.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Supposing your car got hit twice whilst parked outside your house. Both times the guilty party left a note/knocked on your door.
Who has the higher chance of being hit again, by an unknown third party, you, or your next door neighbour who has a driveway?
That's why some insurers charge a higher premium for those involved in non fault accidents.
In that case you'd be right - so it must, or should, depend on the circumstances.Who has the higher chance of being hit again, by an unknown third party, you, or your next door neighbour who has a driveway?
That's why some insurers charge a higher premium for those involved in non fault accidents.
EFA - but if your car is parked legally, it is still the fault of the other driver for driving into you. They caused the accident, not you.
Edited by Simpo Two on Friday 7th November 10:10
Ginge R said:
My car was written off recently. The insurance company representing the other driver has admitted liability, no probs. It has made me an offer and an estimate of value but how much wriggle room do I have with the opening gambit, how best can I argue my case to increase the offer and what factors might help me apply pressure?
Use Autotrader to view prices of similar cars.(If true), argue why your car is worth more than the examples (condition, options, one owner, low mileage, FSH etc etc)
Ginge R said:
How long can I reasonably hold onto the hire car for as we negotiate and ultimately, who has the final say? What are my rights to insist it gets fixed?
I don't think you can insist on a repair, but you may be able to agree a price to buy the car to repair yourself.Simpo Two said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Supposing your car got hit twice whilst parked outside your house. Both times the guilty party left a note/knocked on your door.
Who has the higher chance of being hit again, by an unknown third party, you, or your next door neighbour who has a driveway?
That's why some insurers charge a higher premium for those involved in non fault accidents.
In that case you'd be right - so it must, or should, depend on the circumstances.Who has the higher chance of being hit again, by an unknown third party, you, or your next door neighbour who has a driveway?
That's why some insurers charge a higher premium for those involved in non fault accidents.
EFA - but if your car is parked legally, it is still the fault of the other driver for driving into you. They caused the accident, not you.
Edited by Simpo Two on Friday 7th November 10:10
The write of offer rose by 18% without prompting with some pointed negotiation, and I have an offer to repair my car after all. Moral of story, accept nothing - I had the car recalled to the repair centre whilst it was on the back of a truck taking it to the scrapyard. I don't think it's over just yet..
Sitrep.
We today agreed a complete write off deal which is 96% higher than that which was originally offered.
I get the hire car for another couple of weeks as well. I'm knowledgeable enough to know when the company was straying beyond its bounds of reasonable behaviour and what my rights were, but if I wasn't, I would have been left out of pocket.
The moral of the story is, before you even think of having a car crash make sure you understand the Financial Services Market Act and the ABI Code of Conduct in respect of motor claims inside out. Oh, and get in touch with the Chief Exec on LinkedIn.
We today agreed a complete write off deal which is 96% higher than that which was originally offered.
I get the hire car for another couple of weeks as well. I'm knowledgeable enough to know when the company was straying beyond its bounds of reasonable behaviour and what my rights were, but if I wasn't, I would have been left out of pocket.
The moral of the story is, before you even think of having a car crash make sure you understand the Financial Services Market Act and the ABI Code of Conduct in respect of motor claims inside out. Oh, and get in touch with the Chief Exec on LinkedIn.
In the end, the increase I negotiated wasn't based purely on the book value. I went through all the previous Financial Ombudsman findings and found a couple of precedents which would have helped me.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
The matter of the book value was interesting because I submitted a Subject Access Request and it transpired that the company *was* doing the correct thing (ie; using two out of Glass, CAP, Parkers etc) but I was given an initial value that was noticably beneath what they knew the actual value; simply put, they deceived me about what they were reading on their valuation screens - so you're absolutely right, trust nothing! The issue wasn't so much in arguing the qualitative reasoning behind the value; rather, the insurance company was badly exposed through bad faith alone.
I think if you genuinely believe you are being short changed, argue your case with polite persistence (I mostly managed to achieve at least one out of those two) and take no priesoners, I told them that if they sent me a cheque and carried out their threat to take possession of the car, I'd report them to the police for theft. That leads to the final part of the story - always deal directly with the insurer of the other party and don't use your own carrier to act on your behalf. I had told them at outset that's what I was doing but they failed to act on it.
The final understanding was very cordial and professional though, all's well that ends well.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
The matter of the book value was interesting because I submitted a Subject Access Request and it transpired that the company *was* doing the correct thing (ie; using two out of Glass, CAP, Parkers etc) but I was given an initial value that was noticably beneath what they knew the actual value; simply put, they deceived me about what they were reading on their valuation screens - so you're absolutely right, trust nothing! The issue wasn't so much in arguing the qualitative reasoning behind the value; rather, the insurance company was badly exposed through bad faith alone.
I think if you genuinely believe you are being short changed, argue your case with polite persistence (I mostly managed to achieve at least one out of those two) and take no priesoners, I told them that if they sent me a cheque and carried out their threat to take possession of the car, I'd report them to the police for theft. That leads to the final part of the story - always deal directly with the insurer of the other party and don't use your own carrier to act on your behalf. I had told them at outset that's what I was doing but they failed to act on it.
The final understanding was very cordial and professional though, all's well that ends well.
Ginge R said:
but I was given an initial value that was noticably beneath what they knew the actual value; simply put, they deceived me about what they were reading on their valuation screens - so you're absolutely right, trust nothing! The issue wasn't so much in arguing the qualitative reasoning behind the value; rather, the insurance company was badly exposed through bad faith alone.
Well, dispassionately I see it as a negotiating start point. No-one's going to pay (say) £10K if they can get away with £8K, and some people, perhaps most, will accept the lower value. But you smelled a rat and stuck out for more - and because you dug in, you won 
The irony is, I was arguing the toss on other aspects of the case. It didn't occur to me in the slightest that they would be reading one thing on their screens but telling me something completely different. That came about in the final furlong - I think the company was as badly exposed on that aspect as much as anything, which compelled it to acquiesce. I didn't mind it arguing about the other aspects, maybe I was too naive (at my age?!) but I trusted the company not to actually misrepresent something to me so blatantly. I hear what you're saying and if I were a car dealer, I could understand it. But because I now work in Financial Services but come at it post 2008 banker meltdown, all I have ever known is a compulsion to be as honest and as transparent as possible and that's something that I, and other advisers of my cohort, strive to achieve. It came as a surprise that it still isn't always the case out there.
Edit:I'm referring to what seemed like blatant dishonesty (gotta be careful here) rather than the opaque BS which I *know* many fund managers/investment houses etc rely on to over egg the pudding in order to try and achieve a deception based objective without actually telling a lie.
Edit:I'm referring to what seemed like blatant dishonesty (gotta be careful here) rather than the opaque BS which I *know* many fund managers/investment houses etc rely on to over egg the pudding in order to try and achieve a deception based objective without actually telling a lie.
Edited by Ginge R on Monday 1st December 20:46
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff