Insurance issue? Is this normal?

[C. Grimsley]

will_ said:

No, as I said above they are seeking to understand if you mitigated your loss. If the only way that you could have received a courtesy car was by way of a credit-hire agreement then that is reasonable. If, however, you failed to mitigate your loss and incurred unreasonable costs then why should the other party pay for them?

You do have to prove your claim - that's part of being a claimant.

It shouldn't be particularly stressful to print out some bank statements.

They have had my bank statements for 4 months now a years worth of my personal account, savings accounts, joint account but now they want my business account, I had the accident nearly a year ago, I had a courtesy car for the cold winter months and after that gave it them back. I don't see why I should have to prove my innocence, surely an insurance company shouldn't have the right go go through literally all my financial aspects on a hunch of there's, are we not all innocent till proven otherwise.

Basically when the accident happened I didn't have a car till approx 6 weeks after and then gave it back when the weather improved, at the minute I still don't have a vehicle which has replaced what I lost? So in the whole time claiming I had the car for five months. That's no unreasonable is it, it's frustrating as the people who take the piss get away with it.

Carl

Edited by C. Grimsley on Tuesday 22 July 23:17

[eltax91]

Carl

If I were you I'd be utterly livid. It's simply unacceptable in my opinion for you to be without transport for 7 of the last 12 months. Yes the insurers want to know you mitigated your loss but this sounds like the extreme of that to me.

Good luck sorting it out. I'm Leicester based and have a spare car. If you need it, pm me and we can sort something out in exchange for a few hours free spannering!!

[will_]

C. Grimsley said:

They have had my bank statements for 4 months now a years worth of my personal account, savings accounts, joint account but now they want my business account, I had the accident nearly a year ago, I had a courtesy car for the cold winter months and after that gave it them back. I don't see why I should have to prove my innocence, surely an insurance company shouldn't have the right go go through literally all my financial aspects on a hunch of there's, are we not all innocent till proven otherwise.

Basically when the accident happened I didn't have a car till approx 6 weeks after and then gave it back when the weather improved, at the minute I still don't have a vehicle which has replaced what I lost? So in the whole time claiming I had the car for five months. That's no unreasonable is it, it's frustrating as the people who take the piss get away with it.

Carl

Edited by C. Grimsley on Tuesday 22 July 23:17

You don't appear to understand the concept of mitigation, nor your obligations as a claimant. You are obliged to prove your claim - "innocence" has nothing to do with it so don't get hung up on that. If your claim is reasonable then it should be paid, but you need to show that it is. It cannot be particularly burdensome to print off a years worth of bank statements.

You had a car for five months. That is what you are claiming for. Was that reasonable, and were the costs of doing that reasonable? That is what the defendant is seeking to understand, and they have every right to do so. If you don't like having to prove your claim then withdraw it (or, more likely, ask your insurer to withdraw it).

[C. Grimsley]

Sorry but I think half of the replies on here are unreal, with draw a claim, so I loose £5000 worth of car for no fault of my own, it's great the people who sit behind there computer and write this but if you was in my shoes you would feel the same as me.

When I ring an insurance company and take out a policy I don't delay in paying nor do I ask to see all there bank accounts to make sure they are suitable should an issue arise.

Eltax, many thanks for the offer but as it's sunny I have been walking and using my motor bike as and when I can (my 16 months old son unfortunately doesn't go on the back)

Carl

[will_]

C. Grimsley said:

Sorry but I think half of the replies on here are unreal, with draw a claim, so I loose £5000 worth of car for no fault of my own, it's great the people who sit behind there computer and write this but if you was in my shoes you would feel the same as me.

OK, so you want your £5k and all you need to do is provide some bank statements to show you're entitled to it.

If someone asked you for £5k but refused to prove that they were entitled to it, would you pay up or ask for some evidence?

You have obligations as a claimant. If you don't like those obligations, don't be a claimant.

C. Grimsley said:

When I ring an insurance company and take out a policy I don't delay in paying nor do I ask to see all there bank accounts to make sure they are suitable should an issue arise.

I don't think you need to worry, they're obliged by law to have adequate reserves.

[Speed Badger]

Sorry if I'm being a buffoon, I've read through and kept an eye on this thread and I'm still unsure of some things; What is the reason he is being asked for bank statements and what is it supposed to prove?

I had a car written off many moons ago when it was parked, stationary in a vehicle parking bay and was crashed into. They admitted liability and I had a hire car for as long as was needed until the claim was paid. I was never asked for any bank statements or wage slips or anything. I'm not being argumentative, just don't get it!

[will_]

Speed Badger said:

Sorry if I'm being a buffoon, I've read through and kept an eye on this thread and I'm still unsure of some things; What is the reason he is being asked for bank statements and what is it supposed to prove?

I had a car written off many moons ago when it was parked, stationary in a vehicle parking bay and was crashed into. They admitted liability and I had a hire car for as long as was needed until the claim was paid. I was never asked for any bank statements or wage slips or anything. I'm not being argumentative, just don't get it!

In essence, there is a new breed of cowboys/sharks who run some accident management/claims management companies. They sometimes have suspicious relationships with body-shops. Their main source of income appears to be providing hire cars at inflated rates on credit hire agreements in the hope that insurance companies will just pay up rather than fight. They inflate all of our premiums and are a menance which will hopefully be legislated out of business - even in this example the hire cost was three times more than the value of the original claim. It's no surprise, therefore, that insurers are increasingly fighting such potentially inflated claims.

A claimant has an obligation to ensure that he takes reasonable steps to mitigate (i.e. reduce) his loss and ensure that it is reasonable.

In relation to car accidents, one of the aspects of this is whether the claimant requires a courtesy car. If he does, fair enough - but this needs to be shown to be reasonable.

Another aspect is whether the claimant is able to pay for the courtesy car himself, or whether he requires one by way of a "credit" agreement. A credit hire agreement is more expensive. Therefore the claimant also needs to show that he was not able to fund a courtesy car himself, and therefore it was reasonable for him to be provided with one on credit. If he can do that, then great. One of the ways of proving that you needed a credit-hire courtesy car is to provide bank statements to show that you couldn't fund a courtesy or hire car yourself.

If (a) the claimant did not need a car; or (b) he did not need to take the more expensive credit-hire option, then the defendant will argue that the claimant has failed to mitigate his loss, and that the costs are therefore unreasonable and should not be paid by the defendant. Its perfectly reasonable for a defendant to ask that the costs incurred by a claimant are reasonable and mitigated - it is obvious that asking a defendant to pay unreasonable or inflated costs is not reasonable!

The other point to note with respect to these credit hire agreements is that they often seek to push the liability for any unrecovered costs back to the claimant. So the cowboys get their money either way, but the claimant who has blindly signed a credit hire agreement may be on the hook if the court considers such costs to be unreasonable.

In summary, you may only be able to claim for credit-hire costs if you could not have paid for a cheaper courtesy car yourself. The way to prove that this additional cost was reasonable is by providing bank statements proving that you were unable to fund a courtesy car yourself.

[Speed Badger]

Thanks

[C. Grimsley]

Yes thanks for that explanation, after all this that's the first time I have 100% understand what's what! well it still feel I did my best to minimise the costs.

On the other hand if the claim was paid straight away the costs would never have occurred I never asked for a courtesy car to start with as I thought I wouldn't need one.

Carl

[Dracoro]

will_ said:

A claimant has an obligation to ensure that he takes reasonable steps to mitigate (i.e. reduce) his loss and ensure that it is reasonable.

Does/will this clamp down on those who have a very expensive sports/4x4/performance car hiring an equivalent car rather than "settling" for a 'reasonable' cheap (relatively) exec car? For example, joe bloggs has an Aston Martin and rejects a Merc C class as a hire car insisting on a Porsche/Merc SL/etc. Whilst we understand their predicament, they are hardly mitigating their 'losses'.

[CYMR0]

Dracoro said:

will_ said:

A claimant has an obligation to ensure that he takes reasonable steps to mitigate (i.e. reduce) his loss and ensure that it is reasonable.

Does/will this clamp down on those who have a very expensive sports/4x4/performance car hiring an equivalent car rather than "settling" for a 'reasonable' cheap (relatively) exec car? For example, joe bloggs has an Aston Martin and rejects a Merc C class as a hire car insisting on a Porsche/Merc SL/etc. Whilst we understand their predicament, they are hardly mitigating their 'losses'.

Yes and no.

After all, you've lost the use of an Aston Martin (or in the case of Darren Bent, a Mercedes CLS 63) and it's not reasonable to expect you to chug around in £25k's worth of C-Class - why draw the line there, rather than at a Peugeot 107 (unless you have a bus load of kids anyway?

If you only get the use of a C-Class in return, you've still suffered a loss - not of transportation but of the speed/comfort/prestige of an Aston Martin, and you're entitled to offset that loss as well. However you would still have to show that there was some actual loss suffered but it's not a particularly high bar as a result of case law.

[will_]

C. Grimsley said:

Yes thanks for that explanation, after all this that's the first time I have 100% understand what's what! well it still feel I did my best to minimise the costs.

And I hope you get a full payout on that basis.

C. Grimsley said:

On the other hand if the claim was paid straight away the costs would never have occurred I never asked for a courtesy car to start with as I thought I wouldn't need one.

Carl

That's insurance companies for you.

[will_]

CYMR0 said:

Dracoro said:

will_ said:

A claimant has an obligation to ensure that he takes reasonable steps to mitigate (i.e. reduce) his loss and ensure that it is reasonable.

Does/will this clamp down on those who have a very expensive sports/4x4/performance car hiring an equivalent car rather than "settling" for a 'reasonable' cheap (relatively) exec car? For example, joe bloggs has an Aston Martin and rejects a Merc C class as a hire car insisting on a Porsche/Merc SL/etc. Whilst we understand their predicament, they are hardly mitigating their 'losses'.

Yes and no.

After all, you've lost the use of an Aston Martin (or in the case of Darren Bent, a Mercedes CLS 63) and it's not reasonable to expect you to chug around in £25k's worth of C-Class - why draw the line there, rather than at a Peugeot 107 (unless you have a bus load of kids anyway?

If you only get the use of a C-Class in return, you've still suffered a loss - not of transportation but of the speed/comfort/prestige of an Aston Martin, and you're entitled to offset that loss as well. However you would still have to show that there was some actual loss suffered but it's not a particularly high bar as a result of case law.

Precisely - sometimes it's possible to argue that you need a prestige car for business use/image etc. Also you can pay extra on some policies to ensure that you get a "like for like".

Whilst I entirely see the argument that an innocent claimant should be put in the position that they were in before the accident (i.e. given an Aston courtesy car to replace a damaged Aston) all it does is inflate premiums. If people were prepared to "settle" for something cheaper then that would be better for everyone. Of course everyone knows what they're "entitled" to and won't accept anything less, just as long as they're OK!

[Shurv]

Sue their insurance company for stress and any other losses you can think of.I'd want their arse in a bag for their shoddy behaviour.

[LukeR94]

Shurv said:

Sue their insurance company for stress and any other losses you can think of.I'd want their arse in a bag for their shoddy behaviour.

[C. Grimsley]

Well I went and seen my solicitor yesterday and he feels we have a good case, he has advised me to give them what they ask and go from there, basically my issue with the claims firm is why wasn't this case sorted within the first two months? (This was the time when I wasn't claiming for anything other than the car that got damaged, I had no courtesy car etc)

It seems that it's been dragged on for as long as possible to screw over the other parties insurance, as you can imagine this wasn't my intention, I went with what I thought was a good outfit and seems yes they may sort the claim eventually but at a very high cost.

Time will tell what happens, but an hour with my solicitor has put my mind at ease.

Carl

[Clivey]

I wouldn't be happy with some nosey insurance company employees / solicitors snooping through my bank statements making assumptions about what I could or could not "afford". - If someone has cash sat in savings, it's usually for a reason - not to pay to rent a car after some doughnut bent theirs.

And the insurance co. employees on here wonder why we don't like the companies!

[dxg]

will_ said:

Speed Badger said:

Sorry if I'm being a buffoon, I've read through and kept an eye on this thread and I'm still unsure of some things; What is the reason he is being asked for bank statements and what is it supposed to prove?

I had a car written off many moons ago when it was parked, stationary in a vehicle parking bay and was crashed into. They admitted liability and I had a hire car for as long as was needed until the claim was paid. I was never asked for any bank statements or wage slips or anything. I'm not being argumentative, just don't get it!

In essence, there is a new breed of cowboys/sharks who run some accident management/claims management companies. They sometimes have suspicious relationships with body-shops. Their main source of income appears to be providing hire cars at inflated rates on credit hire agreements in the hope that insurance companies will just pay up rather than fight. They inflate all of our premiums and are a menance which will hopefully be legislated out of business - even in this example the hire cost was three times more than the value of the original claim. It's no surprise, therefore, that insurers are increasingly fighting such potentially inflated claims.

A claimant has an obligation to ensure that he takes reasonable steps to mitigate (i.e. reduce) his loss and ensure that it is reasonable.

In relation to car accidents, one of the aspects of this is whether the claimant requires a courtesy car. If he does, fair enough - but this needs to be shown to be reasonable.

Another aspect is whether the claimant is able to pay for the courtesy car himself, or whether he requires one by way of a "credit" agreement. A credit hire agreement is more expensive. Therefore the claimant also needs to show that he was not able to fund a courtesy car himself, and therefore it was reasonable for him to be provided with one on credit. If he can do that, then great. One of the ways of proving that you needed a credit-hire courtesy car is to provide bank statements to show that you couldn't fund a courtesy or hire car yourself.

If (a) the claimant did not need a car; or (b) he did not need to take the more expensive credit-hire option, then the defendant will argue that the claimant has failed to mitigate his loss, and that the costs are therefore unreasonable and should not be paid by the defendant. Its perfectly reasonable for a defendant to ask that the costs incurred by a claimant are reasonable and mitigated - it is obvious that asking a defendant to pay unreasonable or inflated costs is not reasonable!

The other point to note with respect to these credit hire agreements is that they often seek to push the liability for any unrecovered costs back to the claimant. So the cowboys get their money either way, but the claimant who has blindly signed a credit hire agreement may be on the hook if the court considers such costs to be unreasonable.

In summary, you may only be able to claim for credit-hire costs if you could not have paid for a cheaper courtesy car yourself. The way to prove that this additional cost was reasonable is by providing bank statements proving that you were unable to fund a courtesy car yourself.

Ignoring the whole credit hire car cost to focus on something more fundamental:

By extending the above logic, any claimant who invites a claim management company to process/speed/smooth/whatever their claim could, in principle, be held liable for that company's fees (and all the costs, such as the credit hire car, that arise out of it's actions) as, after all, a claim management company should not be necessary.

Or am I missing something...?

[Clivey]

dxg said:

Ignoring the whole credit hire car cost to focus on something more fundamental:

By extending the above logic, any claimant who invites a claim management company to process/speed/smooth/whatever their claim could, in principle, be held liable for that company's fees (and all the costs, such as the credit hire car, that arise out of it's actions) as, after all, a claim management company should not be necessary.

Or am I missing something...?

A couple of years ago, I had to make a claim after some knob reversed (at speed) into the side of my car in a petrol station. My insurance company at the time, Admiral, just passed me on to Albany Assistance without giving me any other option.

[nipsips]

Clivey said:

I wouldn't be happy with some nosey insurance company employees / solicitors snooping through my bank statements making assumptions about what I could or could not "afford". - If someone has cash sat in savings, it's usually for a reason - not to pay to rent a car after some doughnut bent theirs.

And the insurance co. employees on here wonder why we don't like the companies!

Credit hire is designed for people who cannot afford to hire a replacement vehicle themselves. I used one many moons ago before I was "educated" and the vehicle was dropped off by Avis, paid for by the CHO and then charged to the third party insurer at a vastly higher rate. Let me run you through three scenarios. Say for example you drive a 2005 BMW 320d.

Option 1. Car is repaired by your insurer, and you are given a loan vehicle. This is smaller than yours and if yours is undrivable then there is the option to put you in a larger vehicle (non prestige) if need be for mitigating circumstances. If your vehicle is drivable its only taken off the road whilst repairs are being taken out and then returned. Your insurer then passes its costs onto the other driver insurer and the hire/repair is paid for by them. Nice and simple.

Option 2. Car is repaired by your insurer but as you need a like for like vehicle you hire an equivalent from Enterprise/Avis/Hertz and submit your receipt to the third party insurer to reimburse. If they don't pay this you can then instruct a solicitor because as stated you are entitled to like for like - however as long as costs are reasonable they will pay.

Option 3. You have an accident and a CHO wants to get you into hire as soon as possible. The CHO will put you into an equivalent BMW straight away and will book your car in for an estimate. They will then contact the third party insurer and chase up authorization - or will authorise repairs themselves. Then the parts will be ordered. Then the vehicle will be worked and returned. Meanwhile youve had the use of a BMW for 3 weeks and youre happy as you havent paid a penny.

Until now the third party insurer is rejecting your hire claim and asking you to prove that you couldn't either do option 1 or 2 if you needed a like for like vehicle. They will also ask why you are hiring a prestige vehicle and why you couldnt use a Mondeo while your vehicle was being repaired.

Just as an idea on costs for hire based on a week (not taking into account the inflated times by a CHO):

Enterprise quote for a Ford Mondeo: £149.69
Enterprise quote for a BMW 3 Series: £321.90
Credit Hire ABI max costs for a Ford Mondeo: £321.86
Credit Hire ABI max costs for a BMW 3 Series: £821.38

See how the costs mount up when using a credit hire company? Now wonder why people who work for insurers dislike credit hire companys?