Insurance issue? Is this normal?
Discussion
Wow, this thread makes for some fascinating, if not scary, reading. I've totalled my car this week by a blind idiot who crossed the road in front of me writing off 4 cars in total in the resulting carnage and have just taken delivery of a 'like-for-like' vehicle from Europcar arranged for my an accident management company (who my insurance company directed my claim to!). I too blindly signed the paperwork, and whatever paperwork I have, specifies 'rental agreement'... Should I be worried?
I think the only time you need to be worried is iif you have signed a credit hire agreement, and you have other means of transport, or could have afforded to hire the car yourself. Credit hire companies are renowned for charging insurers the earth for cars that are exactly the same as what you or I could go and hire for less.
What worries me about these instances is the lack of information around this sort of thing.
Similar to a previous poster I had a non fault accident and my insurance company recommended that I used a claim management company previously referred to in this thread. I was told the alternative was to claim on my own insurance for the repairs temporarily and hope the 3rd party accepted liability.
Reading through this thread would suggest that this wasn't necessarily the case but that really wasn't made clear.
There should be some explanation of the options available and not just an encouragement to use a claims company.
Similar to a previous poster I had a non fault accident and my insurance company recommended that I used a claim management company previously referred to in this thread. I was told the alternative was to claim on my own insurance for the repairs temporarily and hope the 3rd party accepted liability.
Reading through this thread would suggest that this wasn't necessarily the case but that really wasn't made clear.
There should be some explanation of the options available and not just an encouragement to use a claims company.
Mr Scruff said:
What worries me about these instances is the lack of information around this sort of thing.
Similar to a previous poster I had a non fault accident and my insurance company recommended that I used a claim management company previously referred to in this thread. I was told the alternative was to claim on my own insurance for the repairs temporarily and hope the 3rd party accepted liability.
Reading through this thread would suggest that this wasn't necessarily the case but that really wasn't made clear.
There should be some explanation of the options available and not just an encouragement to use a claims company.
In virtually every case, the credit hire company will not provide you with a car until they've contacted the third party to confirm whether they've accepted their customer was at fault in the accident. So your own Insurer telling you "Hope the 3rd party accept liability" is somewhat misleading Similar to a previous poster I had a non fault accident and my insurance company recommended that I used a claim management company previously referred to in this thread. I was told the alternative was to claim on my own insurance for the repairs temporarily and hope the 3rd party accepted liability.
Reading through this thread would suggest that this wasn't necessarily the case but that really wasn't made clear.
There should be some explanation of the options available and not just an encouragement to use a claims company.
Well during the long and drawn out claim they admitted fault straight away but just never paid, it was two months after the accident that I decided enough was enough and asked for a car, the weather changed and it wasn't as pleasant walking in the cold and rain. All along I had no idea that I had to make sure the claim was always made to be as cheap as possible so the car hire in there eyes was an issue as I managed without a car for two months what had changed, in there eyes for me to require a car.
This was the issue I feel but when we got to court there was three aspects that they were using not to pay,
1) They had all my bank details and back history for two years, my business account and also my private account (joint), there argument was I could of just gone out and replaced my car with the money I had in my bank so the hire car costs where not needed.
2) My business account was showing that I was using it when required to top up my private account and when I got straight I paid it back, this made them say I could have borrowed the business account money to replace the damaged car.
3) The biggest issue was I only owned the car for two weeks and as the car wasn't in my name I wasn't entitled to claim for the car as it wasn't mine, I only knew this on the morning of the case, I put the car in my custody with the yellow traders form and believe it or not they didn't know about this, they basically had a copy of the logbook but with the previous owners details on an assumed it was still his car etc.
I beleive that's what won the case for me, madness really.
It's opened my eyes that's for sure, when you take out an insurance policy you have to pay there and then, should you amend the policy you get charged etc even for small admin costs, when you go to claim like I had too I was made to be made a criminal and had to prove every inch of the way that the car was mine, the accident wasn't my fault, the courtesy car was required but yet they took me to court on what I find very silly little things, they even had a receipt I had from the previous owner stating I owned the car and what I paid.
Even now I have to wait a further 30 days to be paid. In my eyes insurance is a legalised scam and the insurance company can basically do what they please. Luckily for me it went my way, I am sure this doesn't always happen.
Carl
This was the issue I feel but when we got to court there was three aspects that they were using not to pay,
1) They had all my bank details and back history for two years, my business account and also my private account (joint), there argument was I could of just gone out and replaced my car with the money I had in my bank so the hire car costs where not needed.
2) My business account was showing that I was using it when required to top up my private account and when I got straight I paid it back, this made them say I could have borrowed the business account money to replace the damaged car.
3) The biggest issue was I only owned the car for two weeks and as the car wasn't in my name I wasn't entitled to claim for the car as it wasn't mine, I only knew this on the morning of the case, I put the car in my custody with the yellow traders form and believe it or not they didn't know about this, they basically had a copy of the logbook but with the previous owners details on an assumed it was still his car etc.
I beleive that's what won the case for me, madness really.
It's opened my eyes that's for sure, when you take out an insurance policy you have to pay there and then, should you amend the policy you get charged etc even for small admin costs, when you go to claim like I had too I was made to be made a criminal and had to prove every inch of the way that the car was mine, the accident wasn't my fault, the courtesy car was required but yet they took me to court on what I find very silly little things, they even had a receipt I had from the previous owner stating I owned the car and what I paid.
Even now I have to wait a further 30 days to be paid. In my eyes insurance is a legalised scam and the insurance company can basically do what they please. Luckily for me it went my way, I am sure this doesn't always happen.
Carl
Ive got to be fairly tactful how I write this (and of course remain professional by not naming and shaming).
I'm not going to go into the ins and outs of the insurance world because frankly it will bore you to tears however all insurers work differently to others. There are several insurers who will use less than *** tactics to get their own way and to pay the minimum possible. These will latch onto something like the owner issue in your case, and will take it all the way to court hoping the other side will back down because of the cost involved of defending it.
The only people who suffer from this sadly is the customer.
I've had claims in the past where its blatantly obviously the other drivers fault, but they refuse to accept it. Similarly I've had issues in the past where our customers refuse to accept it. The difference is that if one of my customers is at fault I will take my time to go into detail with why they would be responsible and make sure they understand this. A lot of insurers dont do this and use their customers excuses as issues.
A classic one I had recently is where a van reversed out from a parking space and hit our customer and the van insurers held our driver at fault because the sun was in his eyes, and he couldn't see properly because it was a van. It was big and white and why did our customer not see it and take avoiding action.
The only advise I can give is instead of using cost as a priority for buying insurance use the comparison sites and go for the best name you can afford. The main insurers are the for most part good. Take a look at this list which will give you a good idea as to how it goes: http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/driver-power...
In your case OP if you had come to me I would have waived your excess and your car would have been repaired by us, then we would claim it back from the other side. Total inconvenience to you = 0.
Remember guys, price isnt everything in the insurance world!
I'm not going to go into the ins and outs of the insurance world because frankly it will bore you to tears however all insurers work differently to others. There are several insurers who will use less than *** tactics to get their own way and to pay the minimum possible. These will latch onto something like the owner issue in your case, and will take it all the way to court hoping the other side will back down because of the cost involved of defending it.
The only people who suffer from this sadly is the customer.
I've had claims in the past where its blatantly obviously the other drivers fault, but they refuse to accept it. Similarly I've had issues in the past where our customers refuse to accept it. The difference is that if one of my customers is at fault I will take my time to go into detail with why they would be responsible and make sure they understand this. A lot of insurers dont do this and use their customers excuses as issues.
A classic one I had recently is where a van reversed out from a parking space and hit our customer and the van insurers held our driver at fault because the sun was in his eyes, and he couldn't see properly because it was a van. It was big and white and why did our customer not see it and take avoiding action.
The only advise I can give is instead of using cost as a priority for buying insurance use the comparison sites and go for the best name you can afford. The main insurers are the for most part good. Take a look at this list which will give you a good idea as to how it goes: http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/driver-power...
In your case OP if you had come to me I would have waived your excess and your car would have been repaired by us, then we would claim it back from the other side. Total inconvenience to you = 0.
Remember guys, price isnt everything in the insurance world!
C. Grimsley said:
Still not been paid, makes you wonder what they are playing at, looks like I may have to instruct the solicitors again.
Carl
Phone them if you can. Since they agreed to pay on the 5th Dec, and we have had Christmas and New Year to delay things, it could be that they have it in the system waiting to pay but going slowly, or even it has been sent out as a cheque. It could be they are being difficult and trying to delay payment again however, and a chase is always worth trying.Carl
SteveSteveson said:
Phone them if you can. Since they agreed to pay on the 5th Dec, and we have had Christmas and New Year to delay things, it could be that they have it in the system waiting to pay but going slowly, or even it has been sent out as a cheque. It could be they are being difficult and trying to delay payment again however, and a chase is always worth trying.
Well I did the chase and it seems my solicitors have been on the case, court proceedings are now being sent out, basically they are using stall tactics so I am told.It's mad that if I was late to pay my vat bill, I get a nice fine and a threatening letter regards bailiffs, are the insurance company's above the law of the land? I am getting annoyed but won't let it drop, then they have basically won and I am well and truly left out of pocket.
Makes me mad to watch the new direct line insurance advert, they try to come across as the the good guys but in reality they are out to take premiums and not honor them there end should you need them!
It's not direct line I am fighting btw
Carl
Edited by C. Grimsley on Wednesday 7th January 21:10
I'm glad the end result was favourable for you 
Motor Insurance .... it's a joke. You pay hundreds of pounds every year, just to be treated like a criminal at every turn, and for the insurance companies to WRIGGLE at every opportunity.
All those adverts with fluffy animals and balding men "twerking" to the Pussycat Dolls are a thin veil ... insurance companies are wolves in sheep's clothing! I have experienced them and I will never trust them.
Whenever I ring a motor insurance company, I hear: "Please note that we are acting in our interests, and not in your interests" ... says everything!
Motor Insurance .... it's a joke. You pay hundreds of pounds every year, just to be treated like a criminal at every turn, and for the insurance companies to WRIGGLE at every opportunity.
All those adverts with fluffy animals and balding men "twerking" to the Pussycat Dolls are a thin veil ... insurance companies are wolves in sheep's clothing! I have experienced them and I will never trust them.
Whenever I ring a motor insurance company, I hear: "Please note that we are acting in our interests, and not in your interests" ... says everything!
Edited by RedAlfa on Wednesday 28th January 19:07
Glad to hear you finally got paid.
Earlier in the thread you were repeatedly told you needed to mitigate your costs, but those same protagonists never seemed to realise that the insurance company could have mitigated their costs by simply paying what they owed you in the six weeks before you requested a car to replace the one you lost use of through the fault of their client.
Earlier in the thread you were repeatedly told you needed to mitigate your costs, but those same protagonists never seemed to realise that the insurance company could have mitigated their costs by simply paying what they owed you in the six weeks before you requested a car to replace the one you lost use of through the fault of their client.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff