Is this fair - E55 hit by another car, I get a Micra??
Discussion
Sy1441 said:
Been involved in 2 accidents where the 3rd party has accepted all Fault, both times I got like for like.
Audi A5 2.0 TFSI Coupe - Audi A5 3.0 TDI Sportback (which I wrote off after 8 miles!)
Merc SLK 320 - Audi TT 3.2 V6.
Wouldn't have accepted anything that wasn't fit for purpose.
Agree with the above I thought you got like for like...Audi A5 2.0 TFSI Coupe - Audi A5 3.0 TDI Sportback (which I wrote off after 8 miles!)
Merc SLK 320 - Audi TT 3.2 V6.
Wouldn't have accepted anything that wasn't fit for purpose.
2 accidents:
Toyota Corolla 1.4 - Golf 1.4 GT Sport
BMW 530D - Lexus RX300
aka_kerrly said:
Tuvra said:
Triumph Man said:
Out of interest, why? Another Focus is equivalent in size (well it's the same body!) of an ST so you couldn't argue it wasn't fit for purpose. How long did you have the courtesy car for?
3 Weeks.Why should I get given a lesser car through no fault of my own?
In my example, I have also committed Pistonheads blasphemy and bought it on finance.
But it's OK, I can afford it - it's £2000 a month but in Example-world, I'm earning a bucket load.
Now, when Mr Re-Tard rear ends my beloved Fezzer one day I'm obviously annoyed, but it's not my fault so his insurance will cover the damage, which will take weeks to repair.
Should I therefore be grateful, accept the Nissan Micra hire car and continue paying £2000 per month for my Ferrari that I'm not driving?
Or should I demand something equivalent to my beloved Ferrari for the £2k a month I'm paying for it...?
The same principle applies on a smaller scale to any insurance claim.
I.e I've paid out my hard-earned and bought a Mercedes, therefore if it's damaged and it's not my fault I expect the equivalent to trundle around in.
If my Merc was 10 years old, hire companies don't do those so they have to find the new equivalent. And a Nissan Micra ain't the equivalent.
swerni said:
if you pay for and sign a contract which says you won't get an equivalent car( like the OP did) then you can demand what you want, you aren't entitled to and
won't get it.
If you crash your own car and claim on your own insurance, yes.won't get it.
He is claiming on the other party's insurance, his own terms and conditions have nothing to do with it.
otolith said:
He is claiming on the other party's insurance, his own terms and conditions have nothing to do with it.
the other party's insurance is the same as his. they are not expecting a fat cheque from another insurer so he gets the basic of his policy.which he has signed and agreed too.
And accepted that basic car for the last 3 weeks, until he now decides he's not actually happy with it.
tbh, I'm not entirely sure there's that much more room in the 208 he's getting over the Micra?
RyanTank said:
the other party's insurance is the same as his.
That makes no difference. The entitlement not to be disadvantaged is not a matter of contract law.
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/driving-a-hard-bar...
otolith said:
swerni said:
if you pay for and sign a contract which says you won't get an equivalent car( like the OP did) then you can demand what you want, you aren't entitled to and
won't get it.
If you crash your own car and claim on your own insurance, yes.won't get it.
He is claiming on the other party's insurance, his own terms and conditions have nothing to do with it.
And having no contract has nothing to do with it.
Would you accept the at-fault-driver's insurance company having your car mended at Bodgit and Scarper Body Repairs? Or using inferior parts?
Of course not.
In the same vein, you should not be expected to use a car inferior to your own for something that wasn't your fault.
Of course this should be kept in perspective, but they are not doing you a favour by supplying you a car, meaning you should be grateful. They are providing you with a replacement car because someone has damaged yours through no fault of your own.
Had a quick look into this, it seems it's a minefield:
(a) if you can afford it, you should hire using your own money, and claim interest, rather than use credit hire, which is unreasonably expensive
(b) if you can't afford it, you can use credit hire
(c) you can't be unreasonable, e.g., in one case a 911 GT3 was accident damaged, was offered a base 911 while it was repaired. He refused this and hired an SL 55 AMG at £675/day instead. In court he was only awarded the £250/day a base 911 would have cost.
(d) you can't keep the rental car for an unreasonable amount of time, e.g., six months at £2k/month when the car is only worth £5k
But, when Darren Bent hired a DB9 to replace his, that was paid for.
So it looks like (assuming the other party is to blame!):
(a) if you have an S-class coupe you can hire an S-class coupe while it's being repaired
(b) but, if you have a Ford Focus ST and you are offered a Ford Focus 1.6 at £60/day, but you refuse and hire an M3 for £300/day instead, then you are going to be paying for that yourself
(c) it's all a bit of a risk, if you run up bills of thousands on hire, then you might never recover that money, so it might be best just to take the Micra.....
(a) if you can afford it, you should hire using your own money, and claim interest, rather than use credit hire, which is unreasonably expensive
(b) if you can't afford it, you can use credit hire
(c) you can't be unreasonable, e.g., in one case a 911 GT3 was accident damaged, was offered a base 911 while it was repaired. He refused this and hired an SL 55 AMG at £675/day instead. In court he was only awarded the £250/day a base 911 would have cost.
(d) you can't keep the rental car for an unreasonable amount of time, e.g., six months at £2k/month when the car is only worth £5k
But, when Darren Bent hired a DB9 to replace his, that was paid for.
So it looks like (assuming the other party is to blame!):
(a) if you have an S-class coupe you can hire an S-class coupe while it's being repaired
(b) but, if you have a Ford Focus ST and you are offered a Ford Focus 1.6 at £60/day, but you refuse and hire an M3 for £300/day instead, then you are going to be paying for that yourself
(c) it's all a bit of a risk, if you run up bills of thousands on hire, then you might never recover that money, so it might be best just to take the Micra.....
so called said:
Just renewed the insurance on one of my cars.
I was asked if I wanted the normal 'small' courtesy or pay a the add on premium for a like for like.
As said, check your policy.
That should only be applicable if you are at fault.I was asked if I wanted the normal 'small' courtesy or pay a the add on premium for a like for like.
As said, check your policy.
If someone else decides to wreck your car then you claim off their insurance. Which should provide like-for-like.
I like the analogy above about a £2000/month Ferrari. That is also how I think about the situation.
If some careless moron bins it into my car why should I be forced to drive a s
t car for 2 weeks?Muzzer79 said:
Exactly this. His own insurance company that he signed the terms with is not involved.
.
The OP did state that both he and the third party have the same insurer. Why is the insurance company going to bend over backward for one client who didn't specify exactly what he was expecting in the event of a crash before agreeing to the policy, whilst significantly increasing the cost of another clients claim..
if the OP only needs a huge family tank at weekends there is always Enterprise.
aka_kerrly said:
Muzzer79 said:
Exactly this. His own insurance company that he signed the terms with is not involved.
.
The OP did state that both he and the third party have the same insurer. .
Why is the insurance company going to bend over backward for one client who didn't specify exactly what he was expecting in the event of a crash before agreeing to the policy, whilst significantly increasing the cost of another clients claim.
if the OP only needs a huge family tank at weekends there is always Enterprise.
If I drive my car into someone or something, it's my fault.
I'm insured, so my car is repaired and I am provided with a car whilst that is being done.
That car is according to what is stated in my policy in the event of a crash that's MY fault - this will be like for like, 1.0 small car, spaceship, whatever.
If someone drives into ME, it's their fault.
They are insured (hopefully) so their insurance company have an obligation to provide me with an equivalent vehicle to my own, for the reasons previously stated. My own policy conditions are irrelevant - this incident is not my fault so it has nothing to do with my insurance policy.
It has nothing to do with if we are insured with the same company or the insurance company "bending over backwards"
It's about your entitlement when someone damages your car. Why should I hire a tank from Enterprise because someone has crashed into me? It's not my error, why should I pay for that?
To use a slightly more sympathetic example than the Ferrari:
You own a Volvo XC90, to cart your wife and 5 kids around. It's your family's only car; which you bought because it has 7 seats to fit everyone in.
You would not accept a Nissan Micra for 2 months whilst it's being fixed when someone crashes into it, nor should you pay to upgrade for an incident that wasn't your fault.
Muzzer79 said:
If someone drives into ME, it's their fault.
They are insured (hopefully) so their insurance company have an obligation to provide me with an equivalent vehicle to my own, for the reasons previously stated.
Well not until they've accepted liability! And in the meantime, it'd be wise not to run up stupid bills.They are insured (hopefully) so their insurance company have an obligation to provide me with an equivalent vehicle to my own, for the reasons previously stated.
Muzzer79 said:
You own a Volvo XC90, to cart your wife and 5 kids around. It's your family's only car; which you bought because it has 7 seats to fit everyone in.
You would not accept a Nissan Micra for 2 months whilst it's being fixed when someone crashes into it, nor should you pay to upgrade for an incident that wasn't your fault.
No maybe not, but if they have no XC90s, say, but they do offer you a Sorento, then you aren't necessarily going to get away with refusing that and hiring an XC90 through credit hire at excessive cost.You would not accept a Nissan Micra for 2 months whilst it's being fixed when someone crashes into it, nor should you pay to upgrade for an incident that wasn't your fault.
I have had similar issues when having my car serviced. As a freelancer, I use my car for work and that involves carting a lot of stuff around in my boot. It also means I might get called to do a job at the last minute, not easy when BMW wanted 5 weeks notice to have my car in on some occasions. I always asked that I had a 3-series as a minimum (I know they have them as loan cars) and was always a bit narked when they gave me a mini. The Mini is fun for sure, but not very good for loading very large flightcases into...
I would go with the OP, I would ask for something approximately equivalent. I wouldn't expect them to have an RS6 or something on standby just in case, but as others have intimated, something of at least equivalent size wouldn't go amiss!
I would go with the OP, I would ask for something approximately equivalent. I wouldn't expect them to have an RS6 or something on standby just in case, but as others have intimated, something of at least equivalent size wouldn't go amiss!
Well I have now swapped the Micra for the Peugeot - albeit it is an 11 plate slightly dog eared and smelly 207 automatic not the 208 as pomised but much better sized for family transport and at least looks and drives like a normal car!! That's all I was after so I am happy!
Saw my car in the yard minus its rear end looking sorry for itself - can't wait to get it back though...
Saw my car in the yard minus its rear end looking sorry for itself - can't wait to get it back though...
thelawnet said:
Tuvra said:
3 Weeks.
Why should I get given a lesser car through no fault of my own?
Because it fulfils the job you require of it, given that it's the same size car as you had before. Unless you require an ST for rallying or something, there is no loss associated with you driving a base-model car that does 0-60 in about 2 weeks.Why should I get given a lesser car through no fault of my own?
The insurance company's job is to restore you to the position you were in before the accident, i.e. repair your car, plus avoid running up extra losses to you (loss of earnings because you can't get to work, hire car costs if you had a V70 and needed to pick up a fridge, whatever).
That doesn't include kissing your arse while it does so.
There is no loss, and no need for them to compensate you for, the temporary use of a base model car while yours is repaired.
I chose to spend twice as much on the ST, I chose to insure it for twice as much, I chose to spend thousands on options - I don't see why I should be without it or something equal for any period through no fault of my own.
I could of taken the lorry driver to the cleaners, I didn't. I like my cars and I just wanted something equal to an St. I got offered a C220 or a GT86,i said "Toyota please" and they delivered it next day. I wouldn't and didn't accept a lesser car. Haters gonna hate and all that....
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff