£35k Car Stolen, what happened to me thereafter

[divetheworld]

Aeroresh said:

This.

Nothing to do with how the car is financed, insurers should be paying out for cost of replacement not the trade in value. Its just a trying on tactic that a lot seem to employ. Had it with both times Ive had a total loss (both non fault) but they've always crumbled in the end.

With this in mind GAP insurance is usually only beneficial for the first few months of ownership on a regulated agreement unless of course a ridiculously low deposit has put in or if financed with some dodgy low rent lender.

RTI Gap is more beneficial later on. As the car depreciates, you still get the invoice value.

[KTF]

Are there any GAP policies that people here would recommend and do they have to be taken at the time of handover or is there a 30 day grace period (or similar)?

[oobster]

I have a BTI policy through ALA for my Focus St-3, policy premium was £128 when I set it up a couple of years ago

[dacouch]

KTF said:

Are there any GAP policies that people here would recommend and do they have to be taken at the time of handover or is there a 30 day grace period (or similar)?

Don't buy it from a car dealer as you will end up paying upwards of twice the going rate and will often get less cover from the dealer.

http://www.which.co.uk/money/insurance/guides/gap-...

ALA are pretty good

[Condi]

rubystone said:

Interesting to see Admiral up there with Direct Line as one to avoid. You'd expect those high street names to care about their reputation wouldn't you?

Direct Line were fantastic when I claimed. Couldnt have been happier with how quickly it was sorted, and the price paid was fair enough.


High street insurers have so many customers, and its only the ones who are unhappy who get vocal.

[silentbrown]

divetheworld said:

RTI Gap is more beneficial later on. As the car depreciates, you still get the invoice value.

That always strikes me as an invitation to fraud. Insurance is meant to put you 'back where you were' before the claim, not put you back in a brand new car. That's what the lottery is meant for ;-)

[divetheworld]

dacouch said:

KTF said:

Are there any GAP policies that people here would recommend and do they have to be taken at the time of handover or is there a 30 day grace period (or similar)?

Don't buy it from a car dealer as you will end up paying upwards of twice the going rate and will often get less cover from the dealer.

http://www.which.co.uk/money/insurance/guides/gap-...

ALA are pretty good

For £50k+ their partner is "Shortfall", I find them excellent.
Policies must be taken within something like 90days. You must have an invoice for the cars purchase from a VAT registered dealer.

[9mm]

C. Grimsley said:

DJP said:

I had a similar experience a few years back, when my car was written off whilst parked.

The third party fessed up, the third party insurers accepted liability and all seemed straightforward.

Except that the insurance companies insisted that I claim through my own insurers who would then recover costs from the third party insurers. OK, fair enough.

Except that I was insured with Admiral, who proceeded to massively undervalue my car and dick me about generally. The upshot was that the third party insurer wouldn't pay out until I'd agreed a value with my own insurer and Admiral wouldn't budge.

In the end, I took both insurers to the Small Claims Court as co-defendants (car value was under £10k). Although it didn't actually make it to court as the third party insurjer sent me a cheque for the full value on the day the summons landed on their mat.

I never expected to have to take my insurers to court over a non fault claim. It's not like they were even paying for it.

Overall, Admiral spent more time trying to stitch me up than they did trying to recover from the guilty party. They were universally awful to deal with in every way throughout the whole sorry saga.

How do you go about taking an insurance company to court, that's the next process I want to take?

Carl

It rather depends on what you are taking them to court for.

Quite often it's best to exhaust their complaints procedure first, at which point you should be able to use the Ombudsman. If that doesn't find in your favour, legal action is still open to you.

[Swanny87]

mrmr96 said:

Tin Hat said:

In the interim, I gained some trade in quotes from Webuyanycar, these were surprisingly quite 'generous' and actually increased by £400.000 over the next 4 weeks, finally indicating a trade in value of £31,850.00. I found similar cars online, the value of which varied between £35 and £36k and I recorded this info for reference.

So, after 13 weeks, we were offered £32,250.00, less our excess of £500.00. I felt that this was unreasonable, but the insurers backed it up with a Glass' guide , despite me pointing out that this specific sum was a 'trade in value' as opposed to a 'retail price'. The insurer sent me £31,750.00 as an interim payment, possibly hoping that this would be the end of the matter.

I had it explained to me previously that you're supposed to be put back in the position you were before. You had an asset you could sell for £31.8k, and you were offered about the same.

It's supopsed to replace the value of the asset, not let you buy another at retail price. It's a common misconception I think.

The OP had a car that would cost 35k to replace before it was stolen, not 31k in the bank with no car...

[swisstoni]

I had a car nicked and trashed a long time ago. The insurers also tried to knock me down on the trade value of the car and one of the justifications was that the interior was "untidy".

[TwigtheWonderkid]

If insurers paid out on theft claims prior to doing exhaustive and (for the genuine claimant) very annoying checks, then not only would far more fraudulent claims get thru, but word would spread as to how easy it was and more fraudulent claims would be made.

Insurance premiums would rocket and people would be posting on PH saying insurers were complete crap and should not pay out on any theft claims until they'd put the claimant thru hell.

[9mm]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If insurers paid out on theft claims prior to doing exhaustive and (for the genuine claimant) very annoying checks, then not only would far more fraudulent claims get thru, but word would spread as to how easy it was and more fraudulent claims would be made.

Insurance premiums would rocket and people would be posting on PH saying insurers were complete crap and should not pay out on any theft claims until they'd put the claimant thru hell.

I don't think it's a choice between endless checks and no checks that people want, just more balance.

[DJP]

C. Grimsley said:

How do you go about taking an insurance company to court, that's the next process I want to take?

Carl

Pop down to your local county court. They are very helpful and will supply all the paperwork you need and plenty of explanatory leaflets. As mentioned above, it's probably worth exhausting your insurer's own complaints procedure and/or the FSO ombudsman service first (just to show that you've made every effort to deal with the matter before "Going legal".)