Insurance process ?
Discussion
d8mok said:
Out of interest what bike is it you had written off? And how much have they given in total so far?
Here's what I sent my folks as ammo (also proper links to the adverts). It was an Aprilia Shiver GT, BTW, not the most common bike.me said:
Here's some receipts and photos for you to ask for an increase in valuation with.
Starting with the receipts for accessories, they total £399.40. Most are single items; the shock tube and heated grips are the lower 2 items on the receipt from M&P.
Of the bike adverts, it was hard to grab from Autotrader, so I emailed myself the adverts, but they didn't bring up the mileages. So I went back in to Autotrader and added the mileages as the file names.
"4137miles" is probably the most representative of my bike when I bought it - almost identical mileage, the extra cost compared to mine then would be the ABS on the one in the advert, £4,499
"6200miles" is the nearest I could find in mileage to mine; it's a 2012 so 2 years younger, also £4,499
"9350miles" is the same age as mine, but has done 50% higher miles, £3,994
"12964miles" has done double the miles of mine, a year younger, £4,495
The range is, in round figures, £4000 to £4500.
The clutch springs were changed on mine by the dealer (a known weak point with this bike; the Aprilia replacements are stronger now), I had replaced the air pressure sensors in the air box (another known weak point, this was preventative rather than because of a problem) and also the lambda sensor which failed (the other fairly common problem with this model). Add in 2 nearly new Pilot road 2 tyres, and I feel the case is strong that my bike was as well sorted and maintained as this model of bike could be and should therefore really be worth the higher end of the valuations.
Also attached are the original receipt for £4100 and a photo of my bike before winter and its ACF50 treatment.
I have studied the Insurance Ombudsman's guide to vehicle valuation. I understand that adverts are expected to have some haggle room, that's fair enough, especially as my bike was advertised at £4,300 and I paid £4,100. So it's reasonable to assume that £200 pounds could be taken off the above prices. I also understand that it's unreasonable to receive the full retail price for accessories, so half-pricing mine comes to £200 near enough.
Therefore, I feel that the range of valuation for my bike by itself should be £3800-£4300, and with the accessories £200 higher, so at a minimum of £4000 in total.
First offer was £3500, this has raised by £300 so far, so still £200 short in my book. I really don't think I'm being unfair about it...?Starting with the receipts for accessories, they total £399.40. Most are single items; the shock tube and heated grips are the lower 2 items on the receipt from M&P.
Of the bike adverts, it was hard to grab from Autotrader, so I emailed myself the adverts, but they didn't bring up the mileages. So I went back in to Autotrader and added the mileages as the file names.
"4137miles" is probably the most representative of my bike when I bought it - almost identical mileage, the extra cost compared to mine then would be the ABS on the one in the advert, £4,499
"6200miles" is the nearest I could find in mileage to mine; it's a 2012 so 2 years younger, also £4,499
"9350miles" is the same age as mine, but has done 50% higher miles, £3,994
"12964miles" has done double the miles of mine, a year younger, £4,495
The range is, in round figures, £4000 to £4500.
The clutch springs were changed on mine by the dealer (a known weak point with this bike; the Aprilia replacements are stronger now), I had replaced the air pressure sensors in the air box (another known weak point, this was preventative rather than because of a problem) and also the lambda sensor which failed (the other fairly common problem with this model). Add in 2 nearly new Pilot road 2 tyres, and I feel the case is strong that my bike was as well sorted and maintained as this model of bike could be and should therefore really be worth the higher end of the valuations.
Also attached are the original receipt for £4100 and a photo of my bike before winter and its ACF50 treatment.
I have studied the Insurance Ombudsman's guide to vehicle valuation. I understand that adverts are expected to have some haggle room, that's fair enough, especially as my bike was advertised at £4,300 and I paid £4,100. So it's reasonable to assume that £200 pounds could be taken off the above prices. I also understand that it's unreasonable to receive the full retail price for accessories, so half-pricing mine comes to £200 near enough.
Therefore, I feel that the range of valuation for my bike by itself should be £3800-£4300, and with the accessories £200 higher, so at a minimum of £4000 in total.
So you paid £4100 for the bike originally if i read it correctly. How long ago was that , and how many miles did you do on the bike? What does the bike "book" at in glasses guide?
I personally don't think accessories or modifications increase the value of a second hand bike to a insurance company. Neither does having new tyres or correct service history as that's expected on any vehicle to keep it roadworthy.
Im going to lose out on selling my accessories ive removed but thats life. My termi's were £1500 and ive ridden the bike twice with them fitted. At very best ill return £1000. So ive lost £500 on a set of exhausts to put it in perspective. Hopefully the claim i get for my uninsured losses (£500 helmet etc) is sorted and the injury claim softens the blow a bit..
I personally don't think accessories or modifications increase the value of a second hand bike to a insurance company. Neither does having new tyres or correct service history as that's expected on any vehicle to keep it roadworthy.
Im going to lose out on selling my accessories ive removed but thats life. My termi's were £1500 and ive ridden the bike twice with them fitted. At very best ill return £1000. So ive lost £500 on a set of exhausts to put it in perspective. Hopefully the claim i get for my uninsured losses (£500 helmet etc) is sorted and the injury claim softens the blow a bit..
d8mok said:
So you paid £4100 for the bike originally if i read it correctly. How long ago was that , and how many miles did you do on the bike? What does the bike "book" at in glasses guide?
I personally don't think accessories or modifications increase the value of a second hand bike to a insurance company. Neither does having new tyres or correct service history as that's expected on any vehicle to keep it roadworthy.
I bought it 5 or 6 months before the crash; I'd put about 2000 miles on it. I was very happy with it and expecting to keep it for 4 or 5 years, putting approx. 8k a year on it. I'd not expect it to be worth lots by that end of it's life, but the only real depreciation at the point of crash (as shown by the comparable adverts) would have been the extra owner on the logbook. I personally don't think accessories or modifications increase the value of a second hand bike to a insurance company. Neither does having new tyres or correct service history as that's expected on any vehicle to keep it roadworthy.
The accessories were all bought new within that time; I'm accepting half their price as reasonable (so you would have lost £750 on your exhaust by my maths). I'm also aware that tyres, FSH etc don't affect the price per se, but as you see from my bit to the insurers I suggest that they place my bike towards the top end of the range of actual available prices and I'm saying I'm still prepared to accept the lower end in the interests of reasonableness. I'm assuming here that bikes at the £4.5k end are more likely to have perfect SH and very good tyres and be in good all round condition (like mine...); bikes £500 cheaper may well "just need a new set of hoops, mate", "it's due for a service", or "there's a few marks where it's been dropped sometime".
Glasses Guide etc... all I can say is, the prices quoted in them when I've seen them (usually a dealer showing me how little he can give me for my trade-in) have held no relation to the prices that vehicle can actually be bought for back in the real world. For example, I was offered £1900 trade-in for my Vitara recently, backed up by Glasses; Auto-trader suggested I advertise at £1700; I actually sold it for £2,500 and at that point if was by far (like £500 or more) the cheapest vaguely comparable example within at least 100 miles available on Autotrader.
I'd be a lot happier if some communication came with the cheques - at least they could tell me why they haven't reached my suggestion - it may be that they're already being generous for some reason unknown to me.
Obviously the figures are lower than in your case; the percentages are quite large though. My posting in the first place was mainly to give LoonR1 (who is a useful chap to have around
) some of the first-hand evidence of problems that he's always asking for 
Anyway, I'm basically treating the whole thing as a game in which I'm already on the winning side - I walked away (to A&E), I'm fairly well healed up (plenty of physio ongoing for mended broken wrist) and the other driver stopped and was insured, so nothing's as bad as it might have been
(Although I know I'm going to get annoyed by the next bit, where they offer me second-hand prices for the gear I was wearing... gear which almost certainly saved them extra thousands in compo for damage to my foot, ankle, knee, hip, elbow and chin judging by the damaged areas. Again, I will (try to) consider myself on the winning side though - I'd much rather have all that stuff working than a few extra quid...)
Glasses gives two values. one is trade and the other is retail. The retail value is usually loads higher than they can be bought for from the ones ive seen. Private sale would be somewhere around the half way point usually.
The example of my exhausts was me selling them privately after removing them from the bike. If i had left them on the bike i would of got zero back for them from the insurance. The same as the other bits fitted.
Was your modifications declared and agreed as a value? Mine were declared but on the basis they only put standard parts back on . Every policy ive had for the last 7 years has said the same.
If you had them agreed as a certain value i cant see how they can get out of it if im honest. But if your policy states the same as mine then you should of removed (as i did) the parts to either fit to your next bike or sell (assuming they were salvageable). If your claiming from a 3rd party then why dont you claim off yours for your agreed value and then let them fight with the 3rd parties insuere afterwards. I didnt need to do this as i was happy with the offer. (this is only info ive learned recently so dont take it as gospel but its my understanding)
In regards the value of the payout ive no idea of the market on aprilia. I'd call a dealer up and ask for px price to have a idea of a trade value or find a friendly dealer to allow you to look at their guide.
The example of my exhausts was me selling them privately after removing them from the bike. If i had left them on the bike i would of got zero back for them from the insurance. The same as the other bits fitted.
Was your modifications declared and agreed as a value? Mine were declared but on the basis they only put standard parts back on . Every policy ive had for the last 7 years has said the same.
If you had them agreed as a certain value i cant see how they can get out of it if im honest. But if your policy states the same as mine then you should of removed (as i did) the parts to either fit to your next bike or sell (assuming they were salvageable). If your claiming from a 3rd party then why dont you claim off yours for your agreed value and then let them fight with the 3rd parties insuere afterwards. I didnt need to do this as i was happy with the offer. (this is only info ive learned recently so dont take it as gospel but its my understanding)
In regards the value of the payout ive no idea of the market on aprilia. I'd call a dealer up and ask for px price to have a idea of a trade value or find a friendly dealer to allow you to look at their guide.
Edited by d8mok on Sunday 12th July 13:57
defblade said:
I bought it 5 or 6 months before the crash; I'd put about 2000 miles on it. I was very happy with it and expecting to keep it for 4 or 5 years, putting approx. 8k a year on it. I'd not expect it to be worth lots by that end of it's life, but the only real depreciation at the point of crash (as shown by the comparable adverts) would have been the extra owner on the logbook.
The accessories were all bought new within that time; I'm accepting half their price as reasonable (so you would have lost £750 on your exhaust by my maths). I'm also aware that tyres, FSH etc don't affect the price per se, but as you see from my bit to the insurers I suggest that they place my bike towards the top end of the range of actual available prices and I'm saying I'm still prepared to accept the lower end in the interests of reasonableness. I'm assuming here that bikes at the £4.5k end are more likely to have perfect SH and very good tyres and be in good all round condition (like mine...); bikes £500 cheaper may well "just need a new set of hoops, mate", "it's due for a service", or "there's a few marks where it's been dropped sometime".
Glasses Guide etc... all I can say is, the prices quoted in them when I've seen them (usually a dealer showing me how little he can give me for my trade-in) have held no relation to the prices that vehicle can actually be bought for back in the real world. For example, I was offered £1900 trade-in for my Vitara recently, backed up by Glasses; Auto-trader suggested I advertise at £1700; I actually sold it for £2,500 and at that point if was by far (like £500 or more) the cheapest vaguely comparable example within at least 100 miles available on Autotrader.
I'd be a lot happier if some communication came with the cheques - at least they could tell me why they haven't reached my suggestion - it may be that they're already being generous for some reason unknown to me.
Obviously the figures are lower than in your case; the percentages are quite large though. My posting in the first place was mainly to give LoonR1 (who is a useful chap to have around ) some of the first-hand evidence of problems that he's always asking for
Anyway, I'm basically treating the whole thing as a game in which I'm already on the winning side - I walked away (to A&E), I'm fairly well healed up (plenty of physio ongoing for mended broken wrist) and the other driver stopped and was insured, so nothing's as bad as it might have been
(Although I know I'm going to get annoyed by the next bit, where they offer me second-hand prices for the gear I was wearing... gear which almost certainly saved them extra thousands in compo for damage to my foot, ankle, knee, hip, elbow and chin judging by the damaged areas. Again, I will (try to) consider myself on the winning side though - I'd much rather have all that stuff working than a few extra quid...)
You won't like what I'm going to say, but you're being unrealistic. The Ombudsman is clear on how to value, which is the trade guides retail prices and adjust for mileage if needed. Your comment on gear is equally unrealistic it's not the insurer skimping, it's a legal principle and they are applying that as they rightly should do. The accessories were all bought new within that time; I'm accepting half their price as reasonable (so you would have lost £750 on your exhaust by my maths). I'm also aware that tyres, FSH etc don't affect the price per se, but as you see from my bit to the insurers I suggest that they place my bike towards the top end of the range of actual available prices and I'm saying I'm still prepared to accept the lower end in the interests of reasonableness. I'm assuming here that bikes at the £4.5k end are more likely to have perfect SH and very good tyres and be in good all round condition (like mine...); bikes £500 cheaper may well "just need a new set of hoops, mate", "it's due for a service", or "there's a few marks where it's been dropped sometime".
Glasses Guide etc... all I can say is, the prices quoted in them when I've seen them (usually a dealer showing me how little he can give me for my trade-in) have held no relation to the prices that vehicle can actually be bought for back in the real world. For example, I was offered £1900 trade-in for my Vitara recently, backed up by Glasses; Auto-trader suggested I advertise at £1700; I actually sold it for £2,500 and at that point if was by far (like £500 or more) the cheapest vaguely comparable example within at least 100 miles available on Autotrader.
I'd be a lot happier if some communication came with the cheques - at least they could tell me why they haven't reached my suggestion - it may be that they're already being generous for some reason unknown to me.
Obviously the figures are lower than in your case; the percentages are quite large though. My posting in the first place was mainly to give LoonR1 (who is a useful chap to have around
) some of the first-hand evidence of problems that he's always asking for Anyway, I'm basically treating the whole thing as a game in which I'm already on the winning side - I walked away (to A&E), I'm fairly well healed up (plenty of physio ongoing for mended broken wrist) and the other driver stopped and was insured, so nothing's as bad as it might have been
(Although I know I'm going to get annoyed by the next bit, where they offer me second-hand prices for the gear I was wearing... gear which almost certainly saved them extra thousands in compo for damage to my foot, ankle, knee, hip, elbow and chin judging by the damaged areas. Again, I will (try to) consider myself on the winning side though - I'd much rather have all that stuff working than a few extra quid...)
LoonR1 said:
You won't like what I'm going to say, but you're being unrealistic. The Ombudsman is clear on how to value, which is the trade guides retail prices and adjust for mileage if needed.
Not exactly..."2. our general approach
In most cases, we assess the market value as the retail price which the consumer would have had to pay for a comparable vehicle at a reputable dealer, immediately before the date of the damage or theft."
...although they then go on to say that they look at 3 guides (for cars), 2 of which I can't access and Parker's doesn't appear to do bikes. So, as above, I'm left working through the info I do have available (which is adverts) and applying the ombudsman's reasoning to each step, as I did.
LoonR1 said:
Your comment on gear is equally unrealistic it's not the insurer skimping, it's a legal principle and they are applying that as they rightly should do.
I'll have to beg to differ here. My comment was that I was going to be annoyed about it, and I will be, despite my best intentions. This follows my own logic, maths and reasonableness compass and has nothing to do with legal principles Thanks to you though, I'm at least prepared for it and know not to bother arguing or getting worked up about it
defblade said:
LoonR1 said:
You won't like what I'm going to say, but you're being unrealistic. The Ombudsman is clear on how to value, which is the trade guides retail prices and adjust for mileage if needed.
Not exactly..."2. our general approach
In most cases, we assess the market value as the retail price which the consumer would have had to pay for a comparable vehicle at a reputable dealer, immediately before the date of the damage or theft."
...although they then go on to say that they look at 3 guides (for cars), 2 of which I can't access and Parker's doesn't appear to do bikes. So, as above, I'm left working through the info I do have available (which is adverts) and applying the ombudsman's reasoning to each step, as I did.
LoonR1 said:
Your comment on gear is equally unrealistic it's not the insurer skimping, it's a legal principle and they are applying that as they rightly should do.
I'll have to beg to differ here. My comment was that I was going to be annoyed about it, and I will be, despite my best intentions. This follows my own logic, maths and reasonableness compass and has nothing to do with legal principles Thanks to you though, I'm at least prepared for it and know not to bother arguing or getting worked up about it
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
Specifically this about adverts.
We do not usually find advertisements for similar vehicles very persuasive. A vehicle may often be sold for less than the advertised price – and differences in mileage, year of registration, model type etc can significantly affect the value.
LoonR1 said:
If you're going to quote the FOS then at least quote all of it, rather than the snippets that suit you
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
Specifically this about adverts.
We do not usually find advertisements for similar vehicles very persuasive. A vehicle may often be sold for less than the advertised price – and differences in mileage, year of registration, model type etc can significantly affect the value.
Which brings me back to where I was... no access to price guides, trying to find the most relevant adverts, discussing the pros and cons (age, mileage) of each advert and then allowing for haggling.http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
Specifically this about adverts.
We do not usually find advertisements for similar vehicles very persuasive. A vehicle may often be sold for less than the advertised price – and differences in mileage, year of registration, model type etc can significantly affect the value.
If the 3rd party were playing 100% fair with the valuation, I don't think they'd have sent me an extra £300 (best part of 10% more) when challenged.
Solictors have written to me to say they are going to pursue the injury claim but i need to sort my clothing out with the guys insurer. Just called them to ask them if thats normal and they said to send the receipts across and they will look into asap.
On a brighter note.... i pick get my new panigirly tomorrow
On a brighter note.... i pick get my new panigirly tomorrow
Then your solicitors are idiots so sack them. Their job is to recover your insured losses, of which injury is one and the protective clothing is another, alongside potential loss of earnings and the like. If they only want to pursue the injury element then they are not providing a valid service and are simply doing whatever earns them the most with the least effort. That's unacceptable practice IMO.
Find another firm. Tell thei one that whilst they were recommended by your legal expenses cover via your insurer, they are failing to offer a service to you as the client by failing to consider all uninsured losses and offers such as the premed is ridiculous given the nature of your injuries and the fact that they have yet to fully present.
Tell them that you expect to be released from the contract immediately in full and also wish to complain about the lack of service. You wam the release in full in writing and confirmation that they will not try to claim a part of your compensation down the line as some sort of success fee.
Tell them that you expect to be released from the contract immediately in full and also wish to complain about the lack of service. You wam the release in full in writing and confirmation that they will not try to claim a part of your compensation down the line as some sort of success fee.
It appears its the person who is dealing with the claim who is useless rather than the company as such. Asked for someone else to deal with it and got her manager. He's far better and it turns out the previous woman sent the wrong letter and email to me which has casued the confusuon. she then tried to blag her way out of it but it didn't work.
He's said that the £1k is just for my injuries. Its a pre med offer that he cant recommend i accept or decline but his advice is that if im still showing any symptoms i should decline it and have a medical examination.
I can also claim my lost earning via him seperately by sending payslips etc..
My leather/helmet i need to sort myself as the 3rd parties insuacen have requested they deal with it directly. He says if their offer isnt good enough i can refer it back to him to try to get more.
Hope this makes sense
He's said that the £1k is just for my injuries. Its a pre med offer that he cant recommend i accept or decline but his advice is that if im still showing any symptoms i should decline it and have a medical examination.
I can also claim my lost earning via him seperately by sending payslips etc..
My leather/helmet i need to sort myself as the 3rd parties insuacen have requested they deal with it directly. He says if their offer isnt good enough i can refer it back to him to try to get more.
Hope this makes sense
They say they can't advise either way.
No idea how much to expect if I'm honest. I still have neck and headache constantly. My bruising has mostly gone now , just a few purple patches. I walk very slightly with a limp if I'm on my feet for a while and I can't ride push bike yet as can't push down hard.
No idea how much to expect if I'm honest. I still have neck and headache constantly. My bruising has mostly gone now , just a few purple patches. I walk very slightly with a limp if I'm on my feet for a while and I can't ride push bike yet as can't push down hard.
d8mok said:
They say they can't advise either way.
No idea how much to expect if I'm honest. I still have neck and headache constantly. My bruising has mostly gone now , just a few purple patches. I walk very slightly with a limp if I'm on my feet for a while and I can't ride push bike yet as can't push down hard.
Get medically assessed. You won't be getting a life changing amount. Maybe £5000 tops for what you've described. No idea how much to expect if I'm honest. I still have neck and headache constantly. My bruising has mostly gone now , just a few purple patches. I walk very slightly with a limp if I'm on my feet for a while and I can't ride push bike yet as can't push down hard.
His insurance has now paid my clothing claim. Got full value for helmet, but lost 10% per year on other items.
Just trying to renew my insurance and current insurer wants a 50% increase on last year for a cheaper/less powerful bike (1199 vs 899). Couldnt offer any reason why (and had a bit of a take it or leave it attitude)but as none of my other details changed i guess its the claim.
Just trying to renew my insurance and current insurer wants a 50% increase on last year for a cheaper/less powerful bike (1199 vs 899). Couldnt offer any reason why (and had a bit of a take it or leave it attitude)but as none of my other details changed i guess its the claim.
Pretty well like I said for the wear and tear element on the clothing too
Check with your insurer that they have the claim closed and logged as non-fault. Quite often they leave it open either buy mistake, or because they're waiting on their outlay to be recovered. That's not a valid reason for you to suffer though, as it's their slow process that's holding up closure, not you.
Check with your insurer that they have the claim closed and logged as non-fault. Quite often they leave it open either buy mistake, or because they're waiting on their outlay to be recovered. That's not a valid reason for you to suffer though, as it's their slow process that's holding up closure, not you.
The girl wouldn't even discuss it. She kept stating that they are not the insurer just a broker and have no authority over prices. If i find a cheaper quote (which i have) she's happy to look into price match but id have to supply a quote which is loads of hassle so i might as well go with the other company on that basis.
Still ringing around to see what i can find
Still ringing around to see what i can find
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff