Insurance issue? Is this normal?
Discussion
Well to cut a long story short I will give the basics, in September last year I was involved in an accident, a car pulled out of a side road and I hit him and it then it put me in a ditch, I had witnesses etc so got the car recovered and processed a claim.
Up until today and numerous phone calls it seems we are not even any closer to it being settled, the other parties ins accepted liability and the car was valued at an amount I was happy with, I accepted it and still nothing, the hire car charges up to now are three times the original claim. They won't settle the claim but give no reason.
I come home from work today and have been asked to provide a years worth of bank statements, any credit card statements and savings accounts etc and three months worth of wage slips.
Is this normal?
I feel like I am being investigated for something here and as you can imagine I am getting a little upset.
Carl
Up until today and numerous phone calls it seems we are not even any closer to it being settled, the other parties ins accepted liability and the car was valued at an amount I was happy with, I accepted it and still nothing, the hire car charges up to now are three times the original claim. They won't settle the claim but give no reason.
I come home from work today and have been asked to provide a years worth of bank statements, any credit card statements and savings accounts etc and three months worth of wage slips.
Is this normal?
I feel like I am being investigated for something here and as you can imagine I am getting a little upset.
Carl
C. Grimsley said:
Well to cut a long story short I will give the basics, in September last year I was involved in an accident, a car pulled out of a side road and I hit him and it then it put me in a ditch, I had witnesses etc so got the car recovered and processed a claim.
Up until today and numerous phone calls it seems we are not even any closer to it being settled, the other parties ins accepted liability and the car was valued at an amount I was happy with, I accepted it and still nothing, the hire car charges up to now are three times the original claim. They won't settle the claim but give no reason.
I come home from work today and have been asked to provide a years worth of bank statements, any credit card statements and savings accounts etc and three months worth of wage slips.
Is this normal?
I feel like I am being investigated for something here and as you can imagine I am getting a little upset.
Carl
I believe that they are trying to discover whether you could have afforded the hire car without needing to take it on "credit" (which is much more expensive) i.e. did you reasonably act to mitigate your losses.Up until today and numerous phone calls it seems we are not even any closer to it being settled, the other parties ins accepted liability and the car was valued at an amount I was happy with, I accepted it and still nothing, the hire car charges up to now are three times the original claim. They won't settle the claim but give no reason.
I come home from work today and have been asked to provide a years worth of bank statements, any credit card statements and savings accounts etc and three months worth of wage slips.
Is this normal?
I feel like I am being investigated for something here and as you can imagine I am getting a little upset.
Carl
The "credit hire" brigade will hopefully be the next aspect of insurance over-claiming to be clamped down on, now that referral fees have been banned. It just balloons the costs of claims, often for no justifiable reason.
will_ said:
I believe that they are trying to discover whether you could have afforded the hire car without needing to take it on "credit" (which is much more expensive) i.e. did you reasonably act to mitigate your losses.
The "credit hire" brigade will hopefully be the next aspect of insurance over-claiming to be clamped down on, now that referral fees have been banned. It just balloons the costs of claims, often for no justifiable reason.
Thanks for the reply.The "credit hire" brigade will hopefully be the next aspect of insurance over-claiming to be clamped down on, now that referral fees have been banned. It just balloons the costs of claims, often for no justifiable reason.
To start with I never had a courtesy car as I assumed it would be sorted relatively quickly and the weather was nice at the time, once the weather got cold I got in touch with the insurance and then asked for the courtesy car, it's only a corsa but it's warm and wheels to get to work and take my daughter school etc.
How this has been going on for so long I have no idea, seems insurance companies are idiots to themselves?
Carl
I assume you've got legal representation through your own insurance that was in place at the time of the crash? If so, ask them to deal with this. They should still be representing you even though the policy would have been cancelled when the car was presumably written off as the claim is still open.
My initial reaction would be to decline to give them anything and ask your insurer to begin court proceedings.
My initial reaction would be to decline to give them anything and ask your insurer to begin court proceedings.
Assuming your side of the story is accurate, just say no.
Ask the Insurance Ombudsman to step in:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
Ask the Insurance Ombudsman to step in:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
jamieduff1981 said:
I assume you've got legal representation through your own insurance that was in place at the time of the crash? If so, ask them to deal with this. They should still be representing you even though the policy would have been cancelled when the car was presumably written off as the claim is still open.
My initial reaction would be to decline to give them anything and ask your insurer to begin court proceedings.
Yes the claim is being handled by my solicitors now and yes I am taking the other parties insurers to court, (i have been left with no choice)I have been told after 16 days from the court action they will have to pay. I took the other parties telephone number at the time of the accident and he told me they took a long time to sort his car too, he had to go the legal route also.My initial reaction would be to decline to give them anything and ask your insurer to begin court proceedings.
After all I am just a normal guy who pays for insurance and it seems this has just gone and gotten all strange, I assumed after they admit liability the car gets paid for (it was written off) and you just move on?
bencollins4 said:
Have you got an injury claim / loss of earnings claim going through as well? If not and only a claim for vehicle damage then there is no way they need that information.
It certainly sounds like you have mitigated your losses and you can do no more.
I went for an injury claim as I had bruised ribs, a broken toe and a big bruise to the top of my head, basically the family took me to a&e and it kind of went from there, nothing regards that has been mentioned or at least to me, I did it just to cover for any broken bits I may had, which i did.It certainly sounds like you have mitigated your losses and you can do no more.
Carl
Edited by C. Grimsley on Tuesday 8th April 21:49
Edited by C. Grimsley on Tuesday 8th April 21:49
Whos your insurance company and which claims management company are you using?
If you are comprehensive then the third party will say, quite rightly, that you should of used them for the settlement and then you wouldn't be in this position.
I'd like to hazard a guess at your insurers or rather your brokers as I know of one that does this repeatedly as they are dumb mo fos.
If you are comprehensive then the third party will say, quite rightly, that you should of used them for the settlement and then you wouldn't be in this position.
I'd like to hazard a guess at your insurers or rather your brokers as I know of one that does this repeatedly as they are dumb mo fos.
C. Grimsley said:
Has no one else heard of this? Even though I really have nothing to hide, some one going through all my financial side is not a thing I feel I should have to do.
Carl
Then you may find the other side refusing to pay for your credit hire costs. Understanding whether you could have afforded the hire charges without the "credit" element is potentially part of their defence to the costs incurred, in that they are hoping your bank statements will show that you should have mitigated your losses by hiring a car directly rather than through a credit hire company.Carl
I presume you agreed something with the credit hire company - what did that say about charges they are unable to recover? It could be that you might have to suck up these costs yourself if you're not prepared to prove that you needed the credit hire by evidencing your financial position.
You are welcome to decline but it might end up costing you.
As always, it's best to speak with those handling the matter on your behalf rather than seeking advice from strangers off the net!
From an insurer point of view:
If you have signed up to a credit hire deal then you will have entered into an agreement that means that if they cannot recover the costs from the third party insurer then you will be liable for them. You will also have signed an agreement that states that you couldn't afford to hire, replace or fix your car yourself and also needed a car. This would mean if you didn't need the car, i.e. if your wife's is sat there all day then essentially you don't NEED to hire a vehicle on a credit hire basis. The third party insurer is prying because they want you to prove that you couldn't afford to hire a vehicle yourself, or to replace the car. As part of mitigating your losses if you cannot prove this then the third party insurer will not pay your hire car costs leaving you to foot the bill. If you refuse then they CAN and WILL get a court order forcing you to hand over said information.
I know the pro accident management company's will be on ripping this to shreds saying its unfair and you should be allowed to stay in hire for 180 days because you cant find a car exactly the same as yours with pink leather and purple stripes (exaggeration but you know what I mean) because the accident wasn't your fault however it doesn't work like this anymore. Insurers are and will continue to crack down on less than scrupulous credit hire companies who aren't interested in helping the customer out only keeping you in hire as long as possible and to hell with the insurer picking up the bill. You may think its unfair that the insurers can do this but you signed a form stating you couldn't afford to hire the vehicle yourself, or to replace it - therefore they're asking you to prove it. If you couldn't - absolute fair play and hand over the information - the third party insurer will pay up and you'll be happy. If you could then I'd start worrying about an accident management company chasing you for vastly inflated hire costs.
If you have signed up to a credit hire deal then you will have entered into an agreement that means that if they cannot recover the costs from the third party insurer then you will be liable for them. You will also have signed an agreement that states that you couldn't afford to hire, replace or fix your car yourself and also needed a car. This would mean if you didn't need the car, i.e. if your wife's is sat there all day then essentially you don't NEED to hire a vehicle on a credit hire basis. The third party insurer is prying because they want you to prove that you couldn't afford to hire a vehicle yourself, or to replace the car. As part of mitigating your losses if you cannot prove this then the third party insurer will not pay your hire car costs leaving you to foot the bill. If you refuse then they CAN and WILL get a court order forcing you to hand over said information.
I know the pro accident management company's will be on ripping this to shreds saying its unfair and you should be allowed to stay in hire for 180 days because you cant find a car exactly the same as yours with pink leather and purple stripes (exaggeration but you know what I mean) because the accident wasn't your fault however it doesn't work like this anymore. Insurers are and will continue to crack down on less than scrupulous credit hire companies who aren't interested in helping the customer out only keeping you in hire as long as possible and to hell with the insurer picking up the bill. You may think its unfair that the insurers can do this but you signed a form stating you couldn't afford to hire the vehicle yourself, or to replace it - therefore they're asking you to prove it. If you couldn't - absolute fair play and hand over the information - the third party insurer will pay up and you'll be happy. If you could then I'd start worrying about an accident management company chasing you for vastly inflated hire costs.
- awaits flaming and people telling me I'm wrong etc and its so unfair...*
My wife had the same after a non-fault accident, exactly the same request and she was asked to attend a small claims court over the hire car costs. Other than the financial aspect, questions like 'did you really need a hire car' and 'did you try and expedite the repair' popped up.
In the end the other insurer just paid up the full rental bill the day before the court date (She had a Civic for approx 5 months as her folding roof got wrecked and there were no spares in the UK). Agreeing to help in a dispute is one of the terms set by the accident management company I believe.
In the end the other insurer just paid up the full rental bill the day before the court date (She had a Civic for approx 5 months as her folding roof got wrecked and there were no spares in the UK). Agreeing to help in a dispute is one of the terms set by the accident management company I believe.
Thanks for all the replies, I see what you mean now regards the car, well I feel I am fine, I don't have the money in my account to go out and directly replace the car that I had so I am fine there, I also never had a car for the first two months as I felt I could get by without one, it was only after this time and the weather got cold I thought well I had a car, a no fault accident why should I walk my daughter to school in the cold etc.
The cars that are supplied I didn't realise was a credit hire I just assumed it was a normal hire car so to speak, well my other argument is, should they not have faffed around and just paid the claim there would have been no need for any further charges, like a courtesy car at all?
Claim was my car was written off, insurance co admitted liability so I should have been paid out? After two months of lying, and basically just delay tactics I am supplied a car, now they after 5 months feel they are the ones who are hard done by? It beggars belief, I don't take out an insurance policy and not pay for 5 months, same principle??
Carl
The cars that are supplied I didn't realise was a credit hire I just assumed it was a normal hire car so to speak, well my other argument is, should they not have faffed around and just paid the claim there would have been no need for any further charges, like a courtesy car at all?
Claim was my car was written off, insurance co admitted liability so I should have been paid out? After two months of lying, and basically just delay tactics I am supplied a car, now they after 5 months feel they are the ones who are hard done by? It beggars belief, I don't take out an insurance policy and not pay for 5 months, same principle??
Carl
Edited by C. Grimsley on Thursday 10th April 21:21
It's almost always the case that both sides will consider themselves hard-done by.
In this case, the insurer may consider that you have failed to mitigate your losses by using a credit hire agreement rather than a normal hire car (and then claiming back the costs). The argument is that if you didn't need the "credit" you have failed to mitigate your loss. And that is fair enough - you don't have a right to expect the insurer to pay for costs that are unreasonable or could be avoided. This is the basis for asking for your financial statements - it's not just about buying a replacement, it's whether you could have afforded to hire a car other than on credit.
What is important in determining whether you might be on the hook is the following:
(a) Did you agree to a credit hire agreement?;
(b) Did you read it before signing it/understand the terms?;
(c) What did it say with regards to costs that aren't recovered.
You are obviously able to refuse to supply your financial statements. But don't be surprised to find a court order forcing you to do so (the costs of achieving which you may find yourself liable for) or the insurer being allowed to escape from paying the credit hire charges that a judge may consider unreasonable and which you cannot show you required (or that you acted reasonably to mitigate you loss).
In this case, the insurer may consider that you have failed to mitigate your losses by using a credit hire agreement rather than a normal hire car (and then claiming back the costs). The argument is that if you didn't need the "credit" you have failed to mitigate your loss. And that is fair enough - you don't have a right to expect the insurer to pay for costs that are unreasonable or could be avoided. This is the basis for asking for your financial statements - it's not just about buying a replacement, it's whether you could have afforded to hire a car other than on credit.
What is important in determining whether you might be on the hook is the following:
(a) Did you agree to a credit hire agreement?;
(b) Did you read it before signing it/understand the terms?;
(c) What did it say with regards to costs that aren't recovered.
You are obviously able to refuse to supply your financial statements. But don't be surprised to find a court order forcing you to do so (the costs of achieving which you may find yourself liable for) or the insurer being allowed to escape from paying the credit hire charges that a judge may consider unreasonable and which you cannot show you required (or that you acted reasonably to mitigate you loss).
I had this happen in a no fault claim. About two years down the road a Solicitor called me & started asking very similar questions, I told her to jog on, she wasn't getting any bank statements etc from me & no, of course I didn't have the money to replace my car at the time or pay for the hire car.
Happens all the time, just because the third party insurers admit liability doesn't mean they actually pay up. All about hanging onto the interest as long as possible.
Often you have to threaten legal action which is very red tape(y) and has a set process and timescales which is why it seems they haven't done anything.
Just remember your insurers want their money back as well lol.
Often you have to threaten legal action which is very red tape(y) and has a set process and timescales which is why it seems they haven't done anything.
Just remember your insurers want their money back as well lol.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff