Insurance paid out but I still have car!!
Discussion
Hi guys
I am posting this on behalf of a friend at work; it is a very strange situation. I will try and keep it as short and to the point as possible.
May 2014: A motorcycle crashes into the front of his TVR whilst on a roundabout. The damage is to the clam/shell at the front. The car is not driveable due to radiator/fan damage. The motorcyclist leaves the scene instantly and no registration plate was recorded by my friend.
The police were not very helpful but were notified.
The insurance company declared total loss without inspecting the car.
He contacted his insurance company who eventually send out an assessor in June who mentioned that the car was repairable. They say that if they were to repair the front clam would take 6 weeks to be delivered. My friend wanted the car to be repaired but the insurance company were not willing to offer a courtesy car/hire car for the 6 week period.
My friend is not happy about this but had no option but to accept the settlement figure of 13k.
July 2014: BACS payment received for full amount whilst my friend still had possession of the car.
This is in itself to me seems strange; would they normally have recovered the vehicle before sending payment?
A few days later a letter arrives stating that the salvage and title would now pass to the insurer. Please can he send them the V5, keys and MOT.
My friend felt that the claim from the start was mishandled for a few reasons but mainly because he was forced to accept the total loss situation. As well as this he was not happy about not being offered a hire car, they did not take positive steps to identify the driver of the motorcycle, they lied a couple of times (originally stated they had viewed cctv from the scene but later denied this).
Over the following weeks via e-mail and telephone my friend continued to dispute the case as he felt he has been treated unfairly and.
The car is still outside my friends house.
Yesterday my friend called the insurance company to investigate whether there is a possibility that he could keep the car and repair it at his cost.
To his and my surprise he was told the following which has been subsequently e-mailed to him:
Following our conversation I am Emailing you as requested to confirm the following:
Your vehicle was deemed a total loss and has received a category D marker against it.
The total loss settlement was sent to you
Should you wish, you can look to use the settlement sent to you to repair the vehicle.
Following the repairs you will need to have a new MOT for the vehicle to ensure its roadworthiness.
The category D marker will remain on the vehicle.
The VIC I mentioned on the call is only applicable to Category C and upwards therefore is not needed for your vehicle.
Kind regards
As you can see this totally conflicts the letter received in July that they sent.
The above makes out that he can keep the car and do what he likes with it?
From what I can see this case is a massive lack of communication between the departments involved at the insurance company?
Even so, what would you advise?
Ok, he keeps the car, spends 3k repairing it and then next month the insurance company want to take it back?
It makes no sense...
Cheers
I am posting this on behalf of a friend at work; it is a very strange situation. I will try and keep it as short and to the point as possible.
May 2014: A motorcycle crashes into the front of his TVR whilst on a roundabout. The damage is to the clam/shell at the front. The car is not driveable due to radiator/fan damage. The motorcyclist leaves the scene instantly and no registration plate was recorded by my friend.
The police were not very helpful but were notified.
The insurance company declared total loss without inspecting the car.
He contacted his insurance company who eventually send out an assessor in June who mentioned that the car was repairable. They say that if they were to repair the front clam would take 6 weeks to be delivered. My friend wanted the car to be repaired but the insurance company were not willing to offer a courtesy car/hire car for the 6 week period.
My friend is not happy about this but had no option but to accept the settlement figure of 13k.
July 2014: BACS payment received for full amount whilst my friend still had possession of the car.
This is in itself to me seems strange; would they normally have recovered the vehicle before sending payment?
A few days later a letter arrives stating that the salvage and title would now pass to the insurer. Please can he send them the V5, keys and MOT.
My friend felt that the claim from the start was mishandled for a few reasons but mainly because he was forced to accept the total loss situation. As well as this he was not happy about not being offered a hire car, they did not take positive steps to identify the driver of the motorcycle, they lied a couple of times (originally stated they had viewed cctv from the scene but later denied this).
Over the following weeks via e-mail and telephone my friend continued to dispute the case as he felt he has been treated unfairly and.
The car is still outside my friends house.
Yesterday my friend called the insurance company to investigate whether there is a possibility that he could keep the car and repair it at his cost.
To his and my surprise he was told the following which has been subsequently e-mailed to him:
Following our conversation I am Emailing you as requested to confirm the following:
Your vehicle was deemed a total loss and has received a category D marker against it.
The total loss settlement was sent to you
Should you wish, you can look to use the settlement sent to you to repair the vehicle.
Following the repairs you will need to have a new MOT for the vehicle to ensure its roadworthiness.
The category D marker will remain on the vehicle.
The VIC I mentioned on the call is only applicable to Category C and upwards therefore is not needed for your vehicle.
Kind regards
As you can see this totally conflicts the letter received in July that they sent.
The above makes out that he can keep the car and do what he likes with it?
From what I can see this case is a massive lack of communication between the departments involved at the insurance company?
Even so, what would you advise?
Ok, he keeps the car, spends 3k repairing it and then next month the insurance company want to take it back?
It makes no sense...
Cheers
73mark said:
He can offer to buy the car from the insurance company.
At a knocked down price.
At a knocked down price.
If that's what they sent him they're saying he can keep it and repair it, not asking for money. Did you read the same thing as me?
Unusual but that appears to be what they're telling him if the OP is correct in the wording.
Personally I'd ask for complete clarification from the insurance company rather than a load of people on the Internet though
Just because the insurers pay for the car, it doesn't necessarily mean they need to take posession of it.
After my deer collision in 2007, the insurers initially offered a laughable sum of money & assumed they'd keep posession (they'd had it towed to their assessor at their expense). After some negotiation, the final agreement was that they'd pay the equivalent of the repair cost from their assessor & we could have the car back.
Car was returned (from a salvage firm as it turned out!!) at their expense and we did the repair work ourselves. In this case it was a Cat C, thus needing a VIC, but I reckon it should really have been a D. Car is still on the road & has just passed 18 years old, so your mates case seems fine, he can either repair the car himself or get someone else to do it & put it back on the road.
His insurer might insist on seeing a post-repair MoT before re-insuring it, but that's just company policy, there's no legal basis to this AFAIK.
Obviously, when/if he comes to sell it, it's still a Cat D write-off, this will show on HPI etc & should be declared to a prospective buyer.
After my deer collision in 2007, the insurers initially offered a laughable sum of money & assumed they'd keep posession (they'd had it towed to their assessor at their expense). After some negotiation, the final agreement was that they'd pay the equivalent of the repair cost from their assessor & we could have the car back.
Car was returned (from a salvage firm as it turned out!!) at their expense and we did the repair work ourselves. In this case it was a Cat C, thus needing a VIC, but I reckon it should really have been a D. Car is still on the road & has just passed 18 years old, so your mates case seems fine, he can either repair the car himself or get someone else to do it & put it back on the road.
His insurer might insist on seeing a post-repair MoT before re-insuring it, but that's just company policy, there's no legal basis to this AFAIK.
Obviously, when/if he comes to sell it, it's still a Cat D write-off, this will show on HPI etc & should be declared to a prospective buyer.
If it was a cash in lieu settlement there wouldn't have been a CAT marker and if they were letting him keep the car they would have deducted the salvage figures.
My bet is that there has been miscommunication, I doubt they lied there's no benefit to be malice from their end it's probably just a claims handler who didn't read the file correctly.
Re hire car entirely depends on his policy, if it says there is no courtesy until deemed repairable or not then there is no courtesy car simple as that.
I'm not sure what your mate wants the insurer to do to identify the biker, the insurer can only work with the information you provide them and if the police can't find him I've no idea how you think the insurer can do anything.
Ring the insurer and explain the situation as no one here can resolve the issue we'll all just speculate about what may have happened then descend into an arguement about whether Phil303 really did inform the DVLA or not.
My bet is that there has been miscommunication, I doubt they lied there's no benefit to be malice from their end it's probably just a claims handler who didn't read the file correctly.
Re hire car entirely depends on his policy, if it says there is no courtesy until deemed repairable or not then there is no courtesy car simple as that.
I'm not sure what your mate wants the insurer to do to identify the biker, the insurer can only work with the information you provide them and if the police can't find him I've no idea how you think the insurer can do anything.
Ring the insurer and explain the situation as no one here can resolve the issue we'll all just speculate about what may have happened then descend into an arguement about whether Phil303 really did inform the DVLA or not.
They sound like a bunch of disorganised muppets.
Treat the two communications as offers, he never accepted the first since he continued to negotiate. Assuming he would be happy with the payment and keeping the car then send a letter to accept the second offer the which includes the ex-gracia payment aready received and keeping the car. I would lay good money that as soon as they receive that letter they will close the file. They would also be on very sticky ground to try to change that after you accepted of _their_ offer.
I don't see any reason to offer to 'buy it back' since he never agreed to hand it over and it is not uncommon to keep the salvage.
Treat the two communications as offers, he never accepted the first since he continued to negotiate. Assuming he would be happy with the payment and keeping the car then send a letter to accept the second offer the which includes the ex-gracia payment aready received and keeping the car. I would lay good money that as soon as they receive that letter they will close the file. They would also be on very sticky ground to try to change that after you accepted of _their_ offer.
I don't see any reason to offer to 'buy it back' since he never agreed to hand it over and it is not uncommon to keep the salvage.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Saturday 30th August 22:23
Hi Chaps
I know my friend is reading the thread so thank you.
All the facts in my original post are correct.
I see it as a complete lack of communication within the insurance company.
I will advise he writes them a letter to put the case to bed.
He will of course be many thousands to the good as he keeps the car.
Cheers
I know my friend is reading the thread so thank you.
All the facts in my original post are correct.
I see it as a complete lack of communication within the insurance company.
I will advise he writes them a letter to put the case to bed.
He will of course be many thousands to the good as he keeps the car.
Cheers
The j sisters have cocked up and should've taken the car. They didn't and now appear happy to let your friend keep it. Jobs a good in as far as I see it.
The comment about being unhappy around them not paying for a hire car though is a bit poor. His insurance is to repair his car. If he wants to have a hire car then he should buy a policy that provides for it for the whole duration of a repair.
What do you think the insurer could do to trace the biker? The only info you gave them is that it was a biker who rode off. Tracing that is nigh on impossible and extremely expensive.
The comment about being unhappy around them not paying for a hire car though is a bit poor. His insurance is to repair his car. If he wants to have a hire car then he should buy a policy that provides for it for the whole duration of a repair.
What do you think the insurer could do to trace the biker? The only info you gave them is that it was a biker who rode off. Tracing that is nigh on impossible and extremely expensive.
Edited by LoonR1 on Friday 29th August 15:38
supermono said:
Kapenta said:
He should make an offer and pay a consideration for it, even if it is a nominal amount.
Why?There is clearly confusion and both parties need to make their positions clear before any further payments are made or the vehicle moved.
This happened to me.
Car was a total loss and could never be repaired,ie cat b or above.
I got paid out fully and told to scrap the car at my leisure when I questioned the fact it was still outside my house.
Another time we got paid out but it was a reduced payment to keep the car(cat c).
Car was a total loss and could never be repaired,ie cat b or above.
I got paid out fully and told to scrap the car at my leisure when I questioned the fact it was still outside my house.
Another time we got paid out but it was a reduced payment to keep the car(cat c).
My sister in law spent 2 years chasing insurers to pick up her squashed Skoda,after she had been paid out £4600 for it.
In the end she told them 4 times that she would sell it,3 months later when nothing happened she did,to 2 `Irish scrap men` for £1400.
The police knocked on her door and asked about it 2 weeks later,
After telling her story she thought she was in a spot of bother for selling it,they were not even slightly interested.
They had caught someone driving another identical car bearing her cars ID.
They arrested them,went back to their unit or yard and found a third car bearing the same ID next to her old wreck.
She has never heard a thing about it in the 6-7 years since.
In the end she told them 4 times that she would sell it,3 months later when nothing happened she did,to 2 `Irish scrap men` for £1400.
The police knocked on her door and asked about it 2 weeks later,
After telling her story she thought she was in a spot of bother for selling it,they were not even slightly interested.
They had caught someone driving another identical car bearing her cars ID.
They arrested them,went back to their unit or yard and found a third car bearing the same ID next to her old wreck.
She has never heard a thing about it in the 6-7 years since.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff