3rd party refusing hire costs?
Discussion
Have been in contact with the broker. Have been told that, basically, I have to ring the accident management co to find out anything as he doesn't know much about what they do, and they can't see how they are progressing etc.
He mentioned the protection policy though, that would cover me if they couldn't recover costs. Although when I asked what would happen if I didn't go along with everything their solicitor said, or if they were providing incorrect information that I do not agree with, he simply said again to get in touch with the AM co.
Looks like a phone call to them tomorrow, when I get off work a little earlier.
He mentioned the protection policy though, that would cover me if they couldn't recover costs. Although when I asked what would happen if I didn't go along with everything their solicitor said, or if they were providing incorrect information that I do not agree with, he simply said again to get in touch with the AM co.
Looks like a phone call to them tomorrow, when I get off work a little earlier.
vonhosen said:
When my father in law had a non fault collision I made sure that the hire car provided by the AM Co had an indemnity against costs for him.
i.e. If the 3rd party insurers wouldn't cover all of the hire car costs, the AM Co had a separate insurance policy to cover the shortfall, that separate policy was at the AM Co's cost. In other words he was guaranteed to not have to pay a penny.
It was in the AM Co's, the 3rd party insurers & his interests to not drag their feet. It was all settled in a few weeks & everybody kept in communication about what was happening.
I had one of these around 18 months ago. Having already informed the hire company by telephone, I wrote on the forms a stipulation that I would not be liable for any amounts not reimbursed by the third party's insurers. The hire company called when they received my form and said they couldn't accept changes to the conditions, so they would be sending me a new form. I did not sign the new form, but I had the hire car.i.e. If the 3rd party insurers wouldn't cover all of the hire car costs, the AM Co had a separate insurance policy to cover the shortfall, that separate policy was at the AM Co's cost. In other words he was guaranteed to not have to pay a penny.
It was in the AM Co's, the 3rd party insurers & his interests to not drag their feet. It was all settled in a few weeks & everybody kept in communication about what was happening.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 21st March 13:34
Zod said:
I had one of these around 18 months ago. Having already informed the hire company by telephone, I wrote on the forms a stipulation that I would not be liable for any amounts not reimbursed by the third party's insurers.
I did exactly this - I didn't hear anything from them, and my car was repaired, and the bill was paid by the other persons insurance company.However, on reflection, once I realised that the hire charges they billed the other person's insurance company were not fair (i.e. were grossly inflated), I wouldn't use this method again of getting a replacement car, in the event my car was damaged in a non fault accident.
Zod said:
The charges are excessive. This is the insuperable industry's own problem. The insurer brings in the accident management company. The accident management company brings in the credit hire company. Most people won't read the terms. Insurers are fully aware of all of this.
Ermmmm the accident management company is the Credit Hire company. The AMC / CHO have their own referral networks, such as repairers, manufacturers, recovery firms, taxi companies and so on. The insurer may well bring some pain on the industry, but that pain is in the most part coming anyway. LoonR1 said:
Zod said:
The charges are excessive. This is the insuperable industry's own problem. The insurer brings in the accident management company. The accident management company brings in the credit hire company. Most people won't read the terms. Insurers are fully aware of all of this.
Ermmmm the accident management company is the Credit Hire company. The AMC / CHO have their own referral networks, such as repairers, manufacturers, recovery firms, taxi companies and so on. The insurer may well bring some pain on the industry, but that pain is in the most part coming anyway. .
This is entirely down to the insurance industry. You make a non-fault claim. Your insurer passes it to an accident management company. The AM Co. tells you that, because the third party is at fault, you are entitled to an "equivalent courtesy car" (I made notes of the conversation, so don't try to quibble about the wording) and puts you in touch with a CH Co.
If the industry cared, it could reduce the costs of the AM and CH Cos, speed up claims handling and reduce premiums for all.
The last time I made such a claim, it took the third party insurer ten days to approve the repair work to my car. The credit hire costs incurred during that delay cost more than the repair. This was for a simple case in which their insured had driven into the rear of my car while I waited at a junction. There was no question as to whose fault it was. The repair was simple, but expensive (nature of the car). The third party insurer incurred significant extra costs with no excuse.
Nope. You've missed the point completely. Credit Hite came from a service for TPF&T customers and was then extended at exorbitant rates through the early 90s
Insurers let CHOs litigate credit hire claims like crazy and had some wins and some losses. Once the concept became legally set in stone then these challenges became smaller victories.
As such the option was to accept defeat at the high level and take some income to mitigate around 10% of the cost. That's the bit that's confusing you.
If you think insurers like credit hire, the you're very, very wrong. Google cases like Dimond, Bent, Copley and most recently Stevens and you'll see a significant amount of money being spent on litigation by insurers to try to reduce the influence and cost of CHOs.
Of course these facts are unlikely to change your mind, as you've limited your thinking to your experience. Your logic would have us believe that the car was invented so that Shell and BP had a way to sell their petrol and diesel.
Insurers let CHOs litigate credit hire claims like crazy and had some wins and some losses. Once the concept became legally set in stone then these challenges became smaller victories.
As such the option was to accept defeat at the high level and take some income to mitigate around 10% of the cost. That's the bit that's confusing you.
If you think insurers like credit hire, the you're very, very wrong. Google cases like Dimond, Bent, Copley and most recently Stevens and you'll see a significant amount of money being spent on litigation by insurers to try to reduce the influence and cost of CHOs.
Of course these facts are unlikely to change your mind, as you've limited your thinking to your experience. Your logic would have us believe that the car was invented so that Shell and BP had a way to sell their petrol and diesel.
Zod said:
I will look at the cases, but I struggle to believe that insurers could not shut out the CH cos by changing the terms of their policies. They have the buying power to rent appropriate cars at reasonable cost.
How? How do I shut out a third party? Not my policyholder where I can dictate terms, but a third party that has a valid claim against me and can make that claim however he wantsLoonR1 said:
Zod said:
I will look at the cases, but I struggle to believe that insurers could not shut out the CH cos by changing the terms of their policies. They have the buying power to rent appropriate cars at reasonable cost.
How? How do I shut out a third party? Not my policyholder where I can dictate terms, but a third party that has a valid claim against me and can make that claim however he wantsZod said:
Too cute. There are insurance companies on both sides of most claims. The insurance companies refer their customers to accident management companies so that they do not have to deal with the administration of the claim. The accident management companies refer the claimant to a CH co. Take the process back in house and the problem will go away, other than in a few cases where claimants take matters into their own hands or instruct solicitors.
So what you're suggesting is that I bring all non fault claims back in house and cover the cost of processing these claims and the cost of the hire car too. I can recover the basic cost of hire, but not the processing costs. So I'm going to have to increase premiums to cover the additional cost and loss of income. And I'm doing this for the good of the industry. How long will my business survive? My premiums will be uncompetitive, my market share will disappear and my claims costs will increase on the claims I do get. Share value collapses and subsequent knock on effect on employee headcount reduction.
And I've still done this for the good of the industry?
Or do you think we can all get together and agree to do this as a whole from now on? That's a cartel
And illegal under Competition law the fines for that are astronomical.
We can of course make bilateral agreements by to do train to each other. Guess what. We do. Each side continues to refer claims in but they are dealt with at a fixed basic rate for both sides.
Zod said:
The fact remains that the insurance industry is perpetuating a situation in which AM cos and CH cos vastly increase the cost of settling claims, thus increasing premiums. Do you think that is acceptable?
No they're not as I've explained above. If an insurer doesn't refer it on, then someone else from the CHOs network will. Why are you'd truffling with such a simple concept ? And why are you ignoring the costs saved by not registering and handling your own non fault claims?
Zod said:
Sorry, how will a credit hire company even know about a claim if it is not brought in by an AM co?
The cost of credit hire must dwarf the savings from outsourcing claims management.
Had you bothered to read my replies you'd see that I gave a few examples. Here are some more:The cost of credit hire must dwarf the savings from outsourcing claims management.
Manufacturer Accident management schemes
Repairers that you go into for an estimate
Recovery firms who collect cars after an accident
Naughty police officers passing on details of those involved in a crash
The Internet
SP&L on pistonheads which always recommends one specific CHO
Other forums doing exactly the same
Word of mouth
Advertising campaigns in type and virtual
Enough?
justanother5tar said:
Have been in contact with the broker. Have been told that, basically, I have to ring the accident management co to find out anything as he doesn't know much about what they do, and they can't see how they are progressing etc.
He mentioned the protection policy though, that would cover me if they couldn't recover costs. Although when I asked what would happen if I didn't go along with everything their solicitor said, or if they were providing incorrect information that I do not agree with, he simply said again to get in touch with the AM co.
Looks like a phone call to them tomorrow, when I get off work a little earlier.
Have you spoken the accident company and if so what did they say.They are working for you so they should keep in touch regarding developments about the claim.I dont think you will have to go to court but if you did and I was in your position I would tell the truth whatever the AM company said to me.He mentioned the protection policy though, that would cover me if they couldn't recover costs. Although when I asked what would happen if I didn't go along with everything their solicitor said, or if they were providing incorrect information that I do not agree with, he simply said again to get in touch with the AM co.
Looks like a phone call to them tomorrow, when I get off work a little earlier.
LoonR1 said:
Zod said:
Sorry, how will a credit hire company even know about a claim if it is not brought in by an AM co?
The cost of credit hire must dwarf the savings from outsourcing claims management.
Had you bothered to read my replies you'd see that I gave a few examples. Here are some more:The cost of credit hire must dwarf the savings from outsourcing claims management.
Manufacturer Accident management schemes
Repairers that you go into for an estimate
Recovery firms who collect cars after an accident
Naughty police officers passing on details of those involved in a crash
The Internet
SP&L on pistonheads which always recommends one specific CHO
Other forums doing exactly the same
Word of mouth
Advertising campaigns in type and virtual
Enough?
Zod said:
No, you are avoiding the point: it is the accident management companies that do this at the moment. Saying that there is no point in the insurers trying to do anything about it because the people on your list will do it anyway is a cop-out.
Oh FFS. I didn't say we wouldn't do anything about it. I said we've spent a fortune as an industry individually litigating 100s of cases with some wins amd some losses. However, the one thing thatbwis set 100% in stone is that credit hire is allowed. As such we can chip away at the edges,mas we do with the cases I quoted, but we can not eradicate it. It really is that simple. You trying to twist my words, or force a viewpoint founded in a lack of understanding doesn't make you right.
Burwood said:
Loon, without hijacking the thread may i ask you a question please. If I have a non fault accident, am i not entitled to a hire car on the basis I am suffering loss of use of my car whilst it is repaired? I didn't take out the hire car on my last renewal. thanks
There are four different toes of hire cars1. Courtesy car. Usually a small no frills POS that you get when your car I'd being repaired, irrespective of fault
2. A hire car on a like for like basis that you have paid extra on your policy for and get for a period of time, irrespective of fault
3. the same as above, but you get it for longer
4. A credit hire car. Only available for non fault claims. You are being loaned a car amd the payment for it is being deferred as a loan that you may have to pay later, depending on all sorts of shenanigans. The idea is that the at fault drivers pay for it.
This thread is about option 4. You've not paid for options 1-3.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff