Warning and Elephant.co.uk Insurance Rant
Discussion
Hello Guys,
Sorry for the long post however I feel that anyone who has any kind of performance car should be aware of the service that elephant.co.uk provide even when you have been with them for years and insure 2 fairly high performance vehicles (group 17 and 20) I always heard people say the proof of an insurance company is when you have to claim!
Two months ago my wife unfortunately had an accident which amongst other things destroyed 2 alloys on the one side of my car etc. 2 months later we finally have the car back!
What follows here is a record of correspondence with elephant.co.uk for your perusal, warning and amusement:
The claim started with my estimated being faxed from my approved Honda dealer. I rang them and expressed concern that if only the 2 accident damaged alloys (on one side of the car!) were replaced then due to their age the car would look incorrect as they would be different colours and have different levels of wear:
A very nice lady assured me this would NEVER happen and a very nice man assured me of course they would replace all four. Here starts the fun:
Date of Incident: 08 October 2007
Thank you for your recent correspondence.
Unfortunately, we are only able to authorise the replacement of two alloy wheels as these were damaged in the accident.
As your Insurers, we are obliged to put you in the same financial position before the accident took place, therefore we are only dealing with items, which were damaged.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Elephant.co.uk
After some talk on the phone and getting nowhere I reply:
Thank you for your recent correspondence.
I would appreciate a reply to some questions.
Why was I told on Friday that I could have all four alloy wheels replaced because they were standard to the vehicle?
You state:
“As your Insurers, we are obliged to put you in the same financial position before the accident took place, therefore we are only dealing with items, which were damaged.”
To return me to the same financial state, I require a car that is symmetrical in colour, wear and tear and does not clearly have new alloys on one side of the vehicle only.
In this situation you are de-valuing my vehicle so I again refer you to your own statement that “you are obliged to put me in the same financial position before the accident took place.”
I look forward to your written response, as it seems your oral responses hold no value.
Thank you for your recent correspondence.
As per our telephone conversation on Thursday 26th October 2007, I can confirm we will not be authorising the replacement of four alloy wheels. As discussed, we are only authorising the replacement of two alloy wheels as only two were damaged in the accident. This has also been confirmed with my manager.
In relation to the value of your car, please provide us with independent evidence supporting your claim and we will review accordingly.
I understand you will remain disappointed with our decision, but I hope I explained the reasons for our actions.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me on the above number.
Yours sincerely
Elephant.co.uk
Many thanks for your prompt response. Whilst I am pleased you have raised this matter with your superiors. I am unhappy with the result. You appear to have misunderstood the questions that I raised in my previous e-mail. I would be grateful if you could clarify the following?
I was assured from the outset of this claim that my wheels would be matched and I would not end up with a vehicle with 2 new wheels on one side and two old ones on the other. This is important to me as in retains the value and aesthetic quality of my vehicle; it also prevents my car from looking stupid. Why are you breaking this verbal agreement?
I was also informed on Friday 19th Oct 2007 that all four alloys would be replaced as they are standard to the car. Why?
I have still not had these questions answered.
I understand this maybe company policy however I am sure you can understand my position when I have a £450 excess, and the work is still not being done to a suitable standard.
Having reviewed your claim, I can confirm we did not agree to authorise the replacement of four alloy wheels for your vehicle. On the 18th October 2007, my colleague has spoken to you in relation to this and it was advised we would only replace two of the alloy wheels.
As previously discussed with yourself on the phone, you noted your concerns with regards to the valuation of your vehicle if we did not replace all four alloy wheels. In order my to review this matter further, we would require you to send us independent evidence supporting your claim.
Unfortunately, at this point we are only authorising the replacement of two alloy wheels on the vehicle, as we are obliged to put you in the same financial position before the loss took place. This can be found in the terms and conditions of your motor policy. Please see below.
Indemnity – “ The legal principle, which ensures that, after a loss, you are placed in the same financial position, as far as reasonably possible, as immediately prior to the loss.
Elephant.co.uk
You state:
"Having reviewed your claim, I can confirm we did not agree to authorise the replacement of four alloy wheels for your vehicle. On the 18th October 2007, my colleague has spoken to you in relation to this and it was advised we would only replace two of the alloy wheels."
I know this which is why I phoned you and was told on the 19th October 2007 that all four alloys would be replaced as they were standard to the car. Your statement is correct you did not authorise replacement of all four alloys on the 18th Oct but you did verbally on the 19th Oct (one day later). Why?
I understand the legal principle of indemnity which would be the basis of having all four alloys replaced. A car that shows accident damage through the replacement of only select parts which are clearly visible has its market value reduced significantly, therefore does not put me back in the same financial position.
I am currently taking advice from engineers and will be in touch when the work is completed.
When I went to inspect my vehicle I also discovered they had replaced only 2 tyres on one side of the car making it dangerous as it now had 3 different levels of tyre wear contrary to the vehicle handbook itself.
Oh well I think, I’ll give up on the alloys and make sure I take my business to a proper insurance company but I am sure they wouldn’t put me back on the road in a dangerous car!!!! …………………………..
Please find attached firstly my original e-mail with my original unanswered questions.
Further to our conversation last week I am providing proof from my manual that all four tyres need replacing on my particular vehicle. You keep stating that you will only replace damaged items to return me to the same financial position I was before the accident. I maintain that I now have a vehicle that is unsafe to drive since your authorised repair work. The manual clearly states the dangers of this. Is risking your customers lives something you are willing to accept?
Before the accident my financial position was very stable and I had a roadworthy car. Since your repair work my car is not roadworthy therefore how am I in the same financial position as it will cost me to return it so such a state?
Please inform me of how to begin the complaints procedure with yourselves? I have also contacted the insurance ombudsman. This claim should have taken a couple of weeks to sort out however I have been without a car for over a month.
(Attached scan of manual stating directional tyres cannot be swapped diagonally across the car for safety reasons and RISK OF DEATH)
My response?
A phone call to tell me:
· They didn’t write the manual therefore have no obligation to obey it!
· Its not their problem I now have a car that isn’t roadworthy.
When I told them I would be driving it home from the garage and if I had an accident due to the vehicles irregular handling I will sue them they said “that’s fine we have made a note on your file”
So in summary:
Elephant.co.uk where your life is not worth £250 for a couple of tyres and your car will be left looking stupid. Got a shopping car, your fine – got anything decent? – avoid like the plague.
Yes its just MY opinion but be warned!
Sorry to rant but I would hate anyone else to go through what I have.
Edd
Sorry for the long post however I feel that anyone who has any kind of performance car should be aware of the service that elephant.co.uk provide even when you have been with them for years and insure 2 fairly high performance vehicles (group 17 and 20) I always heard people say the proof of an insurance company is when you have to claim!
Two months ago my wife unfortunately had an accident which amongst other things destroyed 2 alloys on the one side of my car etc. 2 months later we finally have the car back!
What follows here is a record of correspondence with elephant.co.uk for your perusal, warning and amusement:
The claim started with my estimated being faxed from my approved Honda dealer. I rang them and expressed concern that if only the 2 accident damaged alloys (on one side of the car!) were replaced then due to their age the car would look incorrect as they would be different colours and have different levels of wear:
A very nice lady assured me this would NEVER happen and a very nice man assured me of course they would replace all four. Here starts the fun:
Date of Incident: 08 October 2007
Thank you for your recent correspondence.
Unfortunately, we are only able to authorise the replacement of two alloy wheels as these were damaged in the accident.
As your Insurers, we are obliged to put you in the same financial position before the accident took place, therefore we are only dealing with items, which were damaged.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Elephant.co.uk
After some talk on the phone and getting nowhere I reply:
Thank you for your recent correspondence.
I would appreciate a reply to some questions.
Why was I told on Friday that I could have all four alloy wheels replaced because they were standard to the vehicle?
You state:
“As your Insurers, we are obliged to put you in the same financial position before the accident took place, therefore we are only dealing with items, which were damaged.”
To return me to the same financial state, I require a car that is symmetrical in colour, wear and tear and does not clearly have new alloys on one side of the vehicle only.
In this situation you are de-valuing my vehicle so I again refer you to your own statement that “you are obliged to put me in the same financial position before the accident took place.”
I look forward to your written response, as it seems your oral responses hold no value.
Thank you for your recent correspondence.
As per our telephone conversation on Thursday 26th October 2007, I can confirm we will not be authorising the replacement of four alloy wheels. As discussed, we are only authorising the replacement of two alloy wheels as only two were damaged in the accident. This has also been confirmed with my manager.
In relation to the value of your car, please provide us with independent evidence supporting your claim and we will review accordingly.
I understand you will remain disappointed with our decision, but I hope I explained the reasons for our actions.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me on the above number.
Yours sincerely
Elephant.co.uk
Many thanks for your prompt response. Whilst I am pleased you have raised this matter with your superiors. I am unhappy with the result. You appear to have misunderstood the questions that I raised in my previous e-mail. I would be grateful if you could clarify the following?
I was assured from the outset of this claim that my wheels would be matched and I would not end up with a vehicle with 2 new wheels on one side and two old ones on the other. This is important to me as in retains the value and aesthetic quality of my vehicle; it also prevents my car from looking stupid. Why are you breaking this verbal agreement?
I was also informed on Friday 19th Oct 2007 that all four alloys would be replaced as they are standard to the car. Why?
I have still not had these questions answered.
I understand this maybe company policy however I am sure you can understand my position when I have a £450 excess, and the work is still not being done to a suitable standard.
Having reviewed your claim, I can confirm we did not agree to authorise the replacement of four alloy wheels for your vehicle. On the 18th October 2007, my colleague has spoken to you in relation to this and it was advised we would only replace two of the alloy wheels.
As previously discussed with yourself on the phone, you noted your concerns with regards to the valuation of your vehicle if we did not replace all four alloy wheels. In order my to review this matter further, we would require you to send us independent evidence supporting your claim.
Unfortunately, at this point we are only authorising the replacement of two alloy wheels on the vehicle, as we are obliged to put you in the same financial position before the loss took place. This can be found in the terms and conditions of your motor policy. Please see below.
Indemnity – “ The legal principle, which ensures that, after a loss, you are placed in the same financial position, as far as reasonably possible, as immediately prior to the loss.
Elephant.co.uk
You state:
"Having reviewed your claim, I can confirm we did not agree to authorise the replacement of four alloy wheels for your vehicle. On the 18th October 2007, my colleague has spoken to you in relation to this and it was advised we would only replace two of the alloy wheels."
I know this which is why I phoned you and was told on the 19th October 2007 that all four alloys would be replaced as they were standard to the car. Your statement is correct you did not authorise replacement of all four alloys on the 18th Oct but you did verbally on the 19th Oct (one day later). Why?
I understand the legal principle of indemnity which would be the basis of having all four alloys replaced. A car that shows accident damage through the replacement of only select parts which are clearly visible has its market value reduced significantly, therefore does not put me back in the same financial position.
I am currently taking advice from engineers and will be in touch when the work is completed.
When I went to inspect my vehicle I also discovered they had replaced only 2 tyres on one side of the car making it dangerous as it now had 3 different levels of tyre wear contrary to the vehicle handbook itself.
Oh well I think, I’ll give up on the alloys and make sure I take my business to a proper insurance company but I am sure they wouldn’t put me back on the road in a dangerous car!!!! …………………………..
Please find attached firstly my original e-mail with my original unanswered questions.
Further to our conversation last week I am providing proof from my manual that all four tyres need replacing on my particular vehicle. You keep stating that you will only replace damaged items to return me to the same financial position I was before the accident. I maintain that I now have a vehicle that is unsafe to drive since your authorised repair work. The manual clearly states the dangers of this. Is risking your customers lives something you are willing to accept?
Before the accident my financial position was very stable and I had a roadworthy car. Since your repair work my car is not roadworthy therefore how am I in the same financial position as it will cost me to return it so such a state?
Please inform me of how to begin the complaints procedure with yourselves? I have also contacted the insurance ombudsman. This claim should have taken a couple of weeks to sort out however I have been without a car for over a month.
(Attached scan of manual stating directional tyres cannot be swapped diagonally across the car for safety reasons and RISK OF DEATH)
My response?
A phone call to tell me:
· They didn’t write the manual therefore have no obligation to obey it!
· Its not their problem I now have a car that isn’t roadworthy.
When I told them I would be driving it home from the garage and if I had an accident due to the vehicles irregular handling I will sue them they said “that’s fine we have made a note on your file”
So in summary:
Elephant.co.uk where your life is not worth £250 for a couple of tyres and your car will be left looking stupid. Got a shopping car, your fine – got anything decent? – avoid like the plague.
Yes its just MY opinion but be warned!
Sorry to rant but I would hate anyone else to go through what I have.
Edd
I think the term that applies here would be betterment if they were to agree to your claims.
I don't belive they are being entirely unreasonable.
Will you be buying your own new alloys to ensure they match?
Personally I would have agreed to your request and added it to your next premium.
I don't belive they are being entirely unreasonable.
Will you be buying your own new alloys to ensure they match?
Personally I would have agreed to your request and added it to your next premium.
tyre_tread said:
said:
The tyre issue is shocking on a safety level.
If the existing tyres were only marginally worn then there's no safety issue. If they were more than 50% worn then why should the insurance co be expected to pay for a complete new se? Betterment applies here too. Just for the record, I have had some issues recently where I cancelled a policy after 7 months and not only was there no refund but they (Post Office) wanted to charge me a £35.00 admin fee and insisted I would have to pay as I was selling the car.
I know insurance companies are no angels but sometimes some people do try and take advantage.
I know insurance companies are no angels but sometimes some people do try and take advantage.
I can understand where your coming from but TBH in terms of elephant not wanting to replace all four wheels, I agree with them.
The problem stems from them agreeing to replace all four then later in writing refusing to do this. I cant see how you would prove the telephone conversion took place....
As others have said, elephant is cheap...and probably for a reason. My Exige S is insured through them, they were the cheapest and not just by a few quid either. But now that im fitting a sports exhaust they want £150 and wont pay out on the mods either.
The problem stems from them agreeing to replace all four then later in writing refusing to do this. I cant see how you would prove the telephone conversion took place....
As others have said, elephant is cheap...and probably for a reason. My Exige S is insured through them, they were the cheapest and not just by a few quid either. But now that im fitting a sports exhaust they want £150 and wont pay out on the mods either.
I can see where this insurance company is coming from, if your wheels were partly worn, and they replace them ALL with brand new wheels, then the car will be in a better condition than before your accident. A good way for you to look at it is that they will give you 2 brand new wheels, and you can get your wallet out, and buy 2 more yourself, so for the price of 2 wheels you will have a full set - either that or go to a breakers and offer to swap your 2 new wheels for 2 shitty old worn ones.
The tyres on the other hand are a safety issue, if matching them is required for safety, then they should replace the entire set, or perhaps they could hunt around and find a pair which are as worn as your current 2.
Insurance companies in UK are generally reasonable, they are just used to lots of people taking the piss.
I think they are being more than fair regarding the wheels, and I'm sure with a hammer and chisel you can make them look nice and worn.
I think they are being slightly gay regarding the tyres, why not go to your local Honda dealer and ask them for a letter stating it is dangerous to replace only 2 tyres?
The tyres on the other hand are a safety issue, if matching them is required for safety, then they should replace the entire set, or perhaps they could hunt around and find a pair which are as worn as your current 2.
Insurance companies in UK are generally reasonable, they are just used to lots of people taking the piss.
I think they are being more than fair regarding the wheels, and I'm sure with a hammer and chisel you can make them look nice and worn.
I think they are being slightly gay regarding the tyres, why not go to your local Honda dealer and ask them for a letter stating it is dangerous to replace only 2 tyres?
Would an insurance company not base everything on the law though? They would be obliged to make the car 'Roadworthy'. Although the tyre wear isn't matched, and the manual says it should be even, the car is still legal and therefore roadworthy. Personally I wouldn't expect an insurance company to replace anything that wasn't damaged (unless it was something like a respray where they couldn't colour match).
I agree with the issue you have about the alloys. It's not so much that I think they should be replacing them, more the principle that they told you they WOULD replace them. I would have thought the phonecall would be easy to prove. Most big insurers will record all calls, incoming AND outgoing. Pretty sure these are also covered under the Data Protection Act (I could be wrong on this part). Just request them to either listen to the recording, or send you a copy. Might be an idea to confirm that the calls are taped first though.
I agree with the issue you have about the alloys. It's not so much that I think they should be replacing them, more the principle that they told you they WOULD replace them. I would have thought the phonecall would be easy to prove. Most big insurers will record all calls, incoming AND outgoing. Pretty sure these are also covered under the Data Protection Act (I could be wrong on this part). Just request them to either listen to the recording, or send you a copy. Might be an idea to confirm that the calls are taped first though.
"LOOKING FOR CHEAPER CAR INSURANCE....?"
You get what you pay for.
The law says that they will put you back in the position you would have been in, had the accident not occurred. Why should thy buy you four new alloy wheels when only two were damaged? That's betterment, and if you read the terms and conditions of your policy booklet, it will contain a clause which states that anything verbal is not legally effective.
You got your damage repaired. If you're bothered about the tyre issue go and buy a pair, and sell the part worns.
Next time, don't buy shit insurance cover from a company which advertises during the Jeremy Kyle show using some dumb fvcker dressed up in a furry elephant suit and two out of work failed actors dressed up like Windsor Davies.
Edited by Vesuvius 996 on Thursday 3rd January 13:06
purdy84 said:
I can understand where your coming from but TBH in terms of elephant not wanting to replace all four wheels, I agree with them.
The problem stems from them agreeing to replace all four then later in writing refusing to do this. I cant see how you would prove the telephone conversion took place....
As others have said, elephant is cheap...and probably for a reason. My Exige S is insured through them, they were the cheapest and not just by a few quid either. But now that im fitting a sports exhaust they want £150 and wont pay out on the mods either.
I'm with them - £400 excess and they won't pay out on the mods but they charge you extra for them.The problem stems from them agreeing to replace all four then later in writing refusing to do this. I cant see how you would prove the telephone conversion took place....
As others have said, elephant is cheap...and probably for a reason. My Exige S is insured through them, they were the cheapest and not just by a few quid either. But now that im fitting a sports exhaust they want £150 and wont pay out on the mods either.
But you do pay for what you get and to be honest, the time the other insurers were way more expensive.
As I get more modded I'm thinking more and more of swapping insurers, tbh.
With my total loss accident in 2006 Elephant were pretty reasonable throughout the whole process, especially concsidering the injury claim would be swelling the bill to well over £100,000.
After a couple of rounds of negotiation (the trick is to speak to someone over the 'phone who can actually make decisions), they made an offer for the car which was perfectly reasonable and they paid promptly.
In fact, the outstanding premium was deducted from the final settlement, some £179. When I rang them to reinsure with the new car, they voluntarily admitted that they'd reimburse the £179 and deduct it from the cost of the new policy, hence I paid £1 for a year's cover.
If you agree anything over the telephone with insurance companies you MUST get them to confirm anything in writing, or if possible by fax. If you have nothing in writing it's very difficult to go back and claim differences later on if you're unhappy.
After a couple of rounds of negotiation (the trick is to speak to someone over the 'phone who can actually make decisions), they made an offer for the car which was perfectly reasonable and they paid promptly.
In fact, the outstanding premium was deducted from the final settlement, some £179. When I rang them to reinsure with the new car, they voluntarily admitted that they'd reimburse the £179 and deduct it from the cost of the new policy, hence I paid £1 for a year's cover.
If you agree anything over the telephone with insurance companies you MUST get them to confirm anything in writing, or if possible by fax. If you have nothing in writing it's very difficult to go back and claim differences later on if you're unhappy.
havoc said:
Two points:-
1) They're not being especially unreasonable.
2) You get what you pay for (says the man who's with Admiral...)
Elephant is owned by Admiral. As is Diamond, Bell and confused.com.1) They're not being especially unreasonable.
2) You get what you pay for (says the man who's with Admiral...)
Mostly the same staff, operating from mostly the same offices.
Had the dubious pleasure of working for these companies years ago, an eye opener I assure you!
(no idea if any others insurers are any better though!)
Gassing Station | Honda | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff