None fault crash - Uninsured loss claim

[Calza]

Hi,

Hoping someone can help me with a couple of questions.

I was involved in a hit and run at the end of last year, but found the tosser a few months later. They admitted, car got repaired etc. I'm now claiming for uninsured losses.

Two items they're disputing are time spent dealing with it, and repatriation as I was stranded.

1. Time claimed - I've claimed half a morning to sort out emergency repairs (I came out to find the car with wheels in different direction and suspension components snapped). I've also claimed for some of the time I've spent on the phone to the third party, insurers etc. I've been told I can only claim time back if I can prove loss of earnings and have a letter from HR stating I was off work for this time, along with 3 months pay slips. I've been told this is the law and that's that. Is it?

2. Repatriation - The accident happened at my 'part time' house in London, I had to get back home that week though. So after the garage collected the car, I've claimed the distance from Home to London and back again, then again a few days later when fixed. I've asked for 45p per mile as that seems the standard rate. They're now asking for a fuel receipt from 5 months ago and the make / model of the vehicle that collected me to calculate the average MPG. I don't see how that proves anything, or even makes sense. Again I've bee told this is law.

Any help appreciated?

[Calza]

TooMany2cvs said:

Calza said:

I've been told I can only claim time back if I can prove loss of earnings and have a letter from HR stating I was off work for this time

Yes, it seems entirely fair that you can only claim for earnings you've actually lost.

Calza said:

2. Repatriation - The accident happened at my 'part time' house in London, I had to get back home that week though. So after the garage collected the car, I've claimed the distance from Home to London and back again, then again a few days later when fixed. I've asked for 45p per mile as that seems the standard rate. They're now asking for a fuel receipt from 5 months ago and the make / model of the vehicle that collected me to calculate the average MPG. I don't see how that proves anything, or even makes sense.

So you'd like to claim your "losses" based on an entirely random figure? You made no attempt to mitigate your losses - by, say, using your normal recovery service - and you failed to keep any records of the costs you apparently incurred?

Steady on there, maybe my wording was poor. The 'emergency' repairs were carried out by a local garage in London about 2 miles from the car. I thought this was mitigating losses, cheaper than getting trains / public transport everywhere. I don't know what my normal recovery service is though, I don't have a personal flat bed and The AA wouldn't have any interest in moving it.

The repatriation was for me personally. I can't prove it now, but the alternative was to book same day train tickets the week before Christmas - which was altogether more costly. It was a hit & run, I had no reason to think that several months later I would find the person and be able to submit a claim. I don't see what a random fuel receipt before the crash would really prove anyway? Cars don't just consume fuel when being driven, nor does an official MPG figure accurately reflect real life MPG ?

The figure isn't entirely random, I looked towards the governments suggested mileage allowance payments of 45p per mile: https://www.gov.uk/expenses-and-benefits-business-... .

Edited by Calza on Thursday 16th April 12:32

Edited by Calza on Thursday 16th April 12:32

[Calza]

The car was picked up by a company the local garage arranged, and that was included in the bill. Everyone's 'happy' with that claim.

It's just a small local garage so I don't think they have any courtesy cars, no?

The crash was in London, where I've got a part term room let in a house - but I live in Lincolnshire. So I needed to get back to Lincolnshire that day (and ideally for Christmas), but couldn't because the car was broke. So I had to get collected and brought home. Then a few days later brought back down to collect the car and drive it north.

[Calza]

In all honesty I thought I was entitled to claim back for some of my time wasted too. Several hours arranging collection etc, more hours of phone calls than I can actually recall. If that's not the case fair enough - just seems stty I'm inconvenienced and it's tough luck!

I couldn't have stayed in London, I needed to get back up to Lincs even though it meant repeat journey a few days apart. If the argument is that it would have been conducted once as my normal routine - the extra trip was generated as a result of the crash surely? I wasn't returning to London till the new year and really needed a car for getting around at Christmas / New year.

Appreciate the time taken to reply from every one so far, and apologies if some of my wording has been poorly chosen / unclear.

[Calza]

It's about an extra £300 - and I think we can see exactly why.

My car is my pride and joy, and I absolutely despise leaving it on the streets in London - for this exact reason. So I avoid it most of the time, often if I'm required to be in head office I'll get the train down. I spoke to my insurers about this when taking the policy out and they said it's where the car is registered to and will spend the larger % of it's time, there was no option to sub-declare a secondary parking location.

[Calza]

It never even entered my mind to be honest - I never assumed smaller garages did. It was all very last minute too given the nature, so that would have made the chance of getting said car even slimmer I suppose.