Main dealer has written car off

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Mrr T said:

janesmith1950 said:

Ok, so instead of being condescending, be educational;

1. Assuming the garage is claiming on on business insurance, why would the OP would need to chase the garage instead of the insurer or;

2. Assuming the garage is claiming on their motor insurance, why would the OP need to chase the garage instead of the insurer

3. If the OP was not paid their losses in full and sued the garage, under what cause of action would the garage be sued?

4. Assuming the garage is insured and has made a claim, would the garage or the insurer defend the claim against the garage?

The answers to the above and reasoning behind it will help me and others understand.

Thank you in advance.

Several of these points are not really relevant based on the details set out by the poster.

However, to answer the questions. There is a contact between the garage and the claimaint. The garage is unable to return the car so the claimaint can seek damages for breach of contract. It not the case here but often an insurance company will take over negotiations with the claimaint as agent for the insured. As happened in your negligence claim. However, if the case reached the courts the claim would be against the dealer or in your case the builders.

In Jane's case, at least he was the third party in the claim. The OP's sister isn't even that.

[Mrr T]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

In Jane's case, at least he was the third party in the claim. The OP's sister isn't even that.

The OP's sister claim is against the garage for breach of contract. Jane's was negligence against the builders.

A breach of contract claim is normally much stronger and easier to establish than a negligence claim.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Mrr T said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

In Jane's case, at least he was the third party in the claim. The OP's sister isn't even that.

The OP's sister claim is against the garage for breach of contract. Jane's was negligence against the builders.

A breach of contract claim is normally much stronger and easier to establish than a negligence claim.

But in this case negligence is accepted. All I'm saying is that it's quite common to negotiate with an insurer as a third party to a claim. It's not common to get involved when you aren't the policyholder or the third party.

[anonymous-user]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

1. for the umteenth time....business insurance excludes claims arising out of the use of motorised vehicles
2. Because the OP's claim is against the garage. They had her car, and wrote it off
3. Failing to compensate the OP's sister fully following their negligence
4. The garage. The garage's insurer will have done their job, having paid out to the garage the trade value of the car.

Ok, so you have confirmed the garage has not claimed on its business insurance (1) and also that it would be a claim in negligence rather than breach of contract (3).

So that means those claiming the garage has breached its contract to service the car are wrong?

On 3 you are saying that the garage's motor insurance covering them to drive cars owned by third parties does not cover them to the full value of the vehicle, but only to 'trade value'. Do you say this because you are familiar with the extent of motor insurance policies used by garages specifically for driving customers cars?

What you appear to be saying is that the garage's insurer only deals with the garage (up to the trade value of the vehicle owned by a third party) and will not deal with the third party (the ones who've actually suffered the loss).

Let's say the garage worker driving the OPs car has also written off the car they crashes into. Are you saying that goes party will be compensated in full by the garage's motor insurer, but the OP will only be compensated to 'trade value'? Or are you saying they will both be paid only to trade value and both will have to sue the garage for the difference?

If the third party crashed into and the OP are treated differently, why is this?

If the OP wasn't made aware their car would be driven without comprehensive motor insurance covering the full value of the vehicle, would they have allowed the garage to have driven it?

Thank you for your helpful answers so far.

[Mrr T]

Let me help. Negligence is a tort.

Definition of a tort:

tort
noun LAW
a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to legal liability.

So the claim against the garage is for breach of contract.

[JulianHJ]

Fastpedeller said:

IANAL but I'd be sending a letter (on the basis of TTW's script) to the Dealer stating I want a replacement vehicle so that I'm returned to the position I was in before their 'service' by Royal Mail 'signed for', and await their response. Then a following letter again by 'signed for' telling them if they don't settle in 14 days there will be court action. I'd be tempted to hang on to the car - what can they do? report it stolen? unfortunately, plod would possibly support them and say the issue with OP's car is a 'civil one' i wouldn't correspond with the insurance co or the solicitor, but IANAL.

'Plod' might also support the OP's sister, stating it's a civil matter. I worked for a rental company that supplied a car to a man on behalf of his insurance company; when he was unhappy with the settlement figure he was offered, he held our car to ransom - it was dealt as a civil matter so we had to negotiate with him to get it back.

[Graveworm]

Mrr T said:

Let me help. Negligence is a tort.

Definition of a tort:

tort
noun LAW
a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to legal liability.

So the claim against the garage is for breach of contract.

It depends on the contract. It would, if the contract said that the garage is responsible, for the car irrespective of negligence, in addition to carrying out the service? It usually does not. If you car is stolen from a garage you claim on your insurance, if a tree falls on your car, in the garage, you claim on your insurance. Usually the garage are only liable if negligent, they appear to be and accepting this.

[FWIW]

JulianHJ said:

'Plod' might also support the OP's sister, stating it's a civil matter. I worked for a rental company that supplied a car to a man on behalf of his insurance company; when he was unhappy with the settlement figure he was offered, he held our car to ransom - it was dealt as a civil matter so we had to negotiate with him to get it back.

This may be useful info for the op. I'd certainly be keeping hold of the car (while being mindful that the dealer will have a second set of keys...).

[Mrr T]

Graveworm said:

It depends on the contract. It would, if the contract said that the garage is responsible, for the car irrespective of negligence, in addition to carrying out the service? It usually does not. If you car is stolen from a garage you claim on your insurance, if a tree falls on your car, in the garage, you claim on your insurance. Usually the garage are only liable if negligent, they appear to be and accepting this.

While I agree it would depend on the contract but this would be a consumer contract so would be difficult to exclude much. I think the garage would not get away with limiting liability to negligence. Cannot comment on trees and theft but it does appear the car was damaged while in the procession of the garage and the OP insurance company are not accepting any liability. So I would assume this would apply to those cases as well.

The garage solicitors may have made an offer but I bet it had without prejudice at the top.

[rlg43p]

This thread seems to be going around in circles now. I'm keen to hear about some real progress from the OP. I think we can all agree that the approach of the dealership/solicitor is deplorable. There is no way that a £12k payment to the OP's sister is a fair settlement of this issue.

On the basis of all of this discussion I think that fair progress can only come from two courses of action:

1) Getting proper legal advice that ends up with a formal letter to the dealership aimed at getting the car replaced like for like..... or
2) Getting in front of the dealer principal to agree a solution that involves a like for like replacement of the car.

I would not be engaging with Strata Solicitors' bolshy "Defence Handler" at all - under any circumstances.

http://stratasolicitors.com/people.php

Edited by rlg43p on Thursday 19th March 20:57

[BertBert]

But at least...

website said:

We offer demanding default targets through service level agreements and key performance indicators that can also be tailored to meet your specific requirements

That's a relief

[TwigtheWonderkid]

janesmith1950 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

1. for the umteenth time....business insurance excludes claims arising out of the use of motorised vehicles
2. Because the OP's claim is against the garage. They had her car, and wrote it off
3. Failing to compensate the OP's sister fully following their negligence
4. The garage. The garage's insurer will have done their job, having paid out to the garage the trade value of the car.

Ok, so you have confirmed the garage has not claimed on its business insurance (1) and also that it would be a claim in negligence rather than breach of contract (3).

So that means those claiming the garage has breached its contract to service the car are wrong?

There's no reason why both cannot be true

janesmith1950 said:

On 3 you are saying that the garage's motor insurance covering them to drive cars owned by third parties does not cover them to the full value of the vehicle, but only to 'trade value'. Do you say this because you are familiar with the extent of motor insurance policies used by garages specifically for driving customers cars?

What you appear to be saying is that the garage's insurer only deals with the garage (up to the trade value of the vehicle owned by a third party) and will not deal with the third party (the ones who've actually suffered the loss).

Let's say the garage worker driving the OPs car has also written off the car they crashes into. Are you saying that goes party will be compensated in full by the garage's motor insurer, but the OP will only be compensated to 'trade value'? Or are you saying they will both be paid only to trade value and both will have to sue the garage for the difference?

If the third party crashed into and the OP are treated differently, why is this?

If the OP wasn't made aware their car would be driven without comprehensive motor insurance covering the full value of the vehicle, would they have allowed the garage to have driven it?

Thank you for your helpful answers so far.

Most traders' policies are written on a trade value basis only, for cars they are directly involved with. So if they damage a car they own or have in for a customer, the insurers will pay the repair costs without any element of profit for the garage. The garage should not make money out of repairing a car they damaged. Same if they write off a car they have in their control. Insurance pays trade value, not retail. Again, they make no profit from the accident. Some policies will pay market value for a customers car, but most won't. They expect to pay trade value and for the garage to sort out a replacement.

Now cars that the garage hit are a different matter. In theory, they are the true third party. And they might go thru their own insurer who would settle on market value. And then claim that market value off the garage's insurer. So for that reason, third parties hit by the garage's vehicles have claims settled on market value.

The problem here, as I said in my first post, is that the OP's sister isn't strictly a third party, as far as the garage's insurers are concerned. In the same way, if you lease a car, they aren't the third party when you have a crash. They are just the owner of your vehicle.

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

OP, please come back! (don't let the squabbling put you off )

[Flumpo]

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

OP, please come back! (don't let the squabbling put you off )

Hi don’t worry I will keep updating, sister is snowed under due to her job being wfh software. So no movement.

Looks like she will need to speak to a solicitor.

I imagine car dealers are going to shut from today. Although I’m considering telling her to tell them she is self isolating due to symptoms. Do they still want to send someone to collect the keys and courtesy car?

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

Flumpo said:

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

OP, please come back! (don't let the squabbling put you off )

Hi don’t worry I will keep updating, sister is snowed under due to her job being wfh software. So no movement.

Looks like she will need to speak to a solicitor.

I imagine car dealers are going to shut from today. Although I’m considering telling her to tell them she is self isolating due to symptoms. Do they still want to send someone to collect the keys and courtesy car?

Good luck with it all

[Flumpo]

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

Flumpo said:

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

OP, please come back! (don't let the squabbling put you off )

Hi don’t worry I will keep updating, sister is snowed under due to her job being wfh software. So no movement.

Looks like she will need to speak to a solicitor.

I imagine car dealers are going to shut from today. Although I’m considering telling her to tell them she is self isolating due to symptoms. Do they still want to send someone to collect the keys and courtesy car?

Good luck with it all

Thank you, in the scheme of things this is small cheese compared to people losing their jobs or with underlying health problems. So trying to keep some perspective. But really shocked by the dealer reaction on this one.

[rlg43p]

Perhaps someone should write to the leader of the firm of solicitors drawing their attention to the reputational damage this thread could do to both them and their client.....

[InitialDave]

rlg43p said:

Perhaps someone should write to the leader of the firm of solicitors drawing their attention to the reputational damage this thread could do to both them and their client.....

They seem more the type to spit their dummy out and start sending snotty letters to PH towers than to pause and consider.

[rlg43p]

InitialDave said:

They seem more the type to spit their dummy out and start sending snotty letters to PH towers than to pause and consider.

Quite possibly so: but then things could escalate with facebook - twitter etc. Since we all have their details indelibly etched on our minds.

They are clearly trying to take advantage of the OP's sister and force a grossly unfair settlement on her, rather than agreeing a settlement directly with the dealer who, in turn, should sort out an equivalent replacement.

There's no arguing with these facts and the more visibility of their behaviour they get through social media the better IMO.

[Damski]

Not sure if it's already been mentioned, is it on a finance agreement? If yes, I am sure they would help to progess things...