Insurance refusing to deal with claim?

[rongagin]

My daughter was hit from behind by a driver of a newish Clio insured with (Battle of ?????), originally says he will pay, no insurance involvement, daughter says ok. As her car is a 6 months old 125D she goes back to BMW garage they have their repairer have a look and quote around £1100 but could be £1300+ if crash bar needs replacing. He see quote and says insurance needed.

The Clio driver admits full responsibility (good for him) to ???????, his insurer. My daughter speaks to them all good until they ask is it a lease car, daughter says yes. Call ends, they will get back.

Two weeks on she rings ????? again saying what is happening? His insurer says your notes say you were informed we don't deal with lease car claims???????????????? Daughter says this was not said at all. The insurer says "well the notes say".

Is this correct? She has been told to go back to her (high ranking Navy rank insurer) as they have been told. So she rings and they offer (push) a crash management company She rings me,I say avoid as it is a hire car 'scam' and her car is driveable.

But now nearly four weeks have elapsed from the initial crash and not one contact from the insurers, my daughter has made the calls. Is this normal. Should she go with the crash management people but refuse the hire car?

Is it right about the fact it is lease so ?????? say back to your insurer, you pay the excess etc.

Sorry it is so long.

[Soov535]

Why didn't you speak to your daughter's insurer and let them do the rest?

That's how it works....!

[rongagin]

Because my daughter did initially speak to her insurer and they gave her three options:

1 Go with them and hand over to the crash management people (highly pushed)
2 Go with them and pay excess then they claim from the other insurer, which they said can take a long time and the claim would stand until cleared then ncb re-instated and excess refunded, assuming full monies recovered.
3 Just go straight to the other insurer and they will deal with it all, my daughter's insurer said they do not need be involved.

So she went with option 3. Initially the other insurer said no problems at all, in fact they seemed pleased there was a quote and no extra people (crash management ) involved. Now, 2 weeks later, it is a different story

[Soov535]

rongagin said:

Because my daughter did initially speak to her insurer and they gave her three options:

1 Go with them and hand over to the crash management people (highly pushed)
2 Go with them and pay excess then they claim from the other insurer, which they said can take a long time and the claim would stand until cleared then ncb re-instated and excess refunded, assuming full monies recovered.
3 Just go straight to the other insurer and they will deal with it all, my daughter's insurer said they do not need be involved.

So she went with option 3. Initially the other insurer said no problems at all, in fact they seemed pleased there was a quote and no extra people (crash management ) involved. Now, 2 weeks later, it is a different story

Pricks re (3). How is that going to help her? They just can't be bothered.

Go back to them, and go for option (2). Pay the excess (which you will get back eventually), get her car fixed and get on with life while her insurer sorts out the mess.

[rongagin]

Thanks for the advice.

I did say to go option 3 so feel guilty now. But that was based on the experience of being hit whilst parked at work and the other driver's insurance dealt with it all. I just told mine when it was all done and they said "thanks for letting us know". No increase in premium by the way.

Also can I name the companies rather than hinting? Not sure what the rules are?

[anonymous-user]

You already have named them, anyone reading this would have to be a cretin not to pick up on who they are.

Not sure why naming them would make any difference though. Just get your daughter to speak to her insurers.

[Red Devil]

rongagin said:

Because my daughter did initially speak to her insurer and they gave her three options:

1 Go with them and hand over to the crash management people (highly pushed)
2 Go with them and pay excess then they claim from the other insurer, which they said can take a long time and the claim would stand until cleared then ncb re-instated and excess refunded, assuming full monies recovered.
3 Just go straight to the other insurer and they will deal with it all, my daughter's insurer said they do not need be involved.

So she went with option 3. Initially the other insurer said no problems at all, in fact they seemed pleased there was a quote and no extra people (crash management ) involved. Now, 2 weeks later, it is a different story

From a well known insurer's T&Cs

If your car is on a leasing agreement, we will settle the claim by paying the legal owner

I suspect this is probably why the TP insurer has refused to deal with her.
The problem is compounded by the fact that she is not the TP insurer's client.
So the your car above doesn't refer to her car.

[thismonkeyhere]

rongagin said:

they offer (push) a crash management company She rings me,I say avoid as it is a hire car 'scam' and her car is driveable.

How is it a scam?

Which crash mgt company?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Red Devil said:

From a well known insurer's T&Cs

If your car is on a leasing agreement, we will settle the claim by paying the legal owner

Relevant for a write off, not for a repair.

[fastbikes76]

That is a strange one...

I recently had very similar dealings with same company and it couldnt have been handled better.

A young girl hit the back of the wifes 530D causing £1700 damage (£900 for an M Sport bumper skin !!!). We got her insurance details and phoned them direct advising what had happened, within 20min I had Europcar on the phone trying to deliver me a hire car. I was advised to take the car where ever I chose and send them the estimate, once approved the car was repaired immeadiately and hassle free. This was all direct through the 3rd parties insurers, Hastings.


Perhaps a call to the lease comnpany would help pressure the 3rd party Ins co to acting ?

[Retroman]

You could get the car repaired, pay for a hire car whilst the damaged one is being repaired then send all the bills to the third party who will then forward the bill to the insurance company then she will get paid.

[rongagin]

thismonkeyhere said:

How is it a scam?

Which crash mgt company?

Perhaps a bit harsh, but many replacement or loan hire cars are charged at very high rates, which can't really be justified. Many crash companies own the hire companies used. So to charge excessive rates for replacement cars, it can also be an incentive to prolong the sorting out of the damaged vehicle, is in my eyes a scam which results in increased insurance rates.

I can quote two examples of how it was excessive imo for other people I know. But unless people are interested I wont bore you.

Edited by rongagin on Monday 14th December 17:36

[rongagin]

Red Devil said:

From a well known insurer's T&Cs

If your car is on a leasing agreement, we will settle the claim by paying the legal owner

I suspect this is probably why the TP insurer has refused to deal with her.
The problem is compounded by the fact that she is not the TP insurer's client.
So the your car above doesn't refer to her car.

You are probably right there, I think it is Arval finance (or whatever it is called) but why can they not just sort it out? Arval aren't paying out or claiming? It is the car needing fixing by the bodyshop then they get paid by the TP insurer, or am being slow?
Btw a bodyshop courtesy car is all my daughter needs not a like for like, her words.

[rongagin]

fastbikes76 said:

That is a strange one...

I recently had very similar dealings with same company and it couldnt have been handled better.

A young girl hit the back of the wifes 530D causing £1700 damage (£900 for an M Sport bumper skin !!!). We got her insurance details and phoned them direct advising what had happened, within 20min I had Europcar on the phone trying to deliver me a hire car. I was advised to take the car where ever I chose and send them the estimate, once approved the car was repaired immeadiately and hassle free. This was all direct through the 3rd parties insurers, Hastings.


Perhaps a call to the lease comnpany would help pressure the 3rd party Ins co to acting ?

Two Qs: Was the 530D a lease car? Did you go through the crash management company?

[rongagin]

Retroman said:

You could get the car repaired, pay for a hire car whilst the damaged one is being repaired then send all the bills to the third party who will then forward the bill to the insurance company then she will get paid.

She could perhaps, but why would she?

[thismonkeyhere]

rongagin said:

Perhaps a bit harsh, but many replacement or loan hire cars are charged at very high rates, which can't really be justified. Many crash companies own the hire companies used. So to charge excessive rates for replacement cars, it can also be an incentive to prolong the sorting out of the damaged vehicle, is in my eyes a scam which results in increased insurance rates.

I can quote two examples of how it was excessive imo for other people I know. But unless people are interested I wont bore you.

Edited by rongagin on Monday 14th December 17:36

I only ask because I used a claim management company, largely because my own insurers were being so useless. I have no idea what they charge for the hire car we had, but we only had it for the three days it took to sort my car. Company were very efficient and helpful, and there certainly didn't appear to be any attempts at 'prolonging'. Maybe I just got a good'un?

[LoonR1]

Soov535 said:

Pricks re (3). How is that going to help her? They just can't be bothered.

Go back to them, and go for option (2). Pay the excess (which you will get back eventually), get her car fixed and get on with life while her insurer sorts out the mess.

Not "pricks" at all. I've never heard of any insurer suggesting that though as they want to really earn some free extra cash by forcing their AMC as per point 1.

There is no reason for Hastings (tough one that) to refuse to deal due to it being a lease car. Someone has got the wrong end of the stick here in a mahoosive way.

[rongagin]

LoonR1 said:

There is no reason for Hastings (tough one that) to refuse to deal due to it being a lease car. Someone has got the wrong end of the stick here in a mahoosive way.

Is there an insurers called Waterloo?

Glad you think so re the refusal, "because it's a lease car", what is the problem. But they are adamant, but what now, I suppose just go to my daughter's insurer (as she is doing) and go the long way round a settlement.

[LoonR1]

rongagin said:

LoonR1 said:

There is no reason for Hastings (tough one that) to refuse to deal due to it being a lease car. Someone has got the wrong end of the stick here in a mahoosive way.

Is there an insurers called Waterloo?

Glad you think so re the refusal, "because it's a lease car", what is the problem. But they are adamant, but what now, I suppose just go to my daughter's insurer (as she is doing) and go the long way round a settlement.

To clarify fully. Hastings are under no obligation to deal with your daughter's car currently. However, the reason they've given is daft, not least because most insurers are falling over themselves to deal with innocent TP drivers to avoid unnecessary frictional costs in the claim.

You've probably just got a muppet who has just got off a training course about lease cars, or your daughter has got completely the wrong end of the stick.

If they won't deal, your insurer is contractually obliged to deal with your daughter's claim for her. She is under no obligation to take their hire car if she doesn't want to, but they must still deal with the claim.

[rongagin]

LoonR1 said:

To clarify fully. Hastings are under no obligation to deal with your daughter's car currently. However, the reason they've given is daft, not least because most insurers are falling over themselves to deal with innocent TP drivers to avoid unnecessary frictional costs in the claim.

You've probably just got a muppet who has just got off a training course about lease cars, or your daughter has got completely the wrong end of the stick.

If they won't deal, your insurer is contractually obliged to deal with your daughter's claim for her. She is under no obligation to take their hire car if she doesn't want to, but they must still deal with the claim.

Initially they were indeed "falling over themselves" for the reason you give. But then someone at Hastings apparently puts a note on the case saying, it's a lease car so computer says NO.

Yes Admiral will have to deal with it, but is it a bad idea to go with Albany (I am going off memory) but refuse the car, if that is possible?

Here is a link, which may or may not be accurate. However it one of many.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php...