esure refusing to repair damage - am I being reasonable?
Discussion
Couple of weeks back while stationary in traffic, my more or less brand new Touareg got hit head on by a Micra which was being pushed sideways by a double decker bus after the micra pulled out without looking. I'd only had the car 5 weeks and not even done a 1000 miles in the thing, but anyway....
I phoned my insurer (esure) from the roadside to ask what the deal is with recovering the car. Their appointed agent which is RAC were "too busy to attend" and the guy on the phone told me to get the police to recover the car and that "this is normal practice", never been in an RTC that required recovery before so didn't know any better. So the police go ahead and do this and let me know who/where it is which I pass to esure.
The insurance approved repairer phone me while on holiday to say the car is ready and we arrange for it to be delivered to me on my return, and the following issues present themselves:
1) My steering lock which was in the car is now missing
2) The car has damage to its NSF wheel with red paint ingrained in it (like its fouled a ramp or something) which the repairer says esure will not authorise a repair on as I did not report it at the time of the accident. Mainly because it was not there at the time of the accident and it was not caused by the accident itself - the damage was caused by the act of recovery and repair.
3) esure say that because the damage was not caused *directly* by the accident its not covered and I will have to seek compensation from the police recovery agent (that esure told me to allow).
4) on driving the car it now drifts gently to the left, and the headlight they replaced doesn't work.
I am demanding that they take the car away, rectify all of these issues at their cost and return it to me, since they are effectively penalising me for following their guidance in using the police recovery agent and returning the car to me with defects caused by others. I expect they will repair the headlight as the repairer should have checked that, but their argument is that the police recovery agent who they are saying damaged the wheel and steering is nothing to do with them and I should deal with them directly, even though they instructed me to allow them to take the car.
I'm sure they won't care, but we have 3 cars insured with esure, all of which will be moved come renewal. I also wasn't entitled to a hire car as my justification for needing it was to take 4 large cases an 4 passengers to the airport (other cars are both roadsters) which I'd booked a non-refundable space for. can't leave the hire car unattended for more than 48hrs I'm told....
Bit of a rant, but it staggers me that they can sit in their big glass offices palming off issues on supposed technicalities, none of which are represented in the policy documentation....
I phoned my insurer (esure) from the roadside to ask what the deal is with recovering the car. Their appointed agent which is RAC were "too busy to attend" and the guy on the phone told me to get the police to recover the car and that "this is normal practice", never been in an RTC that required recovery before so didn't know any better. So the police go ahead and do this and let me know who/where it is which I pass to esure.
The insurance approved repairer phone me while on holiday to say the car is ready and we arrange for it to be delivered to me on my return, and the following issues present themselves:
1) My steering lock which was in the car is now missing
2) The car has damage to its NSF wheel with red paint ingrained in it (like its fouled a ramp or something) which the repairer says esure will not authorise a repair on as I did not report it at the time of the accident. Mainly because it was not there at the time of the accident and it was not caused by the accident itself - the damage was caused by the act of recovery and repair.
3) esure say that because the damage was not caused *directly* by the accident its not covered and I will have to seek compensation from the police recovery agent (that esure told me to allow).
4) on driving the car it now drifts gently to the left, and the headlight they replaced doesn't work.
I am demanding that they take the car away, rectify all of these issues at their cost and return it to me, since they are effectively penalising me for following their guidance in using the police recovery agent and returning the car to me with defects caused by others. I expect they will repair the headlight as the repairer should have checked that, but their argument is that the police recovery agent who they are saying damaged the wheel and steering is nothing to do with them and I should deal with them directly, even though they instructed me to allow them to take the car.
I'm sure they won't care, but we have 3 cars insured with esure, all of which will be moved come renewal. I also wasn't entitled to a hire car as my justification for needing it was to take 4 large cases an 4 passengers to the airport (other cars are both roadsters) which I'd booked a non-refundable space for. can't leave the hire car unattended for more than 48hrs I'm told....
Bit of a rant, but it staggers me that they can sit in their big glass offices palming off issues on supposed technicalities, none of which are represented in the policy documentation....
Edited by johnnymiller on Saturday 23 June 10:22
Have you discussed the matter with the recovery agent? You never know, they may accept liability and deal with the issue.
Or you could make a separate claim on you esure policy. Accidental damage, as your car was damaged by a third party (the recovery company). It'll mean having to pay another excess as it's a different claim but then esure are obligated to fix the issues and then they will have the job of recovering their outlay from the recovery company.
Or you could make a separate claim on you esure policy. Accidental damage, as your car was damaged by a third party (the recovery company). It'll mean having to pay another excess as it's a different claim but then esure are obligated to fix the issues and then they will have the job of recovering their outlay from the recovery company.
For the substandard repairs I'd imagine it's pretty straightforward that they need to be done properly.
For the wheel damage you've got to establish who did it and so on and so on. If it can be fixed with a £60 wheel repair I'd be tempted to get it fixed and move on (not that you should have to, but the time and stress getting nowhere with it will be more than £60 worth...)
For the wheel damage you've got to establish who did it and so on and so on. If it can be fixed with a £60 wheel repair I'd be tempted to get it fixed and move on (not that you should have to, but the time and stress getting nowhere with it will be more than £60 worth...)
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Have you discussed the matter with the recovery agent? You never know, they may accept liability and deal with the issue.
Or you could make a separate claim on you esure policy. Accidental damage, as your car was damaged by a third party (the recovery company). It'll mean having to pay another excess as it's a different claim but then esure are obligated to fix the issues and then they will have the job of recovering their outlay from the recovery company.
Yeah, I'm waiting for a call back from them, I want to see the condition report that they are supposedly required to take of vehicles they recover and handover to repairers.Or you could make a separate claim on you esure policy. Accidental damage, as your car was damaged by a third party (the recovery company). It'll mean having to pay another excess as it's a different claim but then esure are obligated to fix the issues and then they will have the job of recovering their outlay from the recovery company.
janesmith1950 said:
For the substandard repairs I'd imagine it's pretty straightforward that they need to be done properly.
For the wheel damage you've got to establish who did it and so on and so on. If it can be fixed with a £60 wheel repair I'd be tempted to get it fixed and move on (not that you should have to, but the time and stress getting nowhere with it will be more than £60 worth...)
Yeah I'm kind of coming to that conclusion, I just hate that I can be the innocent party and be out of pocket and inconvenienced as a result just to save some huge corporate a few quid, even though I won't ever use them again.For the wheel damage you've got to establish who did it and so on and so on. If it can be fixed with a £60 wheel repair I'd be tempted to get it fixed and move on (not that you should have to, but the time and stress getting nowhere with it will be more than £60 worth...)
johnnymiller said:
3) esure say that because the damage was not caused *directly* by the accident its not covered and I will have to seek compensation from the police recovery agent (that esure told me to allow).
This bit has me confused. Even though it may not have been caused directly by that accident, surely another 'accident' has now happened to cause the other damage.
As your insurer, isn't it their job to fix this and then, themselves, claim off the other party? Isn't that how it works
eSure seem a bit scumbag-ey here.
hyphen said:
johnnymiller said:
3) esure say that because the damage was not caused *directly* by the accident its not covered and I will have to seek compensation from the police recovery agent (that esure told me to allow).
This bit has me confused. Even though it may not have been caused directly by that accident, surely another 'accident' has now happened to cause the other damage.
As your insurer, isn't it their job to fix this and then, themselves, claim off the other party? Isn't that how it works
eSure seem a bit scumbag-ey here.
hyphen said:
This bit has me confused.
Even though it may not have been caused directly by that accident, surely another 'accident' has now happened to cause the other damage.
As your insurer, isn't it their job to fix this and then, themselves, claim off the other party? Isn't that how it works
eSure seem a bit scumbag-ey here.
indeed, I've made contact with the recovery company, waiting for them to come back to me. esures last diatribe - word for word, including the epic grammar and spelling... Even though it may not have been caused directly by that accident, surely another 'accident' has now happened to cause the other damage.
As your insurer, isn't it their job to fix this and then, themselves, claim off the other party? Isn't that how it works
eSure seem a bit scumbag-ey here.
"With regards to the additional damage on the car tht has been caused by the recovery agent, is this damage was not caused as a DIRECT result of the impact between your car and the third party this is not something that would be covered as part of this claim. In order to peruse this damage you would either need to speak to Recovery services about this and ask them to cover the costs of the repairs – they should have done a check list of the damage on the car when they collected it and repairer have a checklist of the damage to the car when it came into their position so Recovery services would be able to investigate this for you. Unfortunately due to data protection they will not discuss this with us as we did not instruct them on your behalf so you would need to speak to them yourself. They may choose to cover the costs of the repairs for you directly or they may refer you back to us to make a claim against them, in which case this could be classed as a separate incident and therefore you would be required to pay an additional excess but if we are able to make a full recovery of our costs back at that point them you can claim that excess back from them once the full costs have been confirmed."
I've escalated it to the next level at esure. they have dug their heels in to the point where I won't renew our £1k worth of policies over a £60 wheel repair and a £50 steering lock that I am now consuming loads of their time arguing about..... the accident itself will be recoverable from the at fault party of course.
hyphen said:
johnnymiller said:
3) esure say that because the damage was not caused *directly* by the accident its not covered and I will have to seek compensation from the police recovery agent (that esure told me to allow).
This bit has me confused. Even though it may not have been caused directly by that accident, surely another 'accident' has now happened to cause the other damage.
As your insurer, isn't it their job to fix this and then, themselves, claim off the other party? Isn't that how it works
eSure seem a bit scumbag-ey here.
I thought esure were very much at the 'bargain' end of the market, offering basic cover to get the lowest possible price on those 'price comparison' websites? This thread is confirming my fears for this type of provider. They will cover the absolute minimum they can...
Ardennes92 said:
I thought all new VAG group cars came with free "ensurance" that works with your insurer and includes sorting approved manufacture repairs and legal cover
There’s a scheme behind probably every new car, and another one that the supplying dealer group will offer. Bodyshops will refer you to their pet scheme too.They’re all basically scams - they’re trying to extract the maximum possible value for themselves out of the claim. You’ll be hounded by callers insisting you were injured.
Insurance companies don’t help themselves when they mess people about though.
johnnymiller said:
indeed, I've made contact with the recovery company, waiting for them to come back to me. esures last diatribe - word for word, including the epic grammar and spelling...
"With regards to the additional damage on the car tht has been caused by the recovery agent, is this damage was not caused as a DIRECT result of the impact between your car and the third party this is not something that would be covered as part of this claim. In order to peruse this damage you would either need to speak to Recovery services about this and ask them to cover the costs of the repairs – they should have done a check list of the damage on the car when they collected it and repairer have a checklist of the damage to the car when it came into their position so Recovery services would be able to investigate this for you. Unfortunately due to data protection they will not discuss this with us as we did not instruct them on your behalf so you would need to speak to them yourself. They may choose to cover the costs of the repairs for you directly or they may refer you back to us to make a claim against them, in which case this could be classed as a separate incident and therefore you would be required to pay an additional excess but if we are able to make a full recovery of our costs back at that point them you can claim that excess back from them once the full costs have been confirmed."
I've escalated it to the next level at esure. they have dug their heels in to the point where I won't renew our £1k worth of policies over a £60 wheel repair and a £50 steering lock that I am now consuming loads of their time arguing about..... the accident itself will be recoverable from the at fault party of course.
To be fair, I think what esure are saying is pretty fair. The damage is not as a result of the accident, but a separate incident. They are offering to cover it, but as a 2nd accident, with another excess, which is correct. "With regards to the additional damage on the car tht has been caused by the recovery agent, is this damage was not caused as a DIRECT result of the impact between your car and the third party this is not something that would be covered as part of this claim. In order to peruse this damage you would either need to speak to Recovery services about this and ask them to cover the costs of the repairs – they should have done a check list of the damage on the car when they collected it and repairer have a checklist of the damage to the car when it came into their position so Recovery services would be able to investigate this for you. Unfortunately due to data protection they will not discuss this with us as we did not instruct them on your behalf so you would need to speak to them yourself. They may choose to cover the costs of the repairs for you directly or they may refer you back to us to make a claim against them, in which case this could be classed as a separate incident and therefore you would be required to pay an additional excess but if we are able to make a full recovery of our costs back at that point them you can claim that excess back from them once the full costs have been confirmed."
I've escalated it to the next level at esure. they have dug their heels in to the point where I won't renew our £1k worth of policies over a £60 wheel repair and a £50 steering lock that I am now consuming loads of their time arguing about..... the accident itself will be recoverable from the at fault party of course.
shep1001 said:
First mistake was to use a cheap nasty insurer. Second mistake was to use their choice of repairer.
Yep, i can’t really argue with that assessment, albeit after the fact. I guess the 5 star defaqto rating is a misnomer, they were no more expensive/cheaper than most of the others like direct line, admiral etc. How do you know if they are any good until you need them? All you have to go on is comparison sites and so called ratings, unless there’s a whole world of review of these people that i’ve not stumbled upon. VW’s own insurance which was used for the first 5 days was £1500 a year more which regardless of all this aggravation is never going to make sense.For what its worth, the quality of the front bumper repair they’ve done is actually pretty good, the paint matches well and no orange peel effect etc. It’s just all the other noise they’ve created which is annoying. Someone i know had their polo repaired at a local VW approved place and their experience was no better to be honest, they ended up with sealant all over their carpets and damaged leather hence why i didnt bother perusing that angle.
My renewal on my MX5 is due shortly, so i need to shop around as esure won’t be getting my business anymore.
Edited by johnnymiller on Saturday 23 June 13:54
shep1001 said:
First mistake was to use a cheap nasty insurer. Second mistake was to use their choice of repairer.
What if his premium was high? does that make them an expensive nasty insurer? how does that differ to a cheap one in respect of how a claim is dealt with?Does a risk based premium indicate the quality of insurer?
questions questions questions
TwigtheWonderkid said:
To be fair, I think what esure are saying is pretty fair. The damage is not as a result of the accident, but a separate incident. They are offering to cover it, but as a 2nd accident, with another excess, which is correct.
An accident that I wasn’t in, didnt cause, and had no idea had occurred until they threw my keys across the table and gave me the car back.Call it what they like, it happened outside of my control, so i don’t see how i can be asked to stump up an excess for something thats happened to my car while in their custody. It was them that made me use the police recovery service as their RAC service was unavailable and now they are using that as a defence against an issue. It even says in the policy book that they will pay the excess if the damage occurs when the vehicle is in the possession of the motor trade.....
I can see that I will end up taking this on the chin and having to sort it myself, which isnt the end of the world, but its the principal of it that irks.
ZOLLAR said:
What if his premium was high? does that make them an expensive nasty insurer? how does that differ to a cheap one in respect of how a claim is dealt with?
Does a risk based premium indicate the quality of insurer?
questions questions questions
£409 - parked off road, fully comp, 40yrs old, 9yrs no claims living in WorcestershireDoes a risk based premium indicate the quality of insurer?
questions questions questions
The cheapest was £260 from a brand i’d never heard of and ruled out. Esure were middle of the pack and i thought were a reasonable bet until now....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff