Courtesy car question

[Lockhouse]

Hello Guys,

Quick legal question. My daughter bought a second-hand Mini from a local non-franchised dealer. There were a couple of problems with her car that they agreed to fix under warranty and whilst the car was being fixed, they provided a courtesy car. There was no paperwork signed for the courtesy car although she did provide a copy of her driver’s licence.

Now, during the three days my daughter had the courtesy car, the windscreen was cracked by a stone chip. When she returned the car to the dealer, they said that they didn’t have any windscreen cover as they had a standard insurance policy with £750 excess and that my daughter would either have to claim on her insurance which does have windscreen cover (but has a £100 excess) or buy a new windscreen for £300 and they’d fit it FOC.

As it stands the courtesy car is now back at the garage and she has her own car back. Where does she stand legally? Should she just front up the £100 and grin and bear it or is it the garage’s problem for not having enough insurance in place?

There is also the added issue that any bad blood would make further claims on the warranty difficult in practice - notwithstanding whatever was in the warranty contract.

I know it’s only £100 but it would be nice to know if they were trying it on.

Best regards,

Andy

[C. Grimsley]

Just think if it was your car they are returning with a crack in the screen. How is it there fault in any way?

Carl

[No ideas for a name]

Lockhouse said:

Hello Guys,

Quick legal question. My daughter bought a second-hand Mini from a local non-franchised dealer. There were a couple of problems with her car that they agreed to fix under warranty and whilst the car was being fixed, they provided a courtesy car. There was no paperwork signed for the courtesy car although she did provide a copy of her driver’s licence.

Now, during the three days my daughter had the courtesy car, the windscreen was cracked by a stone chip. When she returned the car to the dealer, they said that they didn’t have any windscreen cover as they had a standard insurance policy with £750 excess and that my daughter would either have to claim on her insurance which does have windscreen cover (but has a £100 excess) or buy a new windscreen for £300 and they’d fit it FOC.

As it stands the courtesy car is now back at the garage and she has her own car back. Where does she stand legally? Should she just front up the £100 and grin and bear it or is it the garage’s problem for not having enough insurance in place?

There is also the added issue that any bad blood would make further claims on the warranty difficult in practice - notwithstanding whatever was in the warranty contract.

I know it’s only £100 but it would be nice to know if they were trying it on.

Best regards,

Andy

Legally, depends on the loan car agreement - that you don't have.
Practically and moraly, pay for the repair.

If you drove down a hole and burst a tyre, you wouldn't be taking it back with a flat.

Does her insurance really cover windscreen damage to another car? Its not a third party, I think she would have to have transferred her insurance to the loaner for that to fly.
So, who's insurance was the loan car being driven on?
Does she even have cover to drive other vehicles?

Edited by No ideas for a name on Friday 23 November 20:36

[Mr Tidy]

I bought a car in February from a trader that had a few chips in the screen (but none in the zone that matters for the MOT).

The seller said he hadn't got it sorted because on a Trader's policy it does affect the No Claims Discount.

IMHO you need to really determine who was insuring the car at the time OP - which sounds like it may be tricky.

[Jonnny]

We don't have windscreen cover, but usually offer customers to pay "their" insurance excess to us and we cover the rest.

On some cars now a windscreen replacement is £600+ so works out well for the curoymer - they 'would' have got a stone chip if they were doing the journey in their own car.

[vikingaero]

Mr Tidy said:

The seller said he hadn't got it sorted because on a Trader's policy it does affect the No Claims Discount.

98% of standard consumer motor policies now count a glass claim as a claim, which will reduce your no claims. Even if you have protected no claims, then your base premium will still increase. So for the OP, the £100 windscreen excess does not factor in a reduction in no claims and having to declare it when shopping around for insurance. Could be that paying £300 would be more worthwhile especially with a young driver.

[anonymous-user]

vikingaero said:

98% of standard consumer motor policies now count a glass claim as a claim, which will reduce your no claims. Even if you have protected no claims, then your base premium will still increase. So for the OP, the £100 windscreen excess does not factor in a reduction in no claims and having to declare it when shopping around for insurance. Could be that paying £300 would be more worthwhile especially with a young driver.

Not something I’ve heard before, I understood the opposite to be true, i.e. you have to declare them if asked, but they usually have no effect.

My policy certainly doesn’t count windscreen claims against NCB and it’s nothing special.

Broken glass due to vandalism I can see being an NCB job but not stonechips.

Be interested to hear what your source is for this?

[Chrisgr31]

I had an Enterprise hire car in replacement for my Subaru when that was in being fixed. The windscreen cracked whilst I was driving it. I replaced it

[Lockhouse]

Thank you very much for the replies.

My daughter is paying to have the glass replaced on her own insurance who have agreed to cover it without it affecting her no claims as long as she pays £100 excess. I agree, it's the right thing to do. Sorted.

[graylag]

vikingaero said:

98% of standard consumer motor policies now count a glass claim as a claim, which will reduce your no claims. Even if you have protected no claims, then your base premium will still increase. So for the OP, the £100 windscreen excess does not factor in a reduction in no claims and having to declare it when shopping around for insurance. Could be that paying £300 would be more worthwhile especially with a young driver.

Rubbish.

[Sheepshanks]

No ideas for a name said:

Does her insurance really cover windscreen damage to another car? Its not a third party, I think she would have to have transferred her insurance to the loaner for that to fly.
So, who's insurance was the loan car being driven on?
Does she even have cover to drive other vehicles?

My LV= policy automatically covers garage courtesy cars with the same cover as on the insured vehicle.

Daughter has a policy with Aviva and that covers courtesy cars too, although the wording implies only the policyholder is covered, so I didn't rely on it when I took her car for service. So I paid, for the first time in my life, a garage's fee for their courtesy car insurance.

[Pica-Pica]

Sheepshanks said:

No ideas for a name said:

Does her insurance really cover windscreen damage to another car? Its not a third party, I think she would have to have transferred her insurance to the loaner for that to fly.
So, who's insurance was the loan car being driven on?
Does she even have cover to drive other vehicles?

My LV= policy automatically covers garage courtesy cars with the same cover as on the insured vehicle.

Daughter has a policy with Aviva and that covers courtesy cars too, although the wording implies only the policyholder is covered, so I didn't rely on it when I took her car for service. So I paid, for the first time in my life, a garage's fee for their courtesy car insurance.

I did similar. I paid £16 to reduce the courtesy car excess down to £50. Normally, I do not bother with courtesy cars, make my own way about by; taxi, public transport, wife or friend. The car had about 60 miles of fuel in it - I used most of that up, so got some of my £16 back that way.

[Sheepshanks]

Pica-Pica said:

The car had about 60 miles of fuel in it - I used most of that up, so got some of my £16 back that way.

I always put the fuel back, just to stop any argument. I can't recall anyone ever commenting on it though. A service manager once apologised for how empty the car was and gave me a £10 chitty for fuel - a minor gesture that I've always remembered.

[4rephill]

Pica-Pica said:

I did similar. I paid £16 to reduce the courtesy car excess down to £50. Normally, I do not bother with courtesy cars, make my own way about by; taxi, public transport, wife or friend. The car had about 60 miles of fuel in it - I used most of that up, so got some of my £16 back that way.

Wow! - Can't wait to see the Marvel movie about your life!

[Jonnny]

Sheepshanks said:

Pica-Pica said:

The car had about 60 miles of fuel in it - I used most of that up, so got some of my £16 back that way.

I always put the fuel back, just to stop any argument. I can't recall anyone ever commenting on it though. A service manager once apologised for how empty the car was and gave me a £10 chitty for fuel - a minor gesture that I've always remembered.

I'm not sure where the attitude comes from that you would feel the right to not replace the fuel you've used, you'd have had to replace it in your own car if you did the journey.

Good for topping it up - so many people, your quoted poster) feel they don't need to.

[Twig62]

graylag said:

vikingaero said:

98% of standard consumer motor policies now count a glass claim as a claim, which will reduce your no claims. Even if you have protected no claims, then your base premium will still increase. So for the OP, the £100 windscreen excess does not factor in a reduction in no claims and having to declare it when shopping around for insurance. Could be that paying £300 would be more worthwhile especially with a young driver.

Rubbish.

+ 1
Why do people post crap like this ?

[surveyor_101]

C. Grimsley said:

Just think if it was your car they are returning with a crack in the screen. How is it there fault in any way?

Carl

Look if they don't inform you of the charges and conditions and your not asked to sign a sausage I would the dealer can't just claim its £750 excess after the fact.

I would say if your insurance won't cover my windscreen excess is £75 and provided its not heated a mini screen can't be 750.

If it was me and baring in mind future warranty issues i would offer £75 excess it would of been under my insurance, had the car not had a fault after sale.

Thats reasonable, in the trade I would expect its to 150-200 for a screen.

[Pica-Pica]

Jonnny said:

Sheepshanks said:

Pica-Pica said:

The car had about 60 miles of fuel in it - I used most of that up, so got some of my £16 back that way.

I always put the fuel back, just to stop any argument. I can't recall anyone ever commenting on it though. A service manager once apologised for how empty the car was and gave me a £10 chitty for fuel - a minor gesture that I've always remembered.

I'm not sure where the attitude comes from that you would feel the right to not replace the fuel you've used, you'd have had to replace it in your own car if you did the journey.

Good for topping it up - so many people, your quoted poster) feel they don't need to.

Well, the service guy told me ‘it has about 60 miles fuel, if you need more put some in’. It did not need more, so I did not. Seeing as the repair/failure cost me over £1k - and I still dispute this - why should I put fuel in?

[Mr Tidy]

Twig62 said:

graylag said:

vikingaero said:

98% of standard consumer motor policies now count a glass claim as a claim, which will reduce your no claims. Even if you have protected no claims, then your base premium will still increase. So for the OP, the £100 windscreen excess does not factor in a reduction in no claims and having to declare it when shopping around for insurance. Could be that paying £300 would be more worthwhile especially with a young driver.

Rubbish.

+ 1
Why do people post crap like this ?

WTF is the OP on about?