No-fault accident - credit agreement?
Discussion
My sister's car was hit by another vehicle - no arguments as to who was at fault, hers was parked outside her house and a bloke visiting relatives opposite forgot to put his handbrake on. It rolled into the street and put a decent crease in the side of my sister's car - these things happen, he held his hands up to it.
This was on Boxing Day. My sister reported it to her insurance and has since had a letter from a company called A*xillis, purporting to act on behalf of her insurer who say they will provide a loan-car in the interim that hers is repaired. I have no doubt that my sister's insurer (what rank was Nelson?) put them onto it.
The third party also asks that she signs a credit agreement which appears to suggest she will be liable for any hire car charges + any other items that the party at fault's insurer might reject. I think this is out of order and have advised her not to sign anything,
Anyone else had a similar situation?
This was on Boxing Day. My sister reported it to her insurance and has since had a letter from a company called A*xillis, purporting to act on behalf of her insurer who say they will provide a loan-car in the interim that hers is repaired. I have no doubt that my sister's insurer (what rank was Nelson?) put them onto it.
The third party also asks that she signs a credit agreement which appears to suggest she will be liable for any hire car charges + any other items that the party at fault's insurer might reject. I think this is out of order and have advised her not to sign anything,
Anyone else had a similar situation?
Do you think I should just tell her to ignore these people (even though they seem to have come from her own insurers), and just put in a normal claim? The main issue is that they want her to sign a credit agreement which I have said not to do under any circumstance.
It's not even as if she wants to make a big deal of it - her car is only worth around £3K!! She doesn't want it to be perfect or to put in a whiplash claim but it would be good if it hadn't got a big line down the side!!
They seem to be forcing her into accepting a hire car and if the hire charges are rejected by the opposing insurance company then by signing the credit agreement she will be liable for that hire period.
She doesn't even need a hire car - I will give her one of mine to use in the interim but she would like it put back into the condition it was before the accident.
It's not even as if she wants to make a big deal of it - her car is only worth around £3K!! She doesn't want it to be perfect or to put in a whiplash claim but it would be good if it hadn't got a big line down the side!!
They seem to be forcing her into accepting a hire car and if the hire charges are rejected by the opposing insurance company then by signing the credit agreement she will be liable for that hire period.
She doesn't even need a hire car - I will give her one of mine to use in the interim but she would like it put back into the condition it was before the accident.
Edited by OzzyR1 on Friday 28th December 23:40
Ignore it , go directly to the at fault insurers , call them up , tell them what’s happened , say you want a loaner car and yours fixing. When this happened to me a car was delivered within 2 hours and mine taken away to a local body shop, I was given the name of where it was going so I could check them out (they checked out) I even got them to do a few other jobs whilst in I had meant to get done (paid extra).
I wouldn’t envolve your inusurer at all , they don’t need to be
I wouldn’t envolve your inusurer at all , they don’t need to be
OzzyR1 said:
The third party also asks that she signs a credit agreement which appears to suggest she will be liable for any hire car charges + any other items that the party at fault's insurer might reject. I think this is out of order and have advised her not to sign anything,
No, that isn't the case, and is an urban myth. On credit hire, if they can't recover from the tp, the credit hire firm swallow the costs. But you have to cooperate with them in their attempts to recover from the tp. So if it has to go to court, your sister will have to attend. If she refused, then she could be liable for the costs. But provided she works with the credit hire firm, she will not have to pay the hire car costs if the tp refuses to pay. TwigtheWonderkid said:
No, that isn't the case, and is an urban myth. On credit hire, if they can't recover from the tp, the credit hire firm swallow the costs. But you have to cooperate with them in their attempts to recover from the tp. So if it has to go to court, your sister will have to attend. If she refused, then she could be liable for the costs. But provided she works with the credit hire firm, she will not have to pay the hire car costs if the tp refuses to pay.
How far does 'cooperation' go?Does this involve lying in documents going to the court, as that's what I was asked to do to help an AMC justify their £400/day car hire rate (for a repair that was estimated to take 2-3 days max - that took almost 3 weeks as it was 2 weeks before they even got the parts).
The third party paid out for the repairs, but disputed the excessive costs of the hire car (an e90 M3 to replace my Z4MC).
When the documents from the AMC's legal team arrived, they were full of errors/lies, so I dutifully spent 2 hours correcting them.
2 weeks later a revised version arrived, with about 75% of the same errors/lies in, so I corrected them again and sent a covering letter telling them why the wording they had put was incorrect (things like that I'd demanded a like-for-like replacement when I'd only asked for a runaround; saying my car was undrivable and I needed a hire car immediately when it was just a dented wing/scraped door; demanding a sat-nav when I had a TomTom; and putting incorrect dates/locations of the accident).
A couple of days later, I got a letter advising me that I should cooperate or I'd may be liable for any costs they couldn't recover.
My final letter to them, and the last I heard of it, was to state that they could put whatever they wanted in their court papers, but if I was asked a direct question by the courts then I would answer it truthfully - whether it helped their position or not.
I was in a similar situation, parked by the side of the road and hit by a Post Office van.
While it went through the insurers I was given a courtesy car, my car had to have a front wing and two doors replaced. The Post Office claimed it was 50/50 because it was a narrow lane ( not narrow enough that cars couldn't pass side by side though)
My Insurance wanted to go down the 50/50 route (with car hire total insurance repair costs were £7000-8000). I refused so they said I had to be prepared to go to court as a witness or they wouldn't cover the car hire).
The Post Office employed a Barrister and my Insurance Company employed a Barrister for a County Court hearing. It was all found in my favour. Total cost of accident legal costs were around £11,000 and it took 18 months to sort out. Postman now rides a bike because the judge said he considered him dishonest in his evidence.
While it went through the insurers I was given a courtesy car, my car had to have a front wing and two doors replaced. The Post Office claimed it was 50/50 because it was a narrow lane ( not narrow enough that cars couldn't pass side by side though)
My Insurance wanted to go down the 50/50 route (with car hire total insurance repair costs were £7000-8000). I refused so they said I had to be prepared to go to court as a witness or they wouldn't cover the car hire).
The Post Office employed a Barrister and my Insurance Company employed a Barrister for a County Court hearing. It was all found in my favour. Total cost of accident legal costs were around £11,000 and it took 18 months to sort out. Postman now rides a bike because the judge said he considered him dishonest in his evidence.
From my experience I’d avoid these types of agreement like the plague. Referred directly by main dealer having gone in to arrange repair. Wasn’t explained over the phone very well and it was only on reciept of the car I realised it was a credit agreement for hire, not the old fashioned loan of a courtesy car.
Whilst in theory you are indemnified from costs whilst you cooperate it’s the ball ache that goes with it that’s the issue.
If you fail to cooperate they can withdraw the legal policy that insures you against losing the case, making you personally liable for costs.
I was hit by another driver who admitted guilt at the scene. He then changed his mind.
I had an overpriced hire car for three weeks whilst they did nothing to actually repair mine (I had to chance up the insurance companies, body shop etc).
It then took 18 months of writing statements, cooperating with solicitors, filling in all sorts of documents (often wrong so had to be proof read carefully) before a day out at county court.
The other side offered to settle on the morning of the hearing for about 80% of the total cost (which was north of 25k for 3k’s worth of damage because of legal fees, 350 a day for the car etc) and they refused.
Hearing went ahead and the judge was absolutely scathing about their pricing, apathy and general service. I think he awarded about 20% in the end.
I came out of it unscathed but you’ll read of plenty who don’t. So, it’s most definately not an urban myth they chase people for costs. I know of someone who genuinely believed the accident was non fault on their behalf and told one of these companies that. The insurance companies decided different which then made the legal cover covering the hire car invalid. They chased him for thousands.
In short unless you are A) very confident it’s absolutely no fault, which clearly it is in this case and B) you are prepared to jump through hoops for months to get an overpriced hire car I’d explore every available alternative.
The biggest warning bell for this one is I had to prove why I needed a hire car. I was asked about
Using my wife’s, public transport, getting to work, social use, did I have access to another vehicle etc etc, not only in statements but in court.
Beacuase in this case you’ve said you can either lend her one or she doesn’t need one they wouldn’t pay out on the policy if that ever came to light.
Whilst in theory you are indemnified from costs whilst you cooperate it’s the ball ache that goes with it that’s the issue.
If you fail to cooperate they can withdraw the legal policy that insures you against losing the case, making you personally liable for costs.
I was hit by another driver who admitted guilt at the scene. He then changed his mind.
I had an overpriced hire car for three weeks whilst they did nothing to actually repair mine (I had to chance up the insurance companies, body shop etc).
It then took 18 months of writing statements, cooperating with solicitors, filling in all sorts of documents (often wrong so had to be proof read carefully) before a day out at county court.
The other side offered to settle on the morning of the hearing for about 80% of the total cost (which was north of 25k for 3k’s worth of damage because of legal fees, 350 a day for the car etc) and they refused.
Hearing went ahead and the judge was absolutely scathing about their pricing, apathy and general service. I think he awarded about 20% in the end.
I came out of it unscathed but you’ll read of plenty who don’t. So, it’s most definately not an urban myth they chase people for costs. I know of someone who genuinely believed the accident was non fault on their behalf and told one of these companies that. The insurance companies decided different which then made the legal cover covering the hire car invalid. They chased him for thousands.
In short unless you are A) very confident it’s absolutely no fault, which clearly it is in this case and B) you are prepared to jump through hoops for months to get an overpriced hire car I’d explore every available alternative.
The biggest warning bell for this one is I had to prove why I needed a hire car. I was asked about
Using my wife’s, public transport, getting to work, social use, did I have access to another vehicle etc etc, not only in statements but in court.
Beacuase in this case you’ve said you can either lend her one or she doesn’t need one they wouldn’t pay out on the policy if that ever came to light.
Edited by Gmlgml on Saturday 29th December 11:23
Dromedary66 said:
Everything I read about these Accident Management Companies indicates they are all shysters of the highest order who do nothing more than push up premiums for every single person. Here's hoping for a crackdown on them in the future.
They are just like every other type of business, there are good ones and not so good ones.Many people genuinely need a like for like hire car when their car is out of action following a clear non fault claim. The Micra that comes with their policy is no good to them and their 5 kids, which is why they own a people carrier. Or they need a large estate car to carry their work goods in.
matjk said:
Ignore it , go directly to the at fault insurers , call them up , tell them what’s happened , say you want a loaner car and yours fixing. When this happened to me a car was delivered within 2 hours and mine taken away to a local body shop, I was given the name of where it was going so I could check them out (they checked out) I even got them to do a few other jobs whilst in I had meant to get done (paid extra).
I wouldn’t envolve your inusurer at all , they don’t need to be
Your sister should get in touch with her own insurer, even though she wasn't at fault. She pays her premiums so that her insurer deals with the other party's insurer on her behalf. If a hire car is required, her insurer will arrange it and if the other party is at fault, their insurer will pay for it along with the cost of repairing her car. People get too hung up about contacting their own insurer when they've been involved in a "no-fault" accident. You're supposed to report all accidents to your own insurer, even if you think you're not at fault.I wouldn’t envolve your inusurer at all , they don’t need to be
If she doesn't report the accident, then doesn't declare it when she changes insurer in the future and they find out about this accident, they'll "avoid" her policy and her premiums will go through the roof.
Forget the letter from the accident management company, they're not acting on her behalf and don't have her best interests at heart. If she signs nothing, there's no contract.
you should inform your own insurers, however, contact the others insurers direct, and ask them to deal with it. When there is no doubt to liability like here they will quickly sort out a hire and repair. Happened to one of our reps last month - same circumstances - hit when parked - sorted quickly and easy by the others insurance.
Tootles the Taxi said:
Your sister should get in touch with her own insurer, even though she wasn't at fault. She pays her premiums so that her insurer deals with the other party's insurer on her behalf.
That's exactly my thinking too - it's part of having fully comp insurance. It worked great in the two claims we put through LV= in the last few years. The OPs problem is that he's insured with Admiral.I'm sure it usually works fine dealing with the other party's insurer, but you're a bit on your own if there are any problems. The insurer doesn't care about you, and neither does their repairer.
In 2007 my car was hit lightly by an old Mercedes being used for Pizza deliveries. He glanced off my parked car and ended up in the window of a small independent butchers, this was 10/10/07. My car suffered minor damage but needed painting as glass fragments had showered down over the roof and one side of my car. The Police and fire service arrived and a different driver than the guy I saw run off stepped forward and was arrested after about an hour. One of these AMC companies came through and loaned me a Passat from Enterprise for 3 weeks. The shop was closed for almost a year whilst insurance companies argued back and forth. After about 8 months the threatening letters and calls started from Enterprise for £3.5k I owed them as the other parties insurance now seeing the size of claim tried to get out of it. I believe it was around £250k due to loss of business.
Anyway enough was enough as Direct Line were hanging me out to dry so I called them and confirmed the call was being recorded. I then told them that I believed they covered for uninsured drivers.....the line went quiet. I was then told not to worry and that they would sort it. To this day nothing more heard and accident registered as “Non fault”
Anyway enough was enough as Direct Line were hanging me out to dry so I called them and confirmed the call was being recorded. I then told them that I believed they covered for uninsured drivers.....the line went quiet. I was then told not to worry and that they would sort it. To this day nothing more heard and accident registered as “Non fault”
Tootles the Taxi said:
Your sister should get in touch with her own insurer, even though she wasn't at fault. She pays her premiums so that her insurer deals with the other party's insurer on her behalf. If a hire car is required, her insurer will arrange it and if the other party is at fault, their insurer will pay for it along with the cost of repairing her car. People get too hung up about contacting their own insurer when they've been involved in a "no-fault" accident. You're supposed to report all accidents to your own insurer, even if you think you're not at fault.
If she doesn't report the accident, then doesn't declare it when she changes insurer in the future and they find out about this accident, they'll "avoid" her policy and her premiums will go through the roof.
Forget the letter from the accident management company, they're not acting on her behalf and don't have her best interests at heart. If she signs nothing, there's no contract.
She has contacted her own insurer I understand. It is her insurer who have appointed the accident management company. As I understand it the issue with many accident management companies is that rather than actively seek to mitigate costs by supplying the smallest cheapest hire car for the shortest possible amount of time they provide the most expensive car for the longest period of time.If she doesn't report the accident, then doesn't declare it when she changes insurer in the future and they find out about this accident, they'll "avoid" her policy and her premiums will go through the roof.
Forget the letter from the accident management company, they're not acting on her behalf and don't have her best interests at heart. If she signs nothing, there's no contract.
I have a 4x4 which I need to tow a caravan or trailer, but I don't need to do that every day. Most of us could get by with a smaller car for a few days, or a week. If a car is dented does it need to be immediately off the road, or can it wait until the garage has the replacement parts in stock?
The reality is that we are all paying for these accident management companies through increased insurance company premiums and the only real benefit they have is on hiking up the profits of said insurance companies and those supplying the cars etc. It would be very interesting to compare the amounts the AMCs say a hire car costs them to the charges paid by some of the big companies who are hiring cars daily. I know for example that for my employer it is cheaper for them to hire me a car than me to drive my own car and charging it through expenses if I am doing more than 100 miles.
The AMC company I ended up with owned their own fleet. I got given a Porsche Cayman which TBH was like for like for my car according to the insurance guidelines.
The issue is the charge.
The AMC charged 350 + VAT per day.
When it went to court the other drivers insurance company mentioned some trade industry for the hire car company (can’t recall what it was actually called) where it was suggested a like for like rate, should I have hired it myself would have been less than half that per day.
Assuming they paid list for the Porsche (let’s say 55k as it was well optioned) in 3 weeks I covered nearly 25% of the value of the car in hire charges.
Rent that out a few times a year and sell when it’s still a valuable asset (I reckon a year old cayman in that spec would go for 35/38k at least) and you can see how lucrative it can be for them.
I know it’s not like for like to the above but I recently hired a BMW 1 series 120 m sport auto through my employers account. I’ve no idea what price they’d charge an individual but the bill for 4 days hire was less than 100. Similar to an earlier post it’s cheaper for them to hire me a car than pay me expenses to drive my own.
How the AMCs can justify such exorbitant pricing is a mystery.
The issue is the charge.
The AMC charged 350 + VAT per day.
When it went to court the other drivers insurance company mentioned some trade industry for the hire car company (can’t recall what it was actually called) where it was suggested a like for like rate, should I have hired it myself would have been less than half that per day.
Assuming they paid list for the Porsche (let’s say 55k as it was well optioned) in 3 weeks I covered nearly 25% of the value of the car in hire charges.
Rent that out a few times a year and sell when it’s still a valuable asset (I reckon a year old cayman in that spec would go for 35/38k at least) and you can see how lucrative it can be for them.
I know it’s not like for like to the above but I recently hired a BMW 1 series 120 m sport auto through my employers account. I’ve no idea what price they’d charge an individual but the bill for 4 days hire was less than 100. Similar to an earlier post it’s cheaper for them to hire me a car than pay me expenses to drive my own.
How the AMCs can justify such exorbitant pricing is a mystery.
Edited by Gmlgml on Saturday 29th December 17:33
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff