Non fault accident - legal advice needed re claim
Discussion
Someone crashed into my car last month while it was parked in a street, the other driver admitted liability straight away. I arranged for the car to be collected etc through the manufacturer Assistance phone line. Next I called my insurance company who passed me across to their appointed Claims management company and spoke about organising a replacement car to use while mine was off the road. In the meantime I was called several times by the other party insurance company, they were desperate for me to arrange with them to repair my car and for them to provide me with a hire car citing the benefits being it will help keep costs down and that I wouldn't have to sign any credit agreements etc which I was going to have to do if using my own insurer.To cut a long story short, I wasn't keen on the cars which they were offering as a replacement (which were going to cost them about £510 per day) they then offered to pay me £300 per day instead of providing a car. As I have another car to use I decided to go with this, my damaged car went to the Manufacturer Authorised Repairer (1 of only 2 in the country) and the damage was estimated to be approx £20-25k and they have agreed to pay this.
The first two weeks I received payments of £2,100 and £2,700 in lieu of a hire car, they then approached me and said they were going to make a final payment of £5,000 which was not negotiable and started to say that I didn't need a car as I have others and described the payments I have had as being 'for loss of enjoyment' rather than 'in lieu of a hire car'. Where do I stand legally? I feel that they owe me for the agreed £300 per day up until my car is ready (which could be between 2 - 5 weeks from now).
The first two weeks I received payments of £2,100 and £2,700 in lieu of a hire car, they then approached me and said they were going to make a final payment of £5,000 which was not negotiable and started to say that I didn't need a car as I have others and described the payments I have had as being 'for loss of enjoyment' rather than 'in lieu of a hire car'. Where do I stand legally? I feel that they owe me for the agreed £300 per day up until my car is ready (which could be between 2 - 5 weeks from now).
PorkInsider said:
So with what they're offering you'll have had £10k off them in lieu of a hire car you don't need?
And you want to know if you can force them to keep paying you £2k+ per week?
Surely that's not what you're meaning?
That's how I read it; and OP is expecting a further £10.5k over the next 5 weeks despite having an alternative car to use. And you want to know if you can force them to keep paying you £2k+ per week?
Surely that's not what you're meaning?
I'd say you've done quite well out of the deal so far; why do you think you're entitled to £300 per day until your car is repaired?
PorkInsider said:
So with what they're offering you'll have had £10k off them in lieu of a hire car you don't need?
And you want to know if you can force them to keep paying you £2k+ per week?
Surely that's not what you're meaning?
Yes, I know it could sound excessive, but I am without my car through no fault of my own at a time when I would use it more than any other time and am also possibly going to be out of pocket by way more than this figure if I can't sell the car in the near future. And you want to know if you can force them to keep paying you £2k+ per week?
Surely that's not what you're meaning?
parabolica said:
That's how I read it; and OP is expecting a further £10.5k over the next 5 weeks despite having an alternative car to use.
I'd say you've done quite well out of the deal so far; why do you think you're entitled to £300 per day until your car is repaired?
Should it actually matter if someone has another car or not?I'd say you've done quite well out of the deal so far; why do you think you're entitled to £300 per day until your car is repaired?
Its compensation for the loss of a vehicle for the time it takes to get fixed?
If they only have 1-2 approved workshops and this causes the fix time to increase is that the OPs fault?
Lets play this one to the extreme and the vehicle is going to be off the road for a year due to an unavailable part. Should OP be happy with a £5000 payment?
orbtar said:
Someone crashed into my car last month while it was parked in a street, the other driver admitted liability straight away. I arranged for the car to be collected etc through the manufacturer Assistance phone line. Next I called my insurance company who passed me across to their appointed Claims management company and spoke about organising a replacement car to use while mine was off the road. In the meantime I was called several times by the other party insurance company, they were desperate for me to arrange with them to repair my car and for them to provide me with a hire car citing the benefits being it will help keep costs down and that I wouldn't have to sign any credit agreements etc which I was going to have to do if using my own insurer.To cut a long story short, I wasn't keen on the cars which they were offering as a replacement (which were going to cost them about £510 per day) they then offered to pay me £300 per day instead of providing a car. As I have another car to use I decided to go with this, my damaged car went to the Manufacturer Authorised Repairer (1 of only 2 in the country) and the damage was estimated to be approx £20-25k and they have agreed to pay this.
The first two weeks I received payments of £2,100 and £2,700 in lieu of a hire car, they then approached me and said they were going to make a final payment of £5,000 which was not negotiable and started to say that I didn't need a car as I have others and described the payments I have had as being 'for loss of enjoyment' rather than 'in lieu of a hire car'. Where do I stand legally? I feel that they owe me for the agreed £300 per day up until my car is ready (which could be between 2 - 5 weeks from now).
Quoted for posterity.The first two weeks I received payments of £2,100 and £2,700 in lieu of a hire car, they then approached me and said they were going to make a final payment of £5,000 which was not negotiable and started to say that I didn't need a car as I have others and described the payments I have had as being 'for loss of enjoyment' rather than 'in lieu of a hire car'. Where do I stand legally? I feel that they owe me for the agreed £300 per day up until my car is ready (which could be between 2 - 5 weeks from now).
meatballs said:
Should it actually matter if someone has another car or not?
Its compensation for the loss of a vehicle for the time it takes to get fixed?
If they only have 1-2 approved workshops and this causes the fix time to increase is that the OPs fault?
Lets play this one to the extreme and the vehicle is going to be off the road for a year due to an unavailable part. Should OP be happy with a £5000 payment?
Thank you. Its compensation for the loss of a vehicle for the time it takes to get fixed?
If they only have 1-2 approved workshops and this causes the fix time to increase is that the OPs fault?
Lets play this one to the extreme and the vehicle is going to be off the road for a year due to an unavailable part. Should OP be happy with a £5000 payment?
To put it into context, would someone be happy to agree to be paid £30 per day if their £30k car was off the road through no fault of their own and for the insurance company to then go back on it's word and offer them a fixed £500?
parabolica said:
That's how I read it; and OP is expecting a further £10.5k over the next 5 weeks despite having an alternative car to use.
I'd say you've done quite well out of the deal so far; why do you think you're entitled to £300 per day until your car is repaired?
Not just one - this is the list to pick from (if currently accurate) from his profile:I'd say you've done quite well out of the deal so far; why do you think you're entitled to £300 per day until your car is repaired?
2017/66 VW Golf ClubSport S
2016/16 McLaren 675LT
2017/67 McLaren720S
2017/17 LR Discovery First Edition
2016/16 RR A/B
2015/15 Range Rover SDV8 SE
2013/13 Mercedes AMG SLS Roadster
2017/17 BMW 530d M Sport Xdrive
1952 Jaguar XK120 OTS
1963 Alfa Romeo Giulietta Spider
1973 Alfa Romeo GTV
1973 Ford Transit van Mk1
Jaguar XJ-S V12 manual 1976/7 x 3
Jaguar XJ-S V12. 1975 N reg
Dependent on replies tomorrow, i can see this thread ending up on the Legendary Threads wiki
orbtar said:
Someone crashed into my car last month while it was parked in a street, the other driver admitted liability straight away. I arranged for the car to be collected etc through the manufacturer Assistance phone line. Next I called my insurance company who passed me across to their appointed Claims management company and spoke about organising a replacement car to use while mine was off the road. In the meantime I was called several times by the other party insurance company, they were desperate for me to arrange with them to repair my car and for them to provide me with a hire car citing the benefits being it will help keep costs down and that I wouldn't have to sign any credit agreements etc which I was going to have to do if using my own insurer.To cut a long story short, I wasn't keen on the cars which they were offering as a replacement (which were going to cost them about £510 per day) they then offered to pay me £300 per day instead of providing a car. As I have another car to use I decided to go with this, my damaged car went to the Manufacturer Authorised Repairer (1 of only 2 in the country) and the damage was estimated to be approx £20-25k and they have agreed to pay this.
The first two weeks I received payments of £2,100 and £2,700 in lieu of a hire car, they then approached me and said they were going to make a final payment of £5,000 which was not negotiable and started to say that I didn't need a car as I have others and described the payments I have had as being 'for loss of enjoyment' rather than 'in lieu of a hire car'. Where do I stand legally? I feel that they owe me for the agreed £300 per day up until my car is ready (which could be between 2 - 5 weeks from now).
No wonder peoples premiums cost so much. Madness!The first two weeks I received payments of £2,100 and £2,700 in lieu of a hire car, they then approached me and said they were going to make a final payment of £5,000 which was not negotiable and started to say that I didn't need a car as I have others and described the payments I have had as being 'for loss of enjoyment' rather than 'in lieu of a hire car'. Where do I stand legally? I feel that they owe me for the agreed £300 per day up until my car is ready (which could be between 2 - 5 weeks from now).
I kind of get the OPs point - if he owns car X and it's a special kind of car, which is damaged through no fault of his own - then using his daily Ford Fiesta isn't quite the same. So some level of compensation doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.
On the other hand - I'd say he's already had reasonable compensation - and if that list is really his current list of cars, then it does sound like he's taking the piss somewhat. Even if they hit one of the McLarens, it seems like he has another he could use!
On the other hand - I'd say he's already had reasonable compensation - and if that list is really his current list of cars, then it does sound like he's taking the piss somewhat. Even if they hit one of the McLarens, it seems like he has another he could use!
davek_964 said:
On the other hand - I'd say he's already had reasonable compensation - and if that list is really his current list of cars, then it does sound like he's taking the piss somewhat. Even if they hit one of the McLarens, it seems like he has another he could use!
Well if he has another one he can use it's ok, they shouldn't even bother repairing it.meatballs said:
davek_964 said:
On the other hand - I'd say he's already had reasonable compensation - and if that list is really his current list of cars, then it does sound like he's taking the piss somewhat. Even if they hit one of the McLarens, it seems like he has another he could use!
Well if he has another one he can use it's ok, they shouldn't even bother repairing it.For what it's worth - I had a non-fault accident almost a year ago. It meant my Ferrari was off the road for about a month. I have other cars - but nothing close to the Ferrari - but I declined the courtesy car, since it wasn't necessary - even though it was frustrating not having it on sunny days.
Mr Tidy said:
No wonder insurance is so expensive! 
As we've seen on other threads, it's not. For most of us, it's dirt cheap.Regardless of the rights and wrongs in this case, I think the key words in the first post are "they then offered to pay me £300 per day instead of providing a car."
It would appear they entered into an agreement. They now wish to go back on that agreement. That's not on. If you enter into an agreement you later regret entering into, you have to stick with it, or negotiate a mutually acceptable way out. You can't just unilaterally call a halt to it.
davek_964 said:
Yep - go to extremes. That's exactly what I said.
For what it's worth - I had a non-fault accident almost a year ago. It meant my Ferrari was off the road for about a month. I have other cars - but nothing close to the Ferrari - but I declined the courtesy car, since it wasn't necessary - even though it was frustrating not having it on sunny days.
That's awfully nice of you For what it's worth - I had a non-fault accident almost a year ago. It meant my Ferrari was off the road for about a month. I have other cars - but nothing close to the Ferrari - but I declined the courtesy car, since it wasn't necessary - even though it was frustrating not having it on sunny days.
did you get a discount on your next premium?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
As we've seen on other threads, it's not. For most of us, it's dirt cheap.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs in this case, I think the key words in the first post are "they then offered to pay me £300 per day instead of providing a car."
It would appear they entered into an agreement. They now wish to go back on that agreement. That's not on. If you enter into an agreement you later regret entering into, you have to stick with it, or negotiate a mutually acceptable way out. You can't just unilaterally call a halt to it.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs in this case, I think the key words in the first post are "they then offered to pay me £300 per day instead of providing a car."
It would appear they entered into an agreement. They now wish to go back on that agreement. That's not on. If you enter into an agreement you later regret entering into, you have to stick with it, or negotiate a mutually acceptable way out. You can't just unilaterally call a halt to it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
As we've seen on other threads, it's not. For most of us, it's dirt cheap.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs in this case, I think the key words in the first post are "they then offered to pay me £300 per day instead of providing a car."
It would appear they entered into an agreement. They now wish to go back on that agreement. That's not on. If you enter into an agreement you later regret entering into, you have to stick with it, or negotiate a mutually acceptable way out. You can't just unilaterally call a halt to it.
100% this.Regardless of the rights and wrongs in this case, I think the key words in the first post are "they then offered to pay me £300 per day instead of providing a car."
It would appear they entered into an agreement. They now wish to go back on that agreement. That's not on. If you enter into an agreement you later regret entering into, you have to stick with it, or negotiate a mutually acceptable way out. You can't just unilaterally call a halt to it.
The insurance company offered you £300 a day thinking it would be a quick repair. It isn't as it turns out and now they're balking at the idea of paying you any more. I'd be on the phone to them ASAP and asking what they're planning on doing for the remaining days.
Why should he keep getting the money? The insurers offered to pay him an amount so he could keep himself mobile. He already had other options available for that.
In this country we don’t have punitive damages or payouts for general upset. You need to quantify a loss and then you are entitled to it. If the OP doesn’t like what the insurer have done then he can take them to court and see if they agree with his side or not. I don’t think he’ll like the outcome though.
In this country we don’t have punitive damages or payouts for general upset. You need to quantify a loss and then you are entitled to it. If the OP doesn’t like what the insurer have done then he can take them to court and see if they agree with his side or not. I don’t think he’ll like the outcome though.
Lindun said:
Why should he keep getting the money? The insurers offered to pay him an amount so he could keep himself mobile. He already had other options available for that.
In this country we don’t have punitive damages or payouts for general upset. You need to quantify a loss and then you are entitled to it. If the OP doesn’t like what the insurer have done then he can take them to court and see if they agree with his side or not. I don’t think he’ll like the outcome though.
The insurance company offered him £300 a day. They didn’t have to but it’s cheaper than an accident management company. You can’t then just change your mind half way through. Not that’s it’s morally right but if there going back on their word and breaking a contract, then the OP might as well do the same and go get a car from the accident management company. Maybe that would focus the insurance companies mind to rethink its position. In this country we don’t have punitive damages or payouts for general upset. You need to quantify a loss and then you are entitled to it. If the OP doesn’t like what the insurer have done then he can take them to court and see if they agree with his side or not. I don’t think he’ll like the outcome though.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff