Insurance woes....
Discussion
hedgefinder said:
just report them to the financial services ombudsman.
"Consumers sometimes refuse to allow their vehicle to be repaired. Where we do not agree with a consumer in these circumstances, we usually say that:the consumer can retain the vehicle; and
the insurer should pay the consumer only the amount that the approved repairers have said the repairs would cost".
Which is exactly what they are doing.
But hey, report them anyway. Someone will be along to suggest insurers have to pay some ridiculously high figure for any spurious complaint.
The FOS are unlikely to uphold the decision not to write off, as it based on the repair costs (which you seem to think are too low, but maybe they just negotiate better with suppliers) being more than the PAV.
You also can't stay in your hire car for ever. Although it is a common enough occurrence not to want your car back.
Du1point8 said:
They are offering to give you the money that they say it would cost from their own repair company?
Good... give it to them to repair then with new parts if thats what they think it cost and know they can do it.
If you are not at fault and the other party is at fault, their insurance company has NO say in how its dealt with, its your choice to get the repair at a company you see fit and if the repair is not economical then they write it off at full price.
They are not allowed to dictate to you what you do as they are at fault.
(above is correct last time I looked)
Oh, go on. Provide the link to the thing you "last looked at" then. Or least name what it was. You know, the legal principle, or the law. Go on, amuse me Good... give it to them to repair then with new parts if thats what they think it cost and know they can do it.
If you are not at fault and the other party is at fault, their insurance company has NO say in how its dealt with, its your choice to get the repair at a company you see fit and if the repair is not economical then they write it off at full price.
They are not allowed to dictate to you what you do as they are at fault.
(above is correct last time I looked)
All that scene setting leads to the questions of delays.....
The only real way you are going to force the insurer to write the vehicle off is if it is the repairs that are delayed. I am somewhat confused by the comments about the 1 year repair to the door.
If the insurer can repair for less than the cost of the vehicle, pre accident, then they won't write it off. However, if it means undue delays in the repair of the vehicle, then they should write it off. But they are not going to do so merely because you don't want a repaired vehicle back.
So that would be the avenue of inquiry, you are going to have to show that a) the repairs they have suggested will not be acceptable b) that the door replacement WOULD be acceptable (in terms of quality) but that the delay is not. They would therefore have to write it off.
It sounds like THEY think YOU don't want it repaired, and are playing it by the book for that. You need to convince them that YOU want it repaired properly, but that they can't do it in time.
The only real way you are going to force the insurer to write the vehicle off is if it is the repairs that are delayed. I am somewhat confused by the comments about the 1 year repair to the door.
If the insurer can repair for less than the cost of the vehicle, pre accident, then they won't write it off. However, if it means undue delays in the repair of the vehicle, then they should write it off. But they are not going to do so merely because you don't want a repaired vehicle back.
So that would be the avenue of inquiry, you are going to have to show that a) the repairs they have suggested will not be acceptable b) that the door replacement WOULD be acceptable (in terms of quality) but that the delay is not. They would therefore have to write it off.
It sounds like THEY think YOU don't want it repaired, and are playing it by the book for that. You need to convince them that YOU want it repaired properly, but that they can't do it in time.
Noger said:
Du1point8 said:
They are offering to give you the money that they say it would cost from their own repair company?
Good... give it to them to repair then with new parts if thats what they think it cost and know they can do it.
If you are not at fault and the other party is at fault, their insurance company has NO say in how its dealt with, its your choice to get the repair at a company you see fit and if the repair is not economical then they write it off at full price.
They are not allowed to dictate to you what you do as they are at fault.
(above is correct last time I looked)
Oh, go on. Provide the link to the thing you "last looked at" then. Or least name what it was. You know, the legal principle, or the law. Go on, amuse me Good... give it to them to repair then with new parts if thats what they think it cost and know they can do it.
If you are not at fault and the other party is at fault, their insurance company has NO say in how its dealt with, its your choice to get the repair at a company you see fit and if the repair is not economical then they write it off at full price.
They are not allowed to dictate to you what you do as they are at fault.
(above is correct last time I looked)
Du1point8 said:
Last time I saw it, it was an FSA and ABI release in sometime in 2009... On the consumers rights to choose the repair centre...
Oh I see. And you think that having the right to choose a repair centre means that you can get your vehicle repaired whatever the cost ? If you car is worth £5000, and it is going to cost £10,000 to repair, your loss is £5,000. Taking it to your "repairer of choice" and demanding £10,000 isn't going to work.
BarringtonBrown said:
If only it was that easy! IIRC the Ombudsman only deals with complaints after quite a lengthy period of time - I want to get this wrapped up sharpish.
I did one this morning on a month old claim that wasn't being dealt with to my satisfaction. No problem.I was pleasantly surprised how helpful/professional the FOS were in dealing with it.
Noger said:
Du1point8 said:
Last time I saw it, it was an FSA and ABI release in sometime in 2009... On the consumers rights to choose the repair centre...
Oh I see. And you think that having the right to choose a repair centre means that you can get your vehicle repaired whatever the cost ? If you car is worth £5000, and it is going to cost £10,000 to repair, your loss is £5,000. Taking it to your "repairer of choice" and demanding £10,000 isn't going to work.
The insurance tell him it should cost X amount, even though they cant get the parts anymore, so therefore they offer him only X amount and tell him to repair it himself.
Therefore he should be able to turn round and say, if you dont write it off and give me the proper amount, my guy can do it for X+Y amount and then go from there.
If you had a pristine MGB that you had restored for £20k and was only worth £12k, someone crashes into it and to its now going to cost £20k to get it right again, why cant you get them to restore it again? People who restore cars dont always do it for the money and in this case the owner would only get £12k maybe, then have to fund another restoration using his own money... thats not making someone whole again is it.
Du1point8 said:
If you had a pristine MGB that you had restored for £20k and was only worth £12k, someone crashes into it and to its now going to cost £20k to get it right again, why cant you get them to restore it again? People who restore cars dont always do it for the money and in this case the owner would only get £12k maybe, then have to fund another restoration using his own money... thats not making someone whole again is it.
I will be interested to hear how an insurance company might respond to this, and what could be done to force them to up their initial derisory offer to a reasonable level.Because that isn't how it works.
You had an asset worth £12,000. If you lose it, you lose £12,000. The fact you spent £20,000 restoring a £12,000 car is your problem. You lost yourself the £8000.
That is the point of the insurer (as they are legally allowed to do) "declaring a total loss" and paying out on the loss value.
Goes back to Marine insurance, if you lost £100,000 of cargo over the side in a gale in the north atlantic, the insurer (by virtue of the 1096 Marine Insurance act) is able to decalre it "totally lost" and give you the £100k. Not mount a massive expedition to get it back from Davey Jone's locker.
Same with cars. Annoying. But true.
You had an asset worth £12,000. If you lose it, you lose £12,000. The fact you spent £20,000 restoring a £12,000 car is your problem. You lost yourself the £8000.
That is the point of the insurer (as they are legally allowed to do) "declaring a total loss" and paying out on the loss value.
Goes back to Marine insurance, if you lost £100,000 of cargo over the side in a gale in the north atlantic, the insurer (by virtue of the 1096 Marine Insurance act) is able to decalre it "totally lost" and give you the £100k. Not mount a massive expedition to get it back from Davey Jone's locker.
Same with cars. Annoying. But true.
Noger said:
Because that isn't how it works.
You had an asset worth £12,000. If you lose it, you lose £12,000. The fact you spent £20,000 restoring a £12,000 car is your problem. You lost yourself the £8000.
That is the point of the insurer (as they are legally allowed to do) "declaring a total loss" and paying out on the loss value.
Goes back to Marine insurance, if you lost £100,000 of cargo over the side in a gale in the north atlantic, the insurer (by virtue of the 1096 Marine Insurance act) is able to decalre it "totally lost" and give you the £100k. Not mount a massive expedition to get it back from Davey Jone's locker.
Same with cars. Annoying. But true.
but isn't that how it works if its your fault... not if its someone else's, if someone else's fault then you can ask them to repair the car to previous condition.You had an asset worth £12,000. If you lose it, you lose £12,000. The fact you spent £20,000 restoring a £12,000 car is your problem. You lost yourself the £8000.
That is the point of the insurer (as they are legally allowed to do) "declaring a total loss" and paying out on the loss value.
Goes back to Marine insurance, if you lost £100,000 of cargo over the side in a gale in the north atlantic, the insurer (by virtue of the 1096 Marine Insurance act) is able to decalre it "totally lost" and give you the £100k. Not mount a massive expedition to get it back from Davey Jone's locker.
Same with cars. Annoying. But true.
I understand if its your claim then they go off the agreed value, but its not your insurance, therefore why should you suffer.
singlecoil said:
Du1point8 said:
If you had a pristine MGB that you had restored for £20k and was only worth £12k, someone crashes into it and to its now going to cost £20k to get it right again, why cant you get them to restore it again? People who restore cars dont always do it for the money and in this case the owner would only get £12k maybe, then have to fund another restoration using his own money... thats not making someone whole again is it.
I will be interested to hear how an insurance company might respond to this, and what could be done to force them to up their initial derisory offer to a reasonable level.Buy a policy off GoCo and you won't get that. You will get pre accident value. Bad luck.
LoonR1 said:
Sorry but I call bull on this. The insurer will either repair it or write it off if they can't source parts.
It is that simple. Are you complicating matters by demanding it is repaired? If so they are well within their rights to take you out of hire. A like for like hire car is not a courtesy car btw.
I've been asking them to write it off as they've been saying that 'while the vehicle isn't unrepairable, we can't get the parts to do so'.It is that simple. Are you complicating matters by demanding it is repaired? If so they are well within their rights to take you out of hire. A like for like hire car is not a courtesy car btw.
Noger said:
"Consumers sometimes refuse to allow their vehicle to be repaired. Where we do not agree with a consumer in these circumstances, we usually say that:
the consumer can retain the vehicle; and
the insurer should pay the consumer only the amount that the approved repairers have said the repairs would cost".
Which is exactly what they are doing.
It's the insurance company that has been refusing to repair the vehicle.the consumer can retain the vehicle; and
the insurer should pay the consumer only the amount that the approved repairers have said the repairs would cost".
Which is exactly what they are doing.
In regards to my repairer of choice - I don't have one, and haven't looked for one. I don't have a guy that I can just take the car to and say 'fix it and send me/[insurance co] the bill'.
I was quite happy for the insurers approved repairer to have it sorted (which is where the vehicle is now) until they said they can't do so as a result of the door issue.
In short, the insurance company is stating either:
- take the settlement figure (1/3 of vehicles market value) and vehicle. Have it repaired yourself.
- leave the vehicle with the insurance approved garage for a year (or until a new door is available).
BarringtonBrown said:
LoonR1 said:
Sorry but I call bull on this. The insurer will either repair it or write it off if they can't source parts.
It is that simple. Are you complicating matters by demanding it is repaired? If so they are well within their rights to take you out of hire. A like for like hire car is not a courtesy car btw.
I've been asking them to write it off as they've been saying that 'while the vehicle isn't unrepairable, we can't get the parts to do so'.It is that simple. Are you complicating matters by demanding it is repaired? If so they are well within their rights to take you out of hire. A like for like hire car is not a courtesy car btw.
Noger said:
"Consumers sometimes refuse to allow their vehicle to be repaired. Where we do not agree with a consumer in these circumstances, we usually say that:
the consumer can retain the vehicle; and
the insurer should pay the consumer only the amount that the approved repairers have said the repairs would cost".
Which is exactly what they are doing.
It's the insurance company that has been refusing to repair the vehicle.the consumer can retain the vehicle; and
the insurer should pay the consumer only the amount that the approved repairers have said the repairs would cost".
Which is exactly what they are doing.
In regards to my repairer of choice - I don't have one, and haven't looked for one. I don't have a guy that I can just take the car to and say 'fix it and send me/[insurance co] the bill'.
I was quite happy for the insurers approved repairer to have it sorted (which is where the vehicle is now) until they said they can't do so as a result of the door issue.
In short, the insurance company is stating either:
- take the settlement figure (1/3 of vehicles market value) and vehicle. Have it repaired yourself.
- leave the vehicle with the insurance approved garage for a year (or until a new door is available).
Your insurance may not have it included, but that really doesnt matter when its not your fault, therefore the other insurer pays so you are not inconvenienced (yes I know they are one and the same).
Du1point8 said:
get them to get you a loan car in the meantime whilst they fix this.
Your insurance may not have it included, but that really doesnt matter when its not your fault, therefore the other insurer pays so you are not inconvenienced (yes I know they are one and the same).
I've got a loan car at the moment which they're demanding back. It's not a like-for-like (~250bhp less), but the cheapest they could get and fine for tooling around in.Your insurance may not have it included, but that really doesnt matter when its not your fault, therefore the other insurer pays so you are not inconvenienced (yes I know they are one and the same).
Du1point8 said:
but isn't that how it works if its your fault... not if its someone else's, if someone else's fault then you can ask them to repair the car to previous condition.
I understand if its your claim then they go off the agreed value, but its not your insurance, therefore why should you suffer.
In the vast majority of cases, that isn't true. The precedent was sent in Darbyshire vs Warren that the claimant cannot recover more than the pre-accident value if the repair values exceed that value. I understand if its your claim then they go off the agreed value, but its not your insurance, therefore why should you suffer.
There are very limited circumstances in which that isn't followed, maybe a unique vehicle. See o"Grady vs Westimnster Scaffolding.
I'm baffled. Have I got this right? The car needs new doors, these doors are no longer manufactured? Or are they on back order? Is this a classic car or a modern but obsolete vehicle?
My repair centres can fix pretty well anything so they must be a right mess. If so can you source any used but serviceable doors?
Do you want the car back or do you want it written off?
I know the insurer is the same company on both sides which is actually irrelevant but are you dealing with your insured policy or trying to fix it with the TPs policy?
Your insurer will not just randomly offer a cash in lieu settlement unless you've specifically requested it.
My repair centres can fix pretty well anything so they must be a right mess. If so can you source any used but serviceable doors?
Do you want the car back or do you want it written off?
I know the insurer is the same company on both sides which is actually irrelevant but are you dealing with your insured policy or trying to fix it with the TPs policy?
Your insurer will not just randomly offer a cash in lieu settlement unless you've specifically requested it.
A lot of this doesn't make much sense.
The insurance approved repairers have given a quote despite the fact they're refusing to carry out the repairs....
The quote is apparently less than the cost of two doors alone (was their quote based on two new doors being supplied? Does OP have itemised breakdown? Have insurance company made a boo-boo and taken a quote their repairers have given them, with them as the customer, i.e heavily discounted trade prices on parts & labour less VAT and passed that along without adjustment?)
The insurance approved repairers have given a quote despite the fact they're refusing to carry out the repairs....
The quote is apparently less than the cost of two doors alone (was their quote based on two new doors being supplied? Does OP have itemised breakdown? Have insurance company made a boo-boo and taken a quote their repairers have given them, with them as the customer, i.e heavily discounted trade prices on parts & labour less VAT and passed that along without adjustment?)
Speed Matters | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff