Non fault claim - courtesy car?

[benz0]

Hi all,

Was on holiday in UK and a drunk UK driver wrote my non UK car off.

Other driver has admitted liability.

Initially their insurer said they couldn't arrange a courtesy car in my EU country because they're uk based and i would have to pay for it myself and claim it back (no way). They've now appointed an overseas agent to handle the claim and the agent doesn't know the UK law re. entitlement to a courtesy car. The agent thinks im entitled to a car for just 3 or 4 days and asked me to provide chapter and verse on uk situation for a courtesy car.

My understanding is that as the other driver admitted liability, they are liable to restore me to the position i was in prior to the accident. This includes providing a courtesy car until the claim is settled and for X days after it is paid,
plus daily compensation (how much?) for loss of utility of the vehicle for each day until the courtesy car is provided.

However, i can't find chapter and verse on this. I've seen it said many times on here, but i need an authoritative source spelling out those rights. Can anyone help provide an authoritative source on this?

I plan to spell out my rights in this regard to the agent, and insist that they a) compensate me for loss of vehicle up until they provide an equivalent courtesy car, and b) provide an equivalent courtesy car until the claim is paid out and for X days after that. I will tell them (copying the insurer) that if they don't arrange it within 3 days i will approach a credit hire company to arrange it (i really, really don't want to go near one).

Edited by benz0 on Tuesday 15th August 12:45

[eatcustard]

Hire car comes from your insurance and they get the money back from the 3rd party (I think)

[surveyor_101]

Not the case.


In UK we have a credit hire issue with firms once drivers have a fairly cut and dry case on the 3rd party admits liability they provide expensive hire cars at vastly inflated sums in many cases. Some 3rd party insurers pay for these within reason BUT if the costs claimed are really silly and the period of hire goes on for weeks and months some insurers have been known to push back.

You will find that most companies have a clause stating if they can't recover the costs from the insurers they will from the hirer (you)!

So be careful as I have heard of people being hit with large bills that can't be recovered from the insurers.

Courtesy cars from insurers tend to be provided by body shops if your car has work and will be a basic Aygo or something like that.

Credit hire firms will try and put you in the nearest most expensive car to yours. So you drive a vauxhall insignia bang, you now have 3 series bmw.

Edited by surveyor_101 on Tuesday 15th August 12:57

[benz0]

Thanks both but i don't believe either of your posts are fully correct.

Everything that i have read seems to corroborate the principle that you are entitled to replacement transport, but that you have a duty to mitigate your losses, i.e. not take the piss (as indicated above some credit hire companies have been found to be doing so)

[Thermobaric]

This is something I have been wondering about recently.

Some people work hard (or not in some cases) to be able to drive expensive cars. If due to no fault of your own, it is off the road for repairs, should the courtesy car fully reflect the car it is temporarily replacing? How specific can you be? Can you demand a loaner Aston, 911, whatever? Or is it expected you don't take the piss and put up with a luxury German saloon for example?

[herewego]

People can recognise that accidents happen and behave reasonably or they can feel a strong sense of entitlement, stamp their little feet and demand all sorts of things. Whether the judge will eventually agree is another thing.

[surveyor_101]

benz0 said:

Thanks both but i don't believe either of your posts are fully correct.

Everything that i have read seems to corroborate the principle that you are entitled to replacement transport, but that you have a duty to mitigate your losses, i.e. not take the piss (as indicated above some credit hire companies have been found to be doing so)

Why do you think some insurers offer loan car cover so you don't have this and can get a car when the claim is your fault.


If you insurance supply a car then there should be no argument, this issue comes with credit insurance suppliers.


It depends on insurer and how hard they fight the cost but if its credit hire they tend to let the costs get too high.

Its not set in stone, if you cars written off you will struggle to get the costs back if the cars not from your insurer or the garage repairing your car.

[NDA]

surveyor_101 said:

Its not set in stone, if you cars written off you will struggle to get the costs back if the cars not from your insurer or the garage repairing your car.

Or you go to court to win your costs.

Courts tend to favour 'what is reasonable' and it would be entirely reasonable for the OP to hire a car and to do this in a reasonable way whilst working to mitigate costs.

It very much depends on the appetite for a fight.

[anonymous-user]

Thermobaric said:

Some people work hard (or not in some cases) to be able to drive expensive cars. If due to no fault of your own, it is off the road for repairs, should the courtesy car fully reflect the car it is temporarily replacing? How specific can you be? Can you demand a loaner Aston, 911, whatever? Or is it expected you don't take the piss and put up with a luxury German saloon for example?

So if I drive a rusty old W210 E-class, should I expect a shiny new 'equivalent' as a courtesy car?

[Thermobaric]

280E said:

So if I drive a rusty old W210 E-class, should I expect a shiny new 'equivalent' as a courtesy car?

Exactly. It's a can of worms really. Where are lines drawn e.t.c. I guess it comes down to how laid back you are. I was just intrigued as to others thoughts.

[benz0]

Update: At fault's insurer has agreed to pay X per day for the hire car.

Does anyone know what I can reasonably claim for loss of use of the vehicle up until the car is arranged?

[kiethton]

valid expenses is fair in my book, anything more is profiteering

Keep hold of bus/taxi/train fare receipts for the period that your without a car and submit them as uninsured losses.

[benz0]

kiethton said:

valid expenses is fair in my book, anything more is profiteering

Keep hold of bus/taxi/train fare receipts for the period that your without a car and submit them as uninsured losses.

is that just your opinion or is it based on anything more e.g. expertise, precedent, etc?

I've been massively inconvenienced and am putting off a lot of trips and activities due to being deprived of a vehicle.

I've lost days of my own time trying to figure this all out which I won't get back. It's not profiteering, I'd much rather still have my vehicle.

[surveyor_101]

benz0 said:

Update: At fault's insurer has agreed to pay X per day for the hire car.

Does anyone know what I can reasonably claim for loss of use of the vehicle up until the car is arranged?

You would have to prove out of pocket expenses, my advice would be get cheapest hire car that suits your needs.

I am not aware of people being able to claim money for not having a car and not travelling. You would need to show receipts for taxi/buses etc as already said.

You can try and claim whatever the daily rate of the hire car is i guess. In a case were the car is written off it should be fairly straight forward to you insurer to pay out for your car and then claim it back off the driver in the Uks insurance. Why can this not happen?


What you should be doing ideally is buying a replacement car if you can prior to your pay out.

I was hit by a Royalmail van years ago and my car written off and RAC Legal Cover couldn't get a bean for loss of use for the 2 months I was without a car.

I was 19 at the time and couldn't afford a new car until the payout.

We did have a very knowledgeable insurance person but they and the mods didn't see eye-to-eye and he was banned. In cases like this they were invaluable.