Solicitor recommendation / advice
Discussion
Morning gents,
Would anyone be so kind as to recommend a solicitor who deals with insurance problems?
I've got myself into a bit of hot water regarding a credit hire vehicle following an accident.
I had an accident that I believed was not my fault at a junction and my (cheap) car was written off. I received a hire car through one of these accident management companies with indemnity insurance. It emerged that I wasn't as blameless as I had believed (I crept through a stop sign I hadn't noticed) and so the accident management company have cancelled the indemnity insurance and are coming after me for 4 grand (5 weeks car hire) cos they said I misled them. Whereas I say I didn't and believed myself to be the innocent party until 3rd party dashcam footage emerged.
I've talked to one solicitor who want 800 quid up front for an 'initial assessment'. £150 +VAT per hour!
So I'm after talking to a solicitor who's a little more reasonably priced.
Many thanks for the time you've taken to read this.
Would anyone be so kind as to recommend a solicitor who deals with insurance problems?
I've got myself into a bit of hot water regarding a credit hire vehicle following an accident.
I had an accident that I believed was not my fault at a junction and my (cheap) car was written off. I received a hire car through one of these accident management companies with indemnity insurance. It emerged that I wasn't as blameless as I had believed (I crept through a stop sign I hadn't noticed) and so the accident management company have cancelled the indemnity insurance and are coming after me for 4 grand (5 weeks car hire) cos they said I misled them. Whereas I say I didn't and believed myself to be the innocent party until 3rd party dashcam footage emerged.
I've talked to one solicitor who want 800 quid up front for an 'initial assessment'. £150 +VAT per hour!
So I'm after talking to a solicitor who's a little more reasonably priced.
Many thanks for the time you've taken to read this.
I don't know any solicitors I'm afraid but I am sorry to read your story. From reading your post and others I've seen It does seem like these companies are a scourge that should be stamped out. There is no world in which anyone should be paying that sort of money to hire a modest vehicle for a few weeks -a substantial proportion of the total value of the hire vehicle - whichever side is "found liable" for the bill ultimately.
Sorry I can't be of more help
Mike
Sorry I can't be of more help
Mike
No idea whether this has bearing on your situation but found it googling
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/lost-27k-credit-...
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/lost-27k-credit-...
Thanks for the replies so far.
Presumably, they'll take me to the small claims court. Which might be worth it, presenting my case and getting the magistrate to decide that my statement was made in good faith and to the best of my knowledge at the time and that the indemnity insurance should be reinstated.
As I was shaken up after the accident, I feel that I was hoodwinked into going with this accident management company, believing them to be part of my insurers.
They also failed in their duty of care (on the day of the accident) by not making sure I understood the ramifications of the removal of the indemnity insurance.
I also was given no choice in the vehicle / tariff which was (arguably) a "prestige" brand (BMW X1).
They also should have made sure I was fully aware of the daily cost of the vehicle.
Yes, I did unfortunately sign a document stating how much it was, but like I said, I was shaken up and nervous and not thinking clearly.
And of course, believing myself to be in the right.
Presumably, they'll take me to the small claims court. Which might be worth it, presenting my case and getting the magistrate to decide that my statement was made in good faith and to the best of my knowledge at the time and that the indemnity insurance should be reinstated.
As I was shaken up after the accident, I feel that I was hoodwinked into going with this accident management company, believing them to be part of my insurers.
They also failed in their duty of care (on the day of the accident) by not making sure I understood the ramifications of the removal of the indemnity insurance.
I also was given no choice in the vehicle / tariff which was (arguably) a "prestige" brand (BMW X1).
They also should have made sure I was fully aware of the daily cost of the vehicle.
Yes, I did unfortunately sign a document stating how much it was, but like I said, I was shaken up and nervous and not thinking clearly.
And of course, believing myself to be in the right.
I had a definite non fault accident a few years ago in my daily 3 series , my hire car turned up and I was in it for 6 weeks
It was a CLS 350d with 12 miles on the odo and the invoice was £16,400 back to the insurers.
This is a murky business and some people are getting pretty rich out of it very unnecessarily.
Had it not been clear cut I’d have insisted the car was procured direct by my insurer not the third party company that contacted me.
It was a CLS 350d with 12 miles on the odo and the invoice was £16,400 back to the insurers.
This is a murky business and some people are getting pretty rich out of it very unnecessarily.
Had it not been clear cut I’d have insisted the car was procured direct by my insurer not the third party company that contacted me.
NewUsername said:
I had a definite non fault accident a few years ago in my daily 3 series , my hire car turned up and I was in it for 6 weeks
It was a CLS 350d with 12 miles on the odo and the invoice was £16,400 back to the insurers.
This is a murky business and some people are getting pretty rich out of it very unnecessarily.
Had it not been clear cut I’d have insisted the car was procured direct by my insurer not the third party company that contacted me.
If it was clear cut, why did you use one of these firms?It was a CLS 350d with 12 miles on the odo and the invoice was £16,400 back to the insurers.
This is a murky business and some people are getting pretty rich out of it very unnecessarily.
Had it not been clear cut I’d have insisted the car was procured direct by my insurer not the third party company that contacted me.
As op said, 3rd party dash cam footage has emerged which contradicts the account he gave to the accident management company.
Accident claims companies are seeking to represent non fault/debatable fault clients.
So the contract op has signed will say along the lines of "if you have not been honest with us then you may be liable for the car we lend you".
So depends on how damning this footage is.
But regardless, their hire costs are grossly inflated and if a solicitor says contract is valid, negotiate.
For anyone reading, best not to get in bed with these firms. If they don't have clients, they don't exist.
If you have a non fault accident, you can deal with the other parties insurer by yourself. Or via your own insurer.
Good luck OP.
Accident claims companies are seeking to represent non fault/debatable fault clients.
So the contract op has signed will say along the lines of "if you have not been honest with us then you may be liable for the car we lend you".
So depends on how damning this footage is.
But regardless, their hire costs are grossly inflated and if a solicitor says contract is valid, negotiate.
For anyone reading, best not to get in bed with these firms. If they don't have clients, they don't exist.
If you have a non fault accident, you can deal with the other parties insurer by yourself. Or via your own insurer.
Good luck OP.
Edited by hyphen on Sunday 17th May 13:09
The footage simply shows me driving (at about 10mph) past the stop sign and then the lady pulls into my path (having failed to check to the right for traffic). It's her dashcam. If I had stopped at the stop sign, the accident would have been avoided.
However, I have checked the T&C's and I might be up a certain creek without a certain instrument. Deep in the T&C's is a sentence "wilfully or negligently prejudices the Third Party Claim" so they will probably argue that I was negligent in failing to notice the stop sign.
Guess I'll have to (justifiably) plead poverty and ask for the 4k to be reduced!
However, I have checked the T&C's and I might be up a certain creek without a certain instrument. Deep in the T&C's is a sentence "wilfully or negligently prejudices the Third Party Claim" so they will probably argue that I was negligent in failing to notice the stop sign.
Guess I'll have to (justifiably) plead poverty and ask for the 4k to be reduced!
hyphen said:
If it was clear cut, why did you use one of these firms?
They contacted me and informed me it it was non fault they’d been instructed to handle it on behalf of my insurer at no cost to me. Which is true, however had it been in any doubt over the claim I’d have declined at the point it was explained I’d be liable and reverted to dealing direct with insurer.I wasn’t going to grumble about what they gave me 😂
ebaymoon said:
The footage simply shows me driving (at about 10mph) past the stop sign and then the lady pulls into my path (having failed to check to the right for traffic). It's her dashcam. If I had stopped at the stop sign, the accident would have been avoided.
However, I have checked the T&C's and I might be up a certain creek without a certain instrument. Deep in the T&C's is a sentence "wilfully or negligently prejudices the Third Party Claim" so they will probably argue that I was negligent in failing to notice the stop sign.
Guess I'll have to (justifiably) plead poverty and ask for the 4k to be reduced!
If you had stopped,no accident, but equally sounds like maybe if she had looked, also no accident. Could be split liability.However, I have checked the T&C's and I might be up a certain creek without a certain instrument. Deep in the T&C's is a sentence "wilfully or negligently prejudices the Third Party Claim" so they will probably argue that I was negligent in failing to notice the stop sign.
Guess I'll have to (justifiably) plead poverty and ask for the 4k to be reduced!
I think the wilful or negligent bit may refer to the actual claim being made,eg admitting liability without checking with them,or not going to court,not cooperating etc, will depend on the wording
ebaymoon said:
I had an accident that I believed was not my fault at a junction and my (cheap) car was written off. I received a hire car through one of these accident management companies with indemnity insurance. It emerged that I wasn't as blameless as I had believed (I crept through a stop sign I hadn't noticed) and so the accident management company have cancelled the indemnity insurance and are coming after me for 4 grand (5 weeks car hire) cos they said I misled them. Whereas I say I didn't and believed myself to be the innocent party until 3rd party dashcam footage emerged.
Accident management companies and credit hire operators are the scum of the earth, and deeply corrupt. They are parasites that should have been killed off years ago.However, all may not be lost. Firstly, the agreement you signed will be subject to the unfair contract provisions in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, so any term that is unfair may simply be illegal and unenforceable.
Secondly, these companies are subject to regulation by a division of the Financial Ombudsman, so you can complain to them - https://cmc.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/
If you genuinely believed you weren't at fault when you took the hire car then it's certainly arguable that you should not be held liable. The FoS has a fairly good track record of supporting consumers against scam merchants like this, and they can find in your favour even if in strict legal terms you were in the wrong.
So you've nothing to lose by filing a complaint, though I think you may have to go through the CMC's complaints procedure first.
First of all, that's the kind of going rate for a solicitor. Have you ever instructed a solicitor before? How do you know what is reasonable or not? If the solicitor can "nip it in the bud" for a grand (which they won't) you'd still have to pay their fees which would bring the total cost of the whole episode to near £4k anyway.
How did you originally portray the accident circumstances to the hire company? How did you make out that you were not at fault for the accident? Surely it was your fault. You admit going through a STOP sign and proceeding into the path of the third parties correctly proceeding vehicle. Surely fault lies totally with you? If you would have stopped at the STOP sign, the accident wouldn't have occurred.
I don't think there is any way you can get out of the hire contract. You misrepresented the accident circumstances to the hire company to mislead them into holding a reasonable belief that you were not at fault for the accident on the back of that, they gave you a hire vehicle.
Now there is solid evidence on the form of the dash cam footage which supports the third party. If this proceeded to a final trial in liability in Court, how were you ever going to put across your evidence to make out that you were not at fault?
How did you originally portray the accident circumstances to the hire company? How did you make out that you were not at fault for the accident? Surely it was your fault. You admit going through a STOP sign and proceeding into the path of the third parties correctly proceeding vehicle. Surely fault lies totally with you? If you would have stopped at the STOP sign, the accident wouldn't have occurred.
I don't think there is any way you can get out of the hire contract. You misrepresented the accident circumstances to the hire company to mislead them into holding a reasonable belief that you were not at fault for the accident on the back of that, they gave you a hire vehicle.
Now there is solid evidence on the form of the dash cam footage which supports the third party. If this proceeded to a final trial in liability in Court, how were you ever going to put across your evidence to make out that you were not at fault?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff