Hire car after crash where liability is likely to be dispute

[JQ]

My son crashed his car last night - car on his inside he was overtaking tried to change lanes without checking it was clear first. The other car was a taxi who they tried to leave the scene. Taxi has little damage but sons car is written off. No independent witnesses were secured and after spending too long on PH I'm acutely aware that the Taxi driver's version of events is likely to differ from reality once the insurance co.'s get involved.

However, son has received a call from Enterprise this morning offering him a hire car - presumably they got details from the company who got his car off the motorway. But I'm confused, I always thought hire cars from ACM's were only offered when liability was not disputed and being able to reclaim the costs was almost guaranteed. Son's insurance does not offer a hire car, he's 18 and a new driver. For now he's refused the hire car on my say so, but what happens if he takes the hire car and is found at fault - it will be taxi driver's word against his, so it's a definite possibility. Would he be liable for the hire car cost?

[Aretnap]

JQ said:

what happens if he takes the hire car and is found at fault - it will be taxi driver's word against his, so it's a definite possibility. Would he be liable for the hire car cost?

No. The credit hire company takes on that risk after they've made their own judgement about the likelihood of your son being found at fault. If they think the risk is too high, they won't offer him a credit hire car.

The only reasons why your son might end up personally liable for the costs would be if he actively misled the credit hire company about the circumstances if the accident, or if he didn't cooperate with them when it came to claiming from the third party (eg if he refused to give his side if the story in court, in the fairly unlikely event that it actually got as far as court).

[JQ]

Aretnap said:

JQ said:

what happens if he takes the hire car and is found at fault - it will be taxi driver's word against his, so it's a definite possibility. Would he be liable for the hire car cost?

No. The credit hire company takes on that risk after they've made their own judgement about the likelihood of your son being found at fault. If they think the risk is too high, they won't offer him a credit hire car.

The only reasons why your son might end up personally liable for the costs would be if he actively misled the credit hire company about the circumstances if the accident, or if he didn't cooperate with them when it came to claiming from the third party (eg if he refused to give his side if the story in court, in the fairly unlikely event that it actually got as far as court).

Thank you, that's really helpful.

[SydneyBridge]

Either way, you should only be entitled to a hire car until the write off settlement is agreed

I had a similar crash with an off duty taxi driver, he was prosecuted and denied liability until a week before the Trial. I avoided his carbur wrote my car off...

Edited by SydneyBridge on Monday 26th October 11:11

[JQ]

Transpires it was all irrelevant anyway - after spending an hour on the phone to them they then confirmed that they would only provide the hire car once the other party has fully admitted liability, which I suspect is not going to happen any time soon.

Just gutted for my son as this is going to cost him a fortune (to him) and it genuinely wasn't his fault.

[Mr Tidy]

It might be worth checking if he has any cover for a courtesy car on his own policy as most provide it. Although if the car is a write off they don't provide one for long.

[KungFuPanda]

First post advises son’s policy doesn’t provide for a courtesy car.

[Sheepshanks]

JQ said:

Transpires it was all irrelevant anyway - after spending an hour on the phone to them they then confirmed that they would only provide the hire car once the other party has fully admitted liability, which I suspect is not going to happen any time soon.

I haven't heard of it being quite that strong before. I wonder if Enterprise were acting off their own bat - normally the referal it from an AMC who you either contact directly or who is referred by your own insurer.

In those cases they just seem to go off the information presented and you have to confirm that you're not lying. The AMC takes a chance then, I think sometimes underwritten by their own insurance.

[JQ]

Sheepshanks said:

JQ said:

Transpires it was all irrelevant anyway - after spending an hour on the phone to them they then confirmed that they would only provide the hire car once the other party has fully admitted liability, which I suspect is not going to happen any time soon.

I haven't heard of it being quite that strong before. I wonder if Enterprise were acting off their own bat - normally the referal it from an AMC who you either contact directly or who is referred by your own insurer.

In those cases they just seem to go off the information presented and you have to confirm that you're not lying. The AMC takes a chance then, I think sometimes underwritten by their own insurance.

It transpires it was a referral from his insurer. I'll be honest, I'm not surprised. With no independent witnesses, I have no doubt that the taxi moving into my sons lane will magically become my son moving into his lane. However, I would love to be proved wrong. The damage supports my sons claim, in that it looks like the taxi was on full lock at the point of impact and most of the damage to my sons car was caused by him hitting the front drivers wheel, with very little damage to the taxi, but I don't know how much reliance can be placed on that to apportion blame.

[Yellow Lizud]

JQ said:

but I don't know how much reliance can be placed on a teenagers version to apportion blame.

FTFY

Sorry to be so negative but when has a teenager ever told their parents the truth over anything!

Sounds like it was good that nothing came of the hire car offered.