Motor Insruance Body chasing 4 yrs later
Discussion
Long story short, my BiL owned and X5 and in 2022 it was involved in a fire/accident in Manchester. Only it wasn't. It was sitting in his car park in Guildford.
The local council is now seeking - 4 years later - insurance details to claim £20,000 of the cost to repair the road. MIB are chasing this and his insurer, esure, are asking him for details within 5 days.
How do you prove where the car was 4 years ago? He did tell them at the time but this has raised it's ugly head again.
The local council is now seeking - 4 years later - insurance details to claim £20,000 of the cost to repair the road. MIB are chasing this and his insurer, esure, are asking him for details within 5 days.
How do you prove where the car was 4 years ago? He did tell them at the time but this has raised it's ugly head again.
Just tell him to stick to his guns.
The car wasn’t there, it was 100+ miles away where it lived. He made no insurance claim for fire damage, he sold the car unburnt and intact.
Presumably this is the insurance company’s issue in the end but he will want to avoid a successful claim on his file so it’s worth being very clear/loud about it.
The car wasn’t there, it was 100+ miles away where it lived. He made no insurance claim for fire damage, he sold the car unburnt and intact.
Presumably this is the insurance company’s issue in the end but he will want to avoid a successful claim on his file so it’s worth being very clear/loud about it.
Frimley111R said:
Long story short, my BiL owned and X5 and in 2022 it was involved in a fire/accident in Manchester. Only it wasn't. It was sitting in his car park in Guildford.
The local council is now seeking - 4 years later - insurance details to claim £20,000 of the cost to repair the road. MIB are chasing this and his insurer, esure, are asking him for details within 5 days.
How do you prove where the car was 4 years ago? He did tell them at the time but this has raised it's ugly head again.
No possibility the fire car was on cloned plates?The local council is now seeking - 4 years later - insurance details to claim £20,000 of the cost to repair the road. MIB are chasing this and his insurer, esure, are asking him for details within 5 days.
How do you prove where the car was 4 years ago? He did tell them at the time but this has raised it's ugly head again.
Maybe your BiL could go back through his bank statements and find a petrol receipt for the day in question. Long shot admittedly
If your BiL can contact whoever bought the car and they can confirm they bought the car undamaged
If the bil was aware of this at the time (ie 4 years ago) then presumably they still have whatever proof they gathered at the time that the car was unburnt in surrey
Ie they shouldn't need to gather proof from 4 years ago- just represent the proof they had.
No only 4 years? -is the insurance company in hurry?
Ie they shouldn't need to gather proof from 4 years ago- just represent the proof they had.
No only 4 years? -is the insurance company in hurry?
Does he have a diary/online calendar where he can show he was in a meeting somewhere?
I would be emailing esure to deny that the car was involved, highlight the ridiculous nature of the MIB wanting info from 4 years ago, and that they pay out under their own volition.
Complain to the MIB too: https://www.mib.org.uk/complaints-procedure/
I would be emailing esure to deny that the car was involved, highlight the ridiculous nature of the MIB wanting info from 4 years ago, and that they pay out under their own volition.
Complain to the MIB too: https://www.mib.org.uk/complaints-procedure/
What about one of those vehicle checks? They often flag-up insurance claims even when a vehicle wasn't a write-off. Something like Car Vertical should show a reassuring absence of an insurance claim, along with a clean sweep of MOTs.
Also, does the claimant have photographic evidence of the incident? This will quickly reveal the extent of the damage to the vehicle involved and reveal whether it was even possible for the vehicle to be repaired. Also, if it's a case of cloned plates then the vehicle involved might have slight cosmetic differences which show it wasn't the OP's BIL's car.
Also, does the claimant have photographic evidence of the incident? This will quickly reveal the extent of the damage to the vehicle involved and reveal whether it was even possible for the vehicle to be repaired. Also, if it's a case of cloned plates then the vehicle involved might have slight cosmetic differences which show it wasn't the OP's BIL's car.
Edited by MitchT on Tuesday 20th October 09:51
jonsp said:
No possibility the fire car was on cloned plates?
Maybe your BiL could go back through his bank statements and find a petrol receipt for the day in question.
If your BiL can contact whoever bought the car and they can confirm they bought the car undamaged.
Doesn't prove that the car wasn't there.Maybe your BiL could go back through his bank statements and find a petrol receipt for the day in question.
If your BiL can contact whoever bought the car and they can confirm they bought the car undamaged.
vikingaero said:
Does he have a diary/online calendar where he can show he was in a meeting somewhere?
That doesn't prove that the car was in a meeting.MitchT said:
What about one of those vehicle checks? They often flag-up insurance claims even when a vehicle wasn't a write-off. Something like Car Vertical should show a reassuring absence of an insurance claim, along with a clean sweep of MOTs.
Also, does the claimant have photographic evidence of the incident? This will quickly reveal the extent of the damage to the vehicle involved and reveal whether it was even possible for the vehicle to be repaired. Also, if it's a case of cloned plates then the vehicle involved might have slight cosmetic differences which show it wasn't the OP's BIL's car.
The claim is for a road repair.Also, does the claimant have photographic evidence of the incident? This will quickly reveal the extent of the damage to the vehicle involved and reveal whether it was even possible for the vehicle to be repaired. Also, if it's a case of cloned plates then the vehicle involved might have slight cosmetic differences which show it wasn't the OP's BIL's car.
For example an X5 on cloned plates collided with another vehicle that caught fire and the X5 drove off. It could have been repaired. The road was damaged, that X5 was at fault. There is no point trying to prove something that may not be relevant.
alscar said:
It wasn't his car and he didn't claim from Esure at the time so I'm curious why they would be asking him for details of this and within 5 days after 4 years ?
I think he just needs to reply and say this.
This I think he just needs to reply and say this.
But for £20k someone is going to be persistent.speedking31 said:
For example an X5 on cloned plates collided with another vehicle that caught fire and the X5 drove off. It could have been repaired. The road was damaged, that X5 was at fault.
So where's the other driver - surely he'd be making his own claim?My guess is the X5 on cloned plates caused the accident. The X5 went on fire to the extent that it damaged the road we'd have to assume fire brigade and police attended then the driver/passengers hopped it.
Maybe an SAR to the police/fire brigade?
Frimley111R said:
Thanks guys, it's more than a bit odd but I thought that if they can't prove it was his car then they should FRO. If he says 'Not me or my car' then what can they do. And its a bit mad 4 years later!
It is indeed for the council to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that it was his car involved. However presumably they do have some reason to think that it was his car, even if it's just a typo on a record somewhere, or an eyewitness taking down the wrong registration number. So any evidence that your BIL can provide that it wasn't his car will help rebut whatever evidence it is that they're offering that it was.Ultimately it's his insurance company's problem.more than his problem - they're the ones who will be paying anything that the council do manage to claim, and he just has to assist them as best he can. If the sum total of assistance he can give them is "I can't tell you anything that I didn't already tell you four years ago" then that's all the reply he has to give.
However all else being equal it's better for him not to have a claim on his record, so if there is any evidence he can find (of being elsewhere at the time of the incident, of the car being in a condition afterwards which doesn't fit with the accident as described etc) then it's going to be in his interest to provide that to his insurer.
Frimley111R said:
Thanks guys, it's more than a bit odd but I thought that if they can't prove it was his car then they should FRO. If he says 'Not me or my car' then what can they do. And its a bit mad 4 years later!
Presumably they think they can prove it and why they're hassling your brother-in-law four years later. The reason they're wrong could be it was a cloned plate, a copper wrote the wrong reg down or a dozen other things.Years ago a council tried to hold my dad liable for replacing street furniture. A mechanic took an M3 for a spin taking out a wall, cars, streetlights, railings. My dad politely informed them as to their error, that his car was one of the damaged ones, he was a victim, and obviously a mistake has been made. He later got an apology and it ended there. Presumably a cop was confused and made an arse of the report.
Tell your brother-in-law to engage with esure, provide all the information they're asking for and give them his narrative. He gives them permission to ask BMW for telemetry, contact his neighbours for CCTV. Whole nine yards, nothing to hide etc.
Message Board | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff