£13,000 Credit Hire Bill to Repair a Scratch
Discussion
I am speechless!
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/tax-insurance-and...
Text from site..
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/tax-insurance-and...
Text from site..
Honest John said:
In April 2011, reader GS collided with a Mercedes in a medical centre car park. Both cars were travelling at around 2 to 3 mph. They exchanged insurance details and GS thought no more about it until he received his car insurance renewal in June.
Unfortunately, though the damage was no more than a scratch, the car that GS collided with was a rare and expensive £115,000 Mercedes CL 63 AMG.
The other party had placed the matter in the hands of an accident management / credit hire company that clocked up costs approaching £20,000, which included £13,000 for the 32 day hire of a replacement car. The reason given for the 32 day car hire was that Mercedes spare parts division had taken this long to deliver all the parts.
When GS asked Zurich if they had questioned this, they told him they
Had taken the information “at face value”. GS suggested that they should ask for a copy of the body shop's parts requisition which went to Mercedes as by this time he had spoken to them and they told him that if they were sent a copy of the order, they would be able to verify if there had been a long delay in supplying parts.
Quite why it was necessary to hire another car anyway when the CL 63 AMG was perfectly roadworthy and drivable is another matter entirely.
When the body shop was approached, they gave The Data Protection
Act as a reason for not being able to provide a copy of the order. GS
checked this out and as the name of the driver of the Mercedes was already in the public domain, Data Protection simply did not apply. GS felt that the body shop obviously has its own reasons for not being perfectly happy to provide the information.
Zurich has now agreed to re-open the claim and investigate it. At
First they said they couldn't because the matter had been settled – with the exception of the personal injury aspect - but they have now had a change of heart. They informed GS that they are doing this to give him an insight into the integrity of the credit hire company.
They also told GS that as a result of his efforts, they have now
Changed the way they go about handling claims. To quote Jayne Lilley, Zurich's head of Credit Hire, “I can confirm that since this claim for credit hire was handled, Zurich has implemented new processes and technical training across the motor teams.”
GS was also informed that the accident management / credit hire company would be making a claim for personal injury. Today, one year 4 months later, no claim has been made but GS is assured that there will be one. Is there not something a little odd about that?
GS previously gave an indication of the speeds at which the two cars were moving within the confines of the medical centre car park and he has insisted that before Zurich considers any personal injury claim, they should have one of their people visit the car park and see for themselves how unlikely it would be for there to be any serious injury. They have agreed to do this and GS will be meeting their representative at the car park.
In looking into this affair, GS was struck by the fact that Zurich had made no enquiries into this. To quote them, they took the accident management / credit hire company's claim “at face value”.
GS would like to point out that he has nothing to gain personally from this. His file will continue to show a large claim. However, he was spurred simply from the realisation of just how easy it is for accident management / credit hire companies to get their claims settled by the large insurance groups.
He has spent hundreds of hours on this and can see why it is obviously easier, quicker and cheaper for the insurance company simply to settle quickly. Over this period of a couple of months, he have been passed to three different people and only now is he making any kind of progress.
Unfortunately, though the damage was no more than a scratch, the car that GS collided with was a rare and expensive £115,000 Mercedes CL 63 AMG.
The other party had placed the matter in the hands of an accident management / credit hire company that clocked up costs approaching £20,000, which included £13,000 for the 32 day hire of a replacement car. The reason given for the 32 day car hire was that Mercedes spare parts division had taken this long to deliver all the parts.
When GS asked Zurich if they had questioned this, they told him they
Had taken the information “at face value”. GS suggested that they should ask for a copy of the body shop's parts requisition which went to Mercedes as by this time he had spoken to them and they told him that if they were sent a copy of the order, they would be able to verify if there had been a long delay in supplying parts.
Quite why it was necessary to hire another car anyway when the CL 63 AMG was perfectly roadworthy and drivable is another matter entirely.
When the body shop was approached, they gave The Data Protection
Act as a reason for not being able to provide a copy of the order. GS
checked this out and as the name of the driver of the Mercedes was already in the public domain, Data Protection simply did not apply. GS felt that the body shop obviously has its own reasons for not being perfectly happy to provide the information.
Zurich has now agreed to re-open the claim and investigate it. At
First they said they couldn't because the matter had been settled – with the exception of the personal injury aspect - but they have now had a change of heart. They informed GS that they are doing this to give him an insight into the integrity of the credit hire company.
They also told GS that as a result of his efforts, they have now
Changed the way they go about handling claims. To quote Jayne Lilley, Zurich's head of Credit Hire, “I can confirm that since this claim for credit hire was handled, Zurich has implemented new processes and technical training across the motor teams.”
GS was also informed that the accident management / credit hire company would be making a claim for personal injury. Today, one year 4 months later, no claim has been made but GS is assured that there will be one. Is there not something a little odd about that?
GS previously gave an indication of the speeds at which the two cars were moving within the confines of the medical centre car park and he has insisted that before Zurich considers any personal injury claim, they should have one of their people visit the car park and see for themselves how unlikely it would be for there to be any serious injury. They have agreed to do this and GS will be meeting their representative at the car park.
In looking into this affair, GS was struck by the fact that Zurich had made no enquiries into this. To quote them, they took the accident management / credit hire company's claim “at face value”.
GS would like to point out that he has nothing to gain personally from this. His file will continue to show a large claim. However, he was spurred simply from the realisation of just how easy it is for accident management / credit hire companies to get their claims settled by the large insurance groups.
He has spent hundreds of hours on this and can see why it is obviously easier, quicker and cheaper for the insurance company simply to settle quickly. Over this period of a couple of months, he have been passed to three different people and only now is he making any kind of progress.
ker will be along to say the driver of the merc has RIGHT to a brand new merc as a hire car and all the mental anguish Negative Creep said:
Surprised he hasn't submitted a whiplash claim yet. Those holidays don't pay for themselves
Apparently it is on its way.This is utterly utterly disgusting.
We are supposed to live in a developed, civilised country.
Come the Glorious Day, these leeches are "getting it" (You may need a Scots person to explain the last 2 words there)
Pork said:
Negative Creep said:
Surprised he hasn't submitted a whiplash claim yet. Those holidays don't pay for themselves
By the sounds of it, that on its way!Honest John said:
GS was also informed that the accident management / credit hire company would be making a claim for personal injury.
From what the article says, the "damage" was just a scratch.
If that's the case, why was a hire car needed for 32 days? Why was there a delay in getting all the parts?
Surely the repair would just be a full bumper respray taking 2 perhaps 3 days? There wouldn't be any parts?
Seems as if insurance companies are happy just to pay up without questioning a claim, before passing the extra costs on at renewal time?
If that's the case, why was a hire car needed for 32 days? Why was there a delay in getting all the parts?
Surely the repair would just be a full bumper respray taking 2 perhaps 3 days? There wouldn't be any parts?
Seems as if insurance companies are happy just to pay up without questioning a claim, before passing the extra costs on at renewal time?
Insurers claim the don't make a profit from motor insurance, don't buy that myself, but that's what they claim.
They use the excuse that it is to expensive to investigate claims in any details.
Are they really to stupid to realise that the easier you make it for excessive and fraudulent claims to be settled the more likely they are to receive them. If they made it far more difficult then claims will likely reduce ....
They use the excuse that it is to expensive to investigate claims in any details.
Are they really to stupid to realise that the easier you make it for excessive and fraudulent claims to be settled the more likely they are to receive them. If they made it far more difficult then claims will likely reduce ....
PurpleMoonlight said:
Are they really to stupid to realise that the easier you make it for excessive and fraudulent claims to be settled the more likely they are to receive them. If they made it far more difficult then claims will likely reduce ....
You'd have to spend money today to save money later, and who intends on sticking around long enough to get the credit for that. Does anybody know, legal bods perhaps, if the ins co. had challenged the 13k car hire and then been taken to court the could they successfully have argued that they were being ripped off, victim not mitigating their losses etc?
If so, then why not do it once in a while - surely its better to make an example of the more rediculous claims?
If so, then why not do it once in a while - surely its better to make an example of the more rediculous claims?
No insurance company wants to take this stuff on - it usually ends-up in the hands of Trading Standards and the Police to shut-down companies who are skimming this stuff.
For any 1 claim they can always claim it was a 'mistake'.
The scams in this arena are endless - staged accidents, car hire which never happened (or which was for a MUCH cheaper car than claimed), faked invoices for work never done - it's an open pot of money because insurance companies are way too lax (with YOUR money).
There was a case on the tellybox where a company were staging accidents - sometimes 2-3 a day - all on the same roundabout. It was only discovered because someone who overlooked the roundabout noticed what was going on and kicked-up a fuss - the Police hasn't actually noticed that the roundabout was suddenly an accident black-hole at all... ...
It's not just cars either - someone I know used a local Vet who routinely submitted 2 or even 3 invoices for every procedure they carried out on her dog. It only came to light when they were stupid enough to invoice twice for putting the poor thing to sleep.
The result of that was them apologising and returning the money they were overpaid - around £3500 - and we're supposed to believe it was a one-off.
If I did that, my life would be turned inside-out, but businesses seem to get a pass for some reason??
For any 1 claim they can always claim it was a 'mistake'.
The scams in this arena are endless - staged accidents, car hire which never happened (or which was for a MUCH cheaper car than claimed), faked invoices for work never done - it's an open pot of money because insurance companies are way too lax (with YOUR money).
There was a case on the tellybox where a company were staging accidents - sometimes 2-3 a day - all on the same roundabout. It was only discovered because someone who overlooked the roundabout noticed what was going on and kicked-up a fuss - the Police hasn't actually noticed that the roundabout was suddenly an accident black-hole at all... ...
It's not just cars either - someone I know used a local Vet who routinely submitted 2 or even 3 invoices for every procedure they carried out on her dog. It only came to light when they were stupid enough to invoice twice for putting the poor thing to sleep.
The result of that was them apologising and returning the money they were overpaid - around £3500 - and we're supposed to believe it was a one-off.
If I did that, my life would be turned inside-out, but businesses seem to get a pass for some reason??
When someone hit my VX220 it split the front clam. 3 month wait for a new one photos back and fore and it was agreed that liberal application if gaffer tape to cover all the dangerous sharp edges and hold it together was the way foreward and a nice hire car would just be mine while the car was in the body shop once the new clam arrived and was fitted - much more sensible approach from Elephants claim arm.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff