Deal direct with TP insurer after accident?

[Wackywoo105]

I was in a car driven by a family member, which was t-boned by another car that ran a red light last night. Other driver has admitted fault.

Family member has contacted their insurance, which is an online form and is now waiting to hear back. Apparently things are moving slower due to Covid still?

Third party insurer Admiral has now messaged family member asking them to contact them as they can authorise repairs and replacement vehicle etc.

Are there any particular positives and negatives to dealing direct with TP insurer. Family member just wants everything sorted ASAP with min fuss.

[ingenieur]

Only immediately obvious downside is the TPs insurer might try to con you out of making the right claim for the right value and withhold benefits such as a courtesy car to reduce their costs. Depends how good you are on the phone. One wrong word and they'll claim it's all your fault and they're not paying.

Going through your insurer means they handle the inter-company tennis match themselves and you get everything sorted by your own insurer for them to claim it back later from TP.

This is all assuming we live in a simple world with no further twists.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ingenieur said:

One wrong word and they'll claim it's all your fault and they're not paying.

So TP goes thru red light and t bones you. TP admits liability. TP insurer contacted you to deal with your claim. But one wrong word and they're going to refuse to pay because it's your fault.

[Smurfsarepeopletoo]

The whole reason the TP are contacting you, is to keep their costs down, they will give you a replacement car to use while yours is being repaired, and deal with your repairs for you.

The only downside is, if you had an issue with the repairs, you may struggle to get to speak to someone to sort it.

[CoolHands]

I’ve done so previously and it all went well. I didn’t need crap like a replacement car and all that jazz so was fairly simple.

[Scrimpton]

I've done this before and it was absolutely fine. They got my repairs done quickly and offered me a courtesy car which I declined as I had 2 cars at the time.

[TonyTony]

I have the same ongoing apart from no evidence and its a dispute.

I wouldn't go through their insurance though, they are looking out for themselves and their client. Just get your own to deal with it.

[ingenieur]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

ingenieur said:

One wrong word and they'll claim it's all your fault and they're not paying.

So TP goes thru red light and t bones you. TP admits liability. TP insurer contacted you to deal with your claim. But one wrong word and they're going to refuse to pay because it's your fault.

I did caveat this with 'depends how good you are on the phone'... because if they tried it with me it wouldn't work.

[Smint]

Son and DiL did this when their car was hit whilst parked, they contacted the TP insurer who made quick work of the job, decent hire car delivered promptly same time as their car was collected (standard Aygo not big enough for two child seats), swapped back after a few days once repairs completed.

[Smurfsarepeopletoo]

TonyTony said:

I have the same ongoing apart from no evidence and its a dispute.

I wouldn't go through their insurance though, they are looking out for themselves and their client. Just get your own to deal with it.

If they are disputing, then they wont offer you services as their insured is saying you are at fault, so they are just going off what their insured has told them, same as yours.

[Grumps.]

Not a chance.

Own insurers every time and let them deal with it, as it’s what you are paying them for.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ingenieur said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

ingenieur said:

One wrong word and they'll claim it's all your fault and they're not paying.

So TP goes thru red light and t bones you. TP admits liability. TP insurer contacted you to deal with your claim. But one wrong word and they're going to refuse to pay because it's your fault.

I did caveat this with 'depends how good you are on the phone'... because if they tried it with me it wouldn't work.

In what way do they try it on with you, and try and blame you for an accident where their client had gone thru a red light, t-boned you, and admitted liability?

You don not have to be good on the phone to deal with a tp insurer who have called you to deal with damage their client has admitted doing to your vehicle.

[swisstoni]

Why are the insurers of at-fault parties always so keen to handle things.
What costs are they trying to manage?

Are they worried that the other insurance company is going to try to make money out of them?

[ingenieur]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

ingenieur said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

ingenieur said:

One wrong word and they'll claim it's all your fault and they're not paying.

So TP goes thru red light and t bones you. TP admits liability. TP insurer contacted you to deal with your claim. But one wrong word and they're going to refuse to pay because it's your fault.

I did caveat this with 'depends how good you are on the phone'... because if they tried it with me it wouldn't work.

In what way do they try it on with you, and try and blame you for an accident where their client had gone thru a red light, t-boned you, and admitted liability?

You don not have to be good on the phone to deal with a tp insurer who have called you to deal with damage their client has admitted doing to your vehicle.

We're speaking entirely hypothetically here as this has gone well beyond the point of having any facts to consider... but what's to stop a motivated clerk at the insurance company from explaining to a victim of their client that they are in fact liable as they should have a higher level of awareness approaching a junction and why didn't they see him? "I'm sorry but our guidelines on this state that situations of this type where there is a lack of awareness means both parties are liable"

[Sebring440]

ingenieur said:

but what's to stop a motivated clerk at the insurance company from explaining to a victim of their client that they are in fact liable as they should have a higher level of awareness approaching a junction and why didn't they see him? "I'm sorry but our guidelines on this state that situations of this type where there is a lack of awareness means both parties are liable"

Is this just something you've made up?

Why would you post this to the OP as "advice", when you've obviously got no experience in these sort of thing whatsoever, and your resorting to fantasy to bring up you post count?

[croyde]

I went straight for the other person's insurance company when they crashed into my parked car.

A lot of work for me but back then I naively thought that I'd be avoiding a blot on my unblemished record with my own insurance company.

How wrong I was.

My insurance company found out and loaded me the next year come renewal with a non fault claim and I had done all the work for them.

Gits!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ingenieur said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

ingenieur said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

ingenieur said:

One wrong word and they'll claim it's all your fault and they're not paying.

So TP goes thru red light and t bones you. TP admits liability. TP insurer contacted you to deal with your claim. But one wrong word and they're going to refuse to pay because it's your fault.

I did caveat this with 'depends how good you are on the phone'... because if they tried it with me it wouldn't work.

In what way do they try it on with you, and try and blame you for an accident where their client had gone thru a red light, t-boned you, and admitted liability?

You don not have to be good on the phone to deal with a tp insurer who have called you to deal with damage their client has admitted doing to your vehicle.

We're speaking entirely hypothetically here as this has gone well beyond the point of having any facts to consider... but what's to stop a motivated clerk at the insurance company from explaining to a victim of their client that they are in fact liable as they should have a higher level of awareness approaching a junction and why didn't they see him? "I'm sorry but our guidelines on this state that situations of this type where there is a lack of awareness means both parties are liable"

An absolute myriad of regulations, the 2015 insurance act, the ombudsman, the FCA, etc. etc. Insurance in the UK isn't the Wild West, you could probably run a nuclear power station with less scrutiny from the authorities and governing bodies.

[Smurfsarepeopletoo]

swisstoni said:

Why are the insurers of at-fault parties always so keen to handle things.
What costs are they trying to manage?

Are they worried that the other insurance company is going to try to make money out of them?

Hire costs, If the OP went through their own insurers and they were ABI registered, they would charge a set daily fee for the replacement vehicle, the TPI will have an agreement with a rental company so will be able to get it significantly cheaper. They will also be able to make sure the repairs are done as quick as possible to reduce the costs.

Engineers fees.

Labour rates, The TPI will have an agreement with all of their approved repairers that if they are referring certain business, they will get a preferential labour rate.

[Smint]

swisstoni said:

Why are the insurers of at-fault parties always so keen to handle things.
What costs are they trying to manage?

Are they worried that the other insurance company is going to try to make money out of them?

Saves the possibility of the other party being referred to and talked into the arms of an accident management operation, where hire car costs can escalate to the ridiculous because the repair can take several times longer to be completed for some reason.

For the aggrieved punter, by going to said accident management you might get a nice new 'equivalent' car to swan about in for weeks or months, but we've all read of the credit hire issues where the third party insurer disputes a several thousand £ hire car bill and our hapless punter is in the frame for the costs, by dealing direct with the at fault party insurance that danger is ruled out.
Then comes the thorny issue of compo, i don't want compo for an invented injury i want my car back asap.

Apart from anything else, its in all our interests to mitigate claim costs as much as possible.

[Sheepshanks]

Smint said:

Saves the possibility of the other party being referred to and talked into the arms of an accident management operation, where hire car costs can escalate to the ridiculous because the repair can take several times longer to be completed for some reason.

How ironic that in the OP’s case the third party insurer is Admiral.