Insurance co won't cover my replacement vehicle costs...
Discussion
Centurion07 said:
I'm not so sure.
The council know who the vehicle is registered to and it's up to HIM to make sure he knows who's driving the vehicle at any given time. Their insurance policy states "any licenced driver, with the permission of the policyholder, is insured to drive this vehicle". The third party insurer want proof I was added to the policy and won't accept the actual certificate that has that printed on it.
As I said, I can understand their need for proof but they're wriggling at every opportunity and making some outlandish requests given that, as has been mentioned, if I'd got an AMC involved or decided my neck was twinging a bit it would be costing them a hell of a lot more than £1100 quid!
Unfortunately for you; there are many people in this world that engage in pretending and lying. Insurance co. needs to weed these out from the genuine claims. Having a nearly untraceable sequence of events and payments is the root of your problem. You also fall into the unfortunate situation that if one thing looks fishy, rightly or not, everything else will be scrutinized to the Nth degree.The council know who the vehicle is registered to and it's up to HIM to make sure he knows who's driving the vehicle at any given time. Their insurance policy states "any licenced driver, with the permission of the policyholder, is insured to drive this vehicle". The third party insurer want proof I was added to the policy and won't accept the actual certificate that has that printed on it.
As I said, I can understand their need for proof but they're wriggling at every opportunity and making some outlandish requests given that, as has been mentioned, if I'd got an AMC involved or decided my neck was twinging a bit it would be costing them a hell of a lot more than £1100 quid!
It's all a matter of perspective. What is an outlandish request to you is them being more diligent over the 'evidence' because they don't believe your story.
Next time; use an AMC or make sure there is a bulletproof paper trail that they have OK'd in advance.
Monkeylegend said:
Yes but on your own admission you were driving a car that you should have notified your licensing authority of for hire and reward, but didn't, and you know how insurance co's like to wriggle.
If you could provide them with all the relevant paperwork proving everything you were doing was "legal" you might stand a better chance of getting a payout.
As it stands at the moment you are on dodgy ground if you wish to pursue it further and the ombudsman or the courts start asking awkward questions.
Not sure I agree. Drivers don't have cars they're obligated to drive by the LA, there are licensed drivers and licensed cars. As long as the two are both legitimate, then work can be taken on. In this case, the driver has hired a car off of someone who provides (I imagine) a lot of local drivers with cars to keep him going until he sources his own replacement. It works perfectly well for the drivers who don't want the hassle of owning/testing/insuring a motor themselves!If you could provide them with all the relevant paperwork proving everything you were doing was "legal" you might stand a better chance of getting a payout.
As it stands at the moment you are on dodgy ground if you wish to pursue it further and the ombudsman or the courts start asking awkward questions.
Monkeylegend said:
I think your case would be a lot stronger if you had the relevant paper licence from the council relating to the car in question.
My licensing authority would issue me with a paper copy of my Operators licence, Drivers licence and vehicle plate. This in addition to the insurance certificate would be very difficult for the third party insurance to ignore.
Anyway good luck getting it resolved
I have all of those. For myself and my own vehicle. I have all of those for the vehicle I hired. They want more.My licensing authority would issue me with a paper copy of my Operators licence, Drivers licence and vehicle plate. This in addition to the insurance certificate would be very difficult for the third party insurance to ignore.
Anyway good luck getting it resolved
xxChrisxx said:
Unfortunately for you; there are many people in this world that engage in pretending and lying. Insurance co. needs to weed these out from the genuine claims. Having a nearly untraceable sequence of events and payments is the root of your problem. You also fall into the unfortunate situation that if one thing looks fishy, rightly or not, everything else will be scrutinized to the Nth degree.
It's all a matter of perspective. What is an outlandish request to you is them being more diligent over the 'evidence' because they don't believe your story.
Next time; use an AMC or make sure there is a bulletproof paper trail that they have OK'd in advance.
Yep, all valid points. That being said, they are/were legally obliged to provide me with a replacement vehicle. They have agreed the amount I'm claiming is far from unreasonable. They are, in my eyes, trying to get out of paying for something they legally were obliged to provide. It's all a matter of perspective. What is an outlandish request to you is them being more diligent over the 'evidence' because they don't believe your story.
Next time; use an AMC or make sure there is a bulletproof paper trail that they have OK'd in advance.
What I'm saying is, they should automatically, without quibbling, be paying me a sum at least equal to what it would've cost them had they provided their own vehicle to me. Anything above that, sure, I can see why they would argue the toss.
Lesson learnt though; screw the insurance company before they screw you.
Centurion07 said:
Yep, all valid points. That being said, they are/were legally obliged to provide me with a replacement vehicle. They have agreed the amount I'm claiming is far from unreasonable. They are, in my eyes, trying to get out of paying for something they legally were obliged to provide.
What I'm saying is, they should automatically, without quibbling, be paying me a sum at least equal to what it would've cost them had they provided their own vehicle to me. Anything above that, sure, I can see why they would argue the toss.
Lesson learnt though; screw the insurance company before they screw you.
You keep saying that they’re legally obliged to provide you with a replace,met vehicle. They aren’t. They are legally obliged to ensure you’re not out of pocket, but have up to 7 years to resolve this legally. What I'm saying is, they should automatically, without quibbling, be paying me a sum at least equal to what it would've cost them had they provided their own vehicle to me. Anything above that, sure, I can see why they would argue the toss.
Lesson learnt though; screw the insurance company before they screw you.
codenamecueball said:
Not sure I agree. Drivers don't have cars they're obligated to drive by the LA, there are licensed drivers and licensed cars. As long as the two are both legitimate, then work can be taken on. In this case, the driver has hired a car off of someone who provides (I imagine) a lot of local drivers with cars to keep him going until he sources his own replacement. It works perfectly well for the drivers who don't want the hassle of owning/testing/insuring a motor themselves!
If you are working for another operator driving one of their vehicles I would agree, but the way I understand it is that the OP essentially works for himself, he says he has an Operators licence, in which case he probably should advise the council of the change of vehicle, and of the damage to his own vehicle if he wishes to continue working.The paper licence issued by the council is specific to his particular car as would be the insurance if he works for himself with just the one vehicle.
They get very fussy over things like that, and it was clearly stated in the Licensing agreement/requirements provided by my local authority that we all sign up to.
Gavia said:
You keep saying that they’re legally obliged to provide you with a replace,met vehicle. They aren’t. They are legally obliged to ensure you’re not out of pocket, but have up to 7 years to resolve this legally.
Same difference. Either way, they're wriggling. It'll be in court long before 7yrs is up!Monkeylegend said:
If you are working for another operator driving one of their vehicles I would agree, but the way I understand it is that the OP essentially works for himself, he says he has an Operators licence, in which case he probably should advise the council of the change of vehicle, and of the damage to his own vehicle if he wishes to continue working.
The paper licence issued by the council is specific to his particular car as would be the insurance if he works for himself with just the one vehicle.
They get very fussy over things like that, and it was clearly stated in the Licensing agreement/requirements provided by my local authority that we all sign up to.
I have my own operator's licence, I was driving someone else's car (one of a few he hires out) on their insurance, for another operator. The paper licence issued by the council is specific to his particular car as would be the insurance if he works for himself with just the one vehicle.
They get very fussy over things like that, and it was clearly stated in the Licensing agreement/requirements provided by my local authority that we all sign up to.
Centurion07 said:
Gavia said:
You keep saying that they’re legally obliged to provide you with a replace,met vehicle. They aren’t. They are legally obliged to ensure you’re not out of pocket, but have up to 7 years to resolve this legally.
Same difference. Either way, they're wriggling. It'll be in court long before 7yrs is up!Is this not a simple case of tax? The insurance company want to ensure the tax is dealt with correctly and it is a legitimate expense.
OP, speaking of tax..............how do you account yours? You have mentioned many times it is a cash business and you don’t have to track takings. It sounds, to an impartial reader, you don’t want to track earnings.
P.s. you are being unreasonable if you think an invoice saying “Jack paid money to Dave’s rent-a-wreck. Hugs and kisses”. But, you already knew that when you decided to tell your friend Dave at Rent-a-wreck he could make some money out of the deal.
The scam is up unless you want to double down and end up in prison for insurance fraud.
OP, speaking of tax..............how do you account yours? You have mentioned many times it is a cash business and you don’t have to track takings. It sounds, to an impartial reader, you don’t want to track earnings.
P.s. you are being unreasonable if you think an invoice saying “Jack paid money to Dave’s rent-a-wreck. Hugs and kisses”. But, you already knew that when you decided to tell your friend Dave at Rent-a-wreck he could make some money out of the deal.
The scam is up unless you want to double down and end up in prison for insurance fraud.
I did
This is just from your first post. I was pleasant before but now I’m calling it as it clearly is. Bull s
t insurance fraud.
Now answer my other question, if you don’t track your cash income, how do you accurately pay tax? You have said on here how you do track each journey but chose to not write down the fare.
You are a leach on society.
Centurion07 said:
I hired another vehicle in the meantime (which I told them I was going to do) from another driver.
Dave’s rent-a-wreckCenturion07 said:
the insurance company are stalling and asking for all sorts of ridiculous proof that the hire took place.
Like being from a legitimate rental company?Centurion07 said:
Being an almost 100% cash business, there is nothing to physically prove I was handing over £200PW to this guy.
Oh, ok. That Centurion07 said:
ridiculous proof
By your own admission doesn’t exist. Centurion07 said:
I first provided them with an invoice from the other driver. They didn't like that as it "is not a proper invoice". This guy isn't a huge corporation. He has a few cars he hires out and therefore doesn't have an invoicing system detailing lots of boring T&C's.
I.e. is not a legal business. Centurion07 said:
I provide his details to the company and they speak with him directly to confirm everything. They don't accept this.
“Hi, is that Dave?”Centurion07 said:
The car was scrapped at the beginning of this year which the insurance company start quibbling about.
Ok, so..... you can’t prove the payments were happening. They can prove the car was scrapped. You, expect them to pay. This is just from your first post. I was pleasant before but now I’m calling it as it clearly is. Bull s
t insurance fraud. Now answer my other question, if you don’t track your cash income, how do you accurately pay tax? You have said on here how you do track each journey but chose to not write down the fare.
You are a leach on society.
h0b0 said:
I did
This is just from your first post. I was pleasant before but now I’m calling it as it clearly is. Bull st insurance fraud.
Now answer my other question, if you don’t track your cash income, how do you accurately pay tax? You have said on here how you do track each journey but chose to not write down the fare.
You are a leach on society.
Quoted just because. Centurion07 said:
I hired another vehicle in the meantime (which I told them I was going to do) from another driver.
Dave’s rent-a-wreckCenturion07 said:
the insurance company are stalling and asking for all sorts of ridiculous proof that the hire took place.
Like being from a legitimate rental company?Centurion07 said:
Being an almost 100% cash business, there is nothing to physically prove I was handing over £200PW to this guy.
Oh, ok. That Centurion07 said:
ridiculous proof
By your own admission doesn’t exist. Centurion07 said:
I first provided them with an invoice from the other driver. They didn't like that as it "is not a proper invoice". This guy isn't a huge corporation. He has a few cars he hires out and therefore doesn't have an invoicing system detailing lots of boring T&C's.
I.e. is not a legal business. Centurion07 said:
I provide his details to the company and they speak with him directly to confirm everything. They don't accept this.
“Hi, is that Dave?”Centurion07 said:
The car was scrapped at the beginning of this year which the insurance company start quibbling about.
Ok, so..... you can’t prove the payments were happening. They can prove the car was scrapped. You, expect them to pay. This is just from your first post. I was pleasant before but now I’m calling it as it clearly is. Bull s
t insurance fraud. Now answer my other question, if you don’t track your cash income, how do you accurately pay tax? You have said on here how you do track each journey but chose to not write down the fare.
You are a leach on society.
I'll answer one of your points, which is more than you deserve since you're such a monumental bellend.
Nowhere did I say I don't track my cash income. If you can ask your carer to read the thread again, they'll point out to you that what I actually said was there is no obligation for me to record each individual fare amount. This is literally nothing to do with tax whatsoever.
Now be quiet and let people who know what they're talking about which, apart from you, seems to be everyone, offer up their advice.
Centurion07 said:
I'll answer one of your points, which is more than you deserve since you're such a monumental bellend.
...
Now be quiet and let people who know what they're talking about which, apart from you, seems to be everyone, offer up their advice.
Is this how you're dealing with the insurer?...
Now be quiet and let people who know what they're talking about which, apart from you, seems to be everyone, offer up their advice.
Maybe I’m reading this wrong
Centurion07 said:
Why would I be withdrawing cash from the bank when 90-odd% or so of my business is cash? So no, it's not traceable, but then I shouldn't have to be proving anything of the sort to them.
This one is a gem. Centurion07 said:
What I'm saying is, they should automatically, without quibbling, be paying me a sum at least equal to what it would've cost them had they provided their own vehicle to me.
All of my quotes demonstrate you have no idea of how business is done leagally. Edited by h0b0 on Monday 23 July 13:07
Centurion07 said:
Quoted just because.
I'll answer one of your points, which is more than you deserve since you're such a monumental bellend.
Nowhere did I say I don't track my cash income. If you can ask your carer to read the thread again, they'll point out to you that what I actually said was there is no obligation for me to record each individual fare amount. This is literally nothing to do with tax whatsoever.
You are welcome to quote me all you like. I'll answer one of your points, which is more than you deserve since you're such a monumental bellend.
Nowhere did I say I don't track my cash income. If you can ask your carer to read the thread again, they'll point out to you that what I actually said was there is no obligation for me to record each individual fare amount. This is literally nothing to do with tax whatsoever.
If the insurance company is going to cover the cost then they will have a VAT liability on the expense that they will need to claim back. With out a real invoice they are unable to do this. So, even if your expense was legitimate, without the paper work it is not.
Centurion07 said:
Now be quiet and let people who know what they're talking about which, apart from you, seems to be everyone, offer up their advice.
Again, I’m reading a different thread to you because some have sympathized but most have told you to get a real invoice. I don’t have any sympathy because I do not believe for a second you wanted to do the insurance company a favor. Your options were to take their deal or drive a wreck on its last legs. And you took the wreck option even though you feel out of pocket. Bull st. You are playing the system and the only way it makes sense is that your income is higher than what you report. You have said all over this thread your cash income is untraceable and you chose to keep it so. I am just quoting you. Is this “fake news”?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff