Main dealer has written car off
Discussion
ambuletz said:
take it to the financial ombudsman service, let them make a decision that could be legally binding if it goes in her favour. the process may take time though anywhere from 3-12 months
The Ombudsman will not become involved as the poster does not have a contract / policy with the Insurer handling the claimdacouch said:
ambuletz said:
take it to the financial ombudsman service, let them make a decision that could be legally binding if it goes in her favour. the process may take time though anywhere from 3-12 months
The Ombudsman will not become involved as the poster does not have a contract / policy with the Insurer handling the claimRSTurboPaul said:
Is it therefore the case that no person or entity can take an insurance company to the ombudsman if it is not their own personal/company insurance provider?
The Ombudsman only rules on cases where you are in dispute with your own Insurer except in very exceptional casesA discussion with the dp
If not available then legal advice. Maybe she has to sue the dealer for the demonstrable cost of a like for like replacement vehicle
Hard to see a judge not agreeing that she should be put back into the position she was in before the dealer’s staff wrecked her motor
If not available then legal advice. Maybe she has to sue the dealer for the demonstrable cost of a like for like replacement vehicle
Hard to see a judge not agreeing that she should be put back into the position she was in before the dealer’s staff wrecked her motor
Why are you dealing with an insurance company? The dealership wrecked your car and it is the dealership who need to make good. The fact that they have some insurance mitigates their loss - not yours. As above - a meeting with the dealer-principal sounds to be the next step. Why are your insurance company not interested? Do you have legal cover? Good luck!
Centurion07 said:
IANAL but hiding the courtesy car sounds like a very bad idea.
That's the dealer's car, her problem is with the dealer's insurers/solicitor.
You need some actual proper legal advice rather than the opinions of a bunch of us on here but for what it's worth, I wouldn't have thought it would be too hard to get the insurers to up their offer given their own client want another £5K on top of their derisory offer to replace like-for-like.
I think that is the bit I would start with getting legal advice on. That's the dealer's car, her problem is with the dealer's insurers/solicitor.
You need some actual proper legal advice rather than the opinions of a bunch of us on here but for what it's worth, I wouldn't have thought it would be too hard to get the insurers to up their offer given their own client want another £5K on top of their derisory offer to replace like-for-like.
I have a feeling that her beef is with the dealer. They are the ones liable. Whether they then get their insurance to pay is secondary. I am basing this on when I had a fault claim against me. 3rd party insurers were obviously claiming from my insurers but when stalemate occurred due to the 3rd party car hire charges being a bit steep my insurers dug their heels in and refused to pay. That just resulted in the 3rd party insurers coming after me directly as I was ultimately liable. Needless to say I had very strong words with my insurers and they sorted it.
Like I say, might not be relevent in this case but I would definitely check.
Beggarall said:
Why are you dealing with an insurance company? The dealership wrecked your car and it is the dealership who need to make good. The fact that they have some insurance mitigates their loss - not yours. As above - a meeting with the dealer-principal sounds to be the next step. Why are your insurance company not interested? Do you have legal cover? Good luck!
Because their insurance company, as a condition of the insurance and in order to cover their liability, like your car insurance, will say they have to deal with it. How do you think it would would go, if you drove into someones car and you decided to negotiate a deal with the third party? Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 17th March 20:37
Brads67 said:
The dealers insurance has to put her back in the position she was in before they destroyed her car. That is what Third party cover actually is.
No they don't. The dealer's insurance have no contract with her. They have a contract with their client, the garage.This is where the confusion lies. This is not a third party claim. The claimant is the garage. They are claiming off their own insurance, because they wrote off a car whilst in their care, custody or control. Doesn't matter if that car was owned by the garage or a customer of the garage. They are not claiming for someone else's car they hit. That would be a third party claim. Because they are claiming for a car they had under their control, many motor trade policies only pay trade value, otherwise the garage could/would benefit from writing cars off!!
Let's say the garage can source this car thru trade at £12K, and they would put it on their forecourt (albeit fully serviced and with a main dealer guarantee) for £17K. If the insurer paid the garage £17K, they would give it to the owner, who would buy a new car off the forecourt for the £17K they've received, a car the garage bought for £12K. So the garage have made £5K profit by selling an extra car, out of their own carelessness. Or the garage would take the £17K, buy a replacement thru trade sources for £12K, and keep the £5K balance, same difference.
In this case, the garage seem to be overlooking the fact that they can take the money the garage are offering, buy a like for like replacement, and give it to OP's sister. No one loses or gains. If they don't wish to do that, then the legal action the OP's sister has is against the garage, not the insurer. She has no contract with the insurer, and it's the garage that have caused her a loss due to negligence.
So she takes the £12K from the insurer, and sues the garage for the missing £5K, as she has to pay £17K to replace the car. If the garage don't think they can get a replacement for the money their insurer are offering, then the garage need to have that argument with their insurer.
Interesting that the dialogue has been with the dealer’s solicitor and not their insurer.
This, coupled to a very hard-ball attitude from the solicitor, suggests to me that the real issue that the dealer’s Insurance has a stratospheric excess and that they are looking down the barrels of paying the large majority - if not all - of the settlement themselves.
Suggest that your sister might need to play equally hardball
This, coupled to a very hard-ball attitude from the solicitor, suggests to me that the real issue that the dealer’s Insurance has a stratospheric excess and that they are looking down the barrels of paying the large majority - if not all - of the settlement themselves.
Suggest that your sister might need to play equally hardball
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No they don't. The dealer's insurance have no contract with her. They have a contract with their client, the garage.This is where the confusion lies. This is not a third party claim. The claimant is the garage. They are claiming off their own insurance, because they wrote off a car whilst in their care, custody or control. Doesn't matter if that car was owned by the garage or a customer of the garage. They are not claiming for someone else's car they hit. That would be a third party claim.
Because they are claiming for a car they had under their control, many motor trade policies only pay trade value, otherwise the garage could/would benefit from writing cars off!!
Let's say the garage can source this car thru trade at £12K, and they would put it on their forecourt (albeit fully serviced and with a main dealer guarantee) for £17K. If the insurer paid the garage £17K, they would give it to the owner, who would buy a new car off the forecourt for the £17K they've received, a car the garage bought for £12K. So the garage have made £5K profit by selling an extra car, out of their own carelessness. Or the garage would take the £17K, buy a replacement thru trade sources for £12K, and keep the £5K balance, same difference.
In this case, the garage seem to be overlooking the fact that they can take the money the garage are offering, buy a like for like replacement, and give it to OP's sister. No one loses or gains. If they don't wish to do that, then the legal action the OP's sister has is against the garage, not the insurer. She has no contract with the insurer, and it's the garage that have caused her a loss due to negligence.
So she takes the £12K from the insurer, and sues the garage for the missing £5K, as she has to pay £17K to replace the car. If the garage don't think they can get a replacement for the money their insurer are offering, then the garage need to have that argument with their insurer.
All good stuff, but why then are the insurance company making her an offer. They have no contract with her as you say, so the offer should be to the dealer surely ?Because they are claiming for a car they had under their control, many motor trade policies only pay trade value, otherwise the garage could/would benefit from writing cars off!!
Let's say the garage can source this car thru trade at £12K, and they would put it on their forecourt (albeit fully serviced and with a main dealer guarantee) for £17K. If the insurer paid the garage £17K, they would give it to the owner, who would buy a new car off the forecourt for the £17K they've received, a car the garage bought for £12K. So the garage have made £5K profit by selling an extra car, out of their own carelessness. Or the garage would take the £17K, buy a replacement thru trade sources for £12K, and keep the £5K balance, same difference.
In this case, the garage seem to be overlooking the fact that they can take the money the garage are offering, buy a like for like replacement, and give it to OP's sister. No one loses or gains. If they don't wish to do that, then the legal action the OP's sister has is against the garage, not the insurer. She has no contract with the insurer, and it's the garage that have caused her a loss due to negligence.
So she takes the £12K from the insurer, and sues the garage for the missing £5K, as she has to pay £17K to replace the car. If the garage don't think they can get a replacement for the money their insurer are offering, then the garage need to have that argument with their insurer.
If so, then why are the dealer refusing to discuss with her and the insurance company will.?
Brads67 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No they don't. The dealer's insurance have no contract with her. They have a contract with their client, the garage.This is where the confusion lies. This is not a third party claim. The claimant is the garage. They are claiming off their own insurance, because they wrote off a car whilst in their care, custody or control. Doesn't matter if that car was owned by the garage or a customer of the garage. They are not claiming for someone else's car they hit. That would be a third party claim.
Because they are claiming for a car they had under their control, many motor trade policies only pay trade value, otherwise the garage could/would benefit from writing cars off!!
Let's say the garage can source this car thru trade at £12K, and they would put it on their forecourt (albeit fully serviced and with a main dealer guarantee) for £17K. If the insurer paid the garage £17K, they would give it to the owner, who would buy a new car off the forecourt for the £17K they've received, a car the garage bought for £12K. So the garage have made £5K profit by selling an extra car, out of their own carelessness. Or the garage would take the £17K, buy a replacement thru trade sources for £12K, and keep the £5K balance, same difference.
In this case, the garage seem to be overlooking the fact that they can take the money the garage are offering, buy a like for like replacement, and give it to OP's sister. No one loses or gains. If they don't wish to do that, then the legal action the OP's sister has is against the garage, not the insurer. She has no contract with the insurer, and it's the garage that have caused her a loss due to negligence.
So she takes the £12K from the insurer, and sues the garage for the missing £5K, as she has to pay £17K to replace the car. If the garage don't think they can get a replacement for the money their insurer are offering, then the garage need to have that argument with their insurer.
All good stuff, but why then are the insurance company making her an offer. They have no contract with her as you say, so the offer should be to the dealer surely ?Because they are claiming for a car they had under their control, many motor trade policies only pay trade value, otherwise the garage could/would benefit from writing cars off!!
Let's say the garage can source this car thru trade at £12K, and they would put it on their forecourt (albeit fully serviced and with a main dealer guarantee) for £17K. If the insurer paid the garage £17K, they would give it to the owner, who would buy a new car off the forecourt for the £17K they've received, a car the garage bought for £12K. So the garage have made £5K profit by selling an extra car, out of their own carelessness. Or the garage would take the £17K, buy a replacement thru trade sources for £12K, and keep the £5K balance, same difference.
In this case, the garage seem to be overlooking the fact that they can take the money the garage are offering, buy a like for like replacement, and give it to OP's sister. No one loses or gains. If they don't wish to do that, then the legal action the OP's sister has is against the garage, not the insurer. She has no contract with the insurer, and it's the garage that have caused her a loss due to negligence.
So she takes the £12K from the insurer, and sues the garage for the missing £5K, as she has to pay £17K to replace the car. If the garage don't think they can get a replacement for the money their insurer are offering, then the garage need to have that argument with their insurer.
If so, then why are the dealer refusing to discuss with her and the insurance company will.?
Sheepshanks said:
Flumpo said:
The solicitor for main dealer has said they won’t go above 12 and that’s a problem for her gap insurance not their problem.
Did she buy the car new, and what kind of GAP insurance has she got? She might end up with a new car.
k all to do with gap insurance. All she wants is the market value today. She doesn't want the price she paid, or the cost of a brand new one. The whole problem is down to the fact that the garage's trade insurance only settles on trade value for cars in the care, custody or control of the garage, and she isn't in the trade. The garage don't seem to have twigged that they are responsible to bridge this shortfall, either by buying her a replacement car thru the trade ( in which case there is no shortfall), or adding in money to bring her money up from trade price to market value. TwigtheWonderkid said:
No they don't. The dealer's insurance have no contract with her. They have a contract with their client, the garage.This is where the confusion lies. This is not a third party claim. The claimant is the garage. They are claiming off their own insurance, because they wrote off a car whilst in their care, custody or control. Doesn't matter if that car was owned by the garage or a customer of the garage. They are not claiming for someone else's car they hit. That would be a third party claim.
Because they are claiming for a car they had under their control, many motor trade policies only pay trade value, otherwise the garage could/would benefit from writing cars off!!
Let's say the garage can source this car thru trade at £12K, and they would put it on their forecourt (albeit fully serviced and with a main dealer guarantee) for £17K. If the insurer paid the garage £17K, they would give it to the owner, who would buy a new car off the forecourt for the £17K they've received, a car the garage bought for £12K. So the garage have made £5K profit by selling an extra car, out of their own carelessness. Or the garage would take the £17K, buy a replacement thru trade sources for £12K, and keep the £5K balance, same difference.
In this case, the garage seem to be overlooking the fact that they can take the money the garage are offering, buy a like for like replacement, and give it to OP's sister. No one loses or gains. If they don't wish to do that, then the legal action the OP's sister has is against the garage, not the insurer. She has no contract with the insurer, and it's the garage that have caused her a loss due to negligence.
So she takes the £12K from the insurer, and sues the garage for the missing £5K, as she has to pay £17K to replace the car. If the garage don't think they can get a replacement for the money their insurer are offering, then the garage need to have that argument with their insurer.
Very interesting post, thanks WonderTwig. I'm guessing you work in insurance - non? Because they are claiming for a car they had under their control, many motor trade policies only pay trade value, otherwise the garage could/would benefit from writing cars off!!
Let's say the garage can source this car thru trade at £12K, and they would put it on their forecourt (albeit fully serviced and with a main dealer guarantee) for £17K. If the insurer paid the garage £17K, they would give it to the owner, who would buy a new car off the forecourt for the £17K they've received, a car the garage bought for £12K. So the garage have made £5K profit by selling an extra car, out of their own carelessness. Or the garage would take the £17K, buy a replacement thru trade sources for £12K, and keep the £5K balance, same difference.
In this case, the garage seem to be overlooking the fact that they can take the money the garage are offering, buy a like for like replacement, and give it to OP's sister. No one loses or gains. If they don't wish to do that, then the legal action the OP's sister has is against the garage, not the insurer. She has no contract with the insurer, and it's the garage that have caused her a loss due to negligence.
So she takes the £12K from the insurer, and sues the garage for the missing £5K, as she has to pay £17K to replace the car. If the garage don't think they can get a replacement for the money their insurer are offering, then the garage need to have that argument with their insurer.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff