Main dealer has written car off

[Centurion07]

robinessex said:

3 completely pointless posts, a record here so far. Congratulations.

The post IMMEDIATELY prior to yours asking about who should be claiming from whom explained in it's very first sentence that it was all settled.

The entire umpteen-page thread has been round and round about this exact point and you rock up like no-one else has bothered to clarify the situation and then get arsey when somebody points out that yes, you are so late to the party that everyone's gone home already.

[robinessex]

I have read the complete postings. I've enjoyed the 'who knows/doesn't know what he's talking about' arguments. I was just basically summing up what I believe is the 'correct' legal status in a situation like this. Worth doing wouldn't you agree?

[rlg43p]

robinessex said:

BertBert said:

You are completely correct.

I did admit it was a bit late. Any chance you can engage your brain, and answer the full question?

Any chance you could read the thread properly?

[Osinjak]

[Centurion07]

robinessex said:

I have read the complete postings. I've enjoyed the 'who knows/doesn't know what he's talking about' arguments. I was just basically summing up what I believe is the 'correct' legal status in a situation like this. Worth doing wouldn't you agree?

Twig is the only one here that seems to have any idea of what he's talking about and has said (basically, IIRC) that there are a couple of different ways this could have been solved.

Without knowing the exact ins and outs of what transpired then we 're not going to know EXACTLY what occured with regards to why the solicitor was involved, why OP's sister wasn't getting the full amount to start with etc etc.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Centurion07 said:

Twig is the only one here that seems to have any idea of what he's talking about

Well apparently not. I said gap insurers would not get involved in this, as it was nothing to do with them. But they did get involved!! Although I'm still not convinced they should have.

But anyway, all's well that ends well.

[Trevor555]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Well apparently not. I said gap insurers would not get involved in this, as it was nothing to do with them. But they did get involved!! Although I'm still not convinced they should have.

But anyway, all's well that ends well.

This+1

Why should her Gap insurance pay out when it's not her insurance claim.

I'm baffled.

[anonymous-user]

Trevor555 said:

This+1

Why should her Gap insurance pay out when it's not her insurance claim.

I'm baffled.

Isn't the purpose of gap insurance to cover otherwise uninsured losses such as outstanding finance or depreciation? That being the case (and subject to policy), so long as there is an insured amount that pays out at one end and a top figure to pay the finance/replace for new at the other, the gap is satisfied, is it not?

[Centurion07]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Centurion07 said:

Twig is the only one here that seems to have any idea of what he's talking about

Well apparently not. I said gap insurers would not get involved in this, as it was nothing to do with them. But they did get involved!! Although I'm still not convinced they should have.

But anyway, all's well that ends well.

Hence me saying without being privvy to all party's reasoning, none of us will be any the wiser as to WHY things happened as they did, so the question on what is the correct legal status/outcome of this situation is completely moot.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

janesmith1950 said:

Trevor555 said:

This+1

Why should her Gap insurance pay out when it's not her insurance claim.

I'm baffled.

Isn't the purpose of gap insurance to cover otherwise uninsured losses such as outstanding finance or depreciation? That being the case (and subject to policy), so long as there is an insured amount that pays out at one end and a top figure to pay the finance/replace for new at the other, the gap is satisfied, is it not?

In a manner of speaking, but it normally covers the difference between what your insurers pay and whatever option you've selected on the gap policy. How can it cover the difference between what someone else's insurance paid. After all, you don't know what excess was deducted, whether the claim was settled on market value or trade value (as might be the case here), and other variables out of the claimants control.

But all this is just talk.....they did pay.

[Gareth79]

Trevor555 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Well apparently not. I said gap insurers would not get involved in this, as it was nothing to do with them. But they did get involved!! Although I'm still not convinced they should have.

But anyway, all's well that ends well.

This+1

Why should her Gap insurance pay out when it's not her insurance claim.

I'm baffled.

I just read the policy wording of a random gap insurance policy and it doesn't require a claim to be made against the policyholder's own car insurance, it covers "a valid claim where your vehicle is declared a total loss by a motor insurer". There is no restriction as to whose insurance is paying out to trigger the gap cover.

[Trevor555]

Gareth79 said:

I just read the policy wording of a random gap insurance policy and it doesn't require a claim to be made against the policyholder's own car insurance, it covers "a valid claim where your vehicle is declared a total loss by a motor insurer". There is no restriction as to whose insurance is paying out to trigger the gap cover.

Thanks for looking that up Gareth.

[Wildcat45]

Glad to read this is in the way to being resolved. However the pessimist in me thinks they're going to continue to be arsey

The following is an anecdote and not advice.

Publicity.

From time to time I've been asked to help out people in this sort of situation, and without actually going public, the thought of having to deal with another problem on top of the existing hassle can be persuasive to any business.

Not the motor trade, but I had someone approach me with an issue with a national brand. A vastly inflated bill that was inaccurate, and a long paper trail to go with it from this brand's local franchise.

A call to the brand's PR department to "check some facts" got the ball rolling. I explained that I was putting together a press release and I wanted to check the spelling of names, job titles etc of key people in the franchise as this was very much a local matter with a franchise and not head office. I asked for some simple facts because you know how journos like facts? How many units does the branch sell? How long has the franchise been there? Could they give me any stats on customer satisfaction?

Clearly I got none of this, but they said they'd have to check and call me back.

An hour later, they replied to say the issue had been sorted. The bill had been adjusted to the correct figure and the gesture of good will just so happened to cover the outstanding balance.

I did something similar with a car manufacturer after the Franchise kept a new car of mine for 8 weeks claiming they couldn't get specialist parts. I had evidence this was not the case and a chat to the PR department nationally to again "check some facts" about the dealer, and the alleged parts supply problem had the car fixed and back home in a couple of days.

It's a pretty bullying tactic and I only use it if people are clearly being difficult. Even if it doesn't result in a magic solution, it gets st behaviour onto the radar of people in the business who otherwise might never know.

I am always careful not to stray from the facts and to get into the potentially defamatory world of he said, she said, mud slinging. It's also not about looking for compensation. That I think weakens your position. I take the view that it's about getting a fair deal.

Edited by Wildcat45 on Monday 13th April 15:26

[Its Just Adz]

It's a terrible dealer in question, they seem to not care about customer reviews, or customers for that matter.

[BertBert]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But anyway, all's well that ends well.

We hope so, but has any money actually arrived yet OP? Either from the garage or the gap insurer?
Bert

[Flumpo]

So, all paid out and everyone had moved on with their lives.

Or so we thought, sister has in the last hour revived mildly abusive personal messages from the driver who wrote her car off through Facebook.

I won’t repost his messages as I’m on the line of potentially contacting the police.

Why is everything always so complicated!

[bad company]

Flumpo said:

So, all paid out and everyone had moved on with their lives.

Or so we thought, sister has in the last hour revived mildly abusive personal messages from the driver who wrote her car off through Facebook.

I won’t repost his messages as I’m on the line of potentially contacting the police.

Why is everything always so complicated!

Your sister should report the abuse to the dealer, block the bloke on Facebook and move on.

[Trevor555]

Flumpo said:

So, all paid out and everyone had moved on with their lives.

Or so we thought, sister has in the last hour revived mildly abusive personal messages from the driver who wrote her car off through Facebook.

I won’t repost his messages as I’m on the line of potentially contacting the police.

Why is everything always so complicated!

Unreal

What's this person trying to achieve?

Contact the Police for sure.

Presume he got sacked?

[edthefed]

She ok hun xxx

[Flumpo]

edthefed said:

She ok hun xxx

Ha ha, not sure if this is one of those sarky you ok hun things?!

But A little concerned as this behaviour is a bit nutty. Rule one of any job is don’t contact customers directly as it will probably end in losing your job. So the guy is potentially not playing with a full deck.

Plus he knows where she lives. Hopefully all an over action and it’s just someone who’s done something silly. Maybe he has had a drink, he’s claiming she has cost him financial as no one is using the collect service due to her.