Main dealer has written car off
Discussion
So we have a garage who smashed up a clients car and a bullying solicitor appointed by the garage.
The claim is against the garage, the solicitor is noise and distraction but ultimately will be following the instructions from the garage.
To start with this need a blunt letter from a solicitor to the principal of the garage, stating that the liability lies with them and that the loss is whatever the replacement cost is for an equivalent car, plus some consequential loss. They should return her to the position she had before their negligence.
The garage need to understand that the ops sister is serious and is not going to cave in, without legal insurance she may need to pay a solicitor for the letter as a starting point. Solicitor needs to be a litigation specialist.
The claim is against the garage, the solicitor is noise and distraction but ultimately will be following the instructions from the garage.
To start with this need a blunt letter from a solicitor to the principal of the garage, stating that the liability lies with them and that the loss is whatever the replacement cost is for an equivalent car, plus some consequential loss. They should return her to the position she had before their negligence.
The garage need to understand that the ops sister is serious and is not going to cave in, without legal insurance she may need to pay a solicitor for the letter as a starting point. Solicitor needs to be a litigation specialist.
Wouldn’t go too much on the Autotrader valuation neither. Did mine recently and it came in a £1,000 less than a WBAC quote, on a car a third of your sisters price. Might be an idea to get a few snaps of similar mileage and spec cars and there prices now, just in case this stupid virus has an effect on future prices. Would be handy to show a judge the actual difference in costs if it goes the distance and she ends up in court.
I’ve given her the key points from on here - are no people are not solicitors but worth a starting point.
She has phoned dealer:
-said she is not dealing with the solicitor any more - person from email and phone explicitly told her she was a solicitor - looks like she might not be.
- said she need to keep the courtesy car until this is resolved as she can’t get to work without a vehicle. At the very least this should be a gesture of good Will from the dealer
- said she wants a replacement like for like car, she can provide details from their own website of cars that match hers.
- tell that that she will be taking legal action if they can’t resolve this amicably and fairly.
- express how disappointed she is that she has bought a car from them, they have damaged it, all be it by accident but are unwilling to put it right. As a customer who was otherwise very happy is shocked by her treatment. She is not looking for compensation, just to be put back into a like for like vehicle, which funnily enough they have several of.
- is chasing up her insurance again to check motor legal cover.
She has managed to speak to dealer, he has said he will look into it and will phone her back. Was more helpful than the law firm. But she is prepared to be fobbed off.
She has phoned dealer:
-said she is not dealing with the solicitor any more - person from email and phone explicitly told her she was a solicitor - looks like she might not be.
- said she need to keep the courtesy car until this is resolved as she can’t get to work without a vehicle. At the very least this should be a gesture of good Will from the dealer
- said she wants a replacement like for like car, she can provide details from their own website of cars that match hers.
- tell that that she will be taking legal action if they can’t resolve this amicably and fairly.
- express how disappointed she is that she has bought a car from them, they have damaged it, all be it by accident but are unwilling to put it right. As a customer who was otherwise very happy is shocked by her treatment. She is not looking for compensation, just to be put back into a like for like vehicle, which funnily enough they have several of.
- is chasing up her insurance again to check motor legal cover.
She has managed to speak to dealer, he has said he will look into it and will phone her back. Was more helpful than the law firm. But she is prepared to be fobbed off.
Flumpo said:
She has managed to speak to dealer, he has said he will look into it and will phone her back.
Per my earlier posts. She needs to proceed firmly and calmly down this route. The extra over the insurance offer is really shirt buttons to any dealer. Make sure she meets face to face with the big cheese, not on the phone.If the dealership have instructed solicitors to represent them in this case, you've got to continue to deal with the solicitors. When a party nominates solicitors to accept service of proceedings, you serve your proceedings on the solicitors, not directly on the party.
Yes, the solicitors look like a pile of s
te, but you've got to continue dealing with them.
No joy, issue proceedings.
Yes, the solicitors look like a pile of s
te, but you've got to continue dealing with them. No joy, issue proceedings.
Flumpo said:
I don’t have any further details from last night but a few quick responses:
Sister has spoken to her insurance, they have categorically said she isn’t covered with them for this. They are not going to get involved. - I will suggest she phoned them again and asks specifically about motor legal insurance.
The gap situation is being made slightly complicated. She has phoned them 3 times but the people she gets through to are ‘computer says no’ types. They are unable to start the claim until they have the insurance details of the driver. Solicitor won’t give out these details and says gdpr. Solicitor now refusing to discuss anything or take calls.
It takes over an hour to get through to the gap people who are only open 9-5. Added to that she works for a company who support working from home software. Unsurprisingly they are incredibly busy at the moment. Her boss isn’t happy about her making hour long phone calls during his busiest period ever.
I will ask if she is in the aa, I doubt it but I would think she has some scheme through Mercedes.
Thanks for replies.
Don’t overthink this Flumpo, as others have said insurance claims really should not enter into discussions, your claim is against the dealer who wrote your car off and you need to be put back in a position that you were before the incident either with a like for like replacement or a satisfactory financial settlement, how the garage then recover their costs is up to them. It is probably worth spending a 100 quid on Half an hour with a specialist solicitor Sister has spoken to her insurance, they have categorically said she isn’t covered with them for this. They are not going to get involved. - I will suggest she phoned them again and asks specifically about motor legal insurance.
The gap situation is being made slightly complicated. She has phoned them 3 times but the people she gets through to are ‘computer says no’ types. They are unable to start the claim until they have the insurance details of the driver. Solicitor won’t give out these details and says gdpr. Solicitor now refusing to discuss anything or take calls.
It takes over an hour to get through to the gap people who are only open 9-5. Added to that she works for a company who support working from home software. Unsurprisingly they are incredibly busy at the moment. Her boss isn’t happy about her making hour long phone calls during his busiest period ever.
I will ask if she is in the aa, I doubt it but I would think she has some scheme through Mercedes.
Thanks for replies.
martinbiz said:
Don’t overthink this Flumpo, as others have said insurance claims really should not enter into discussions, your claim is against the dealer who wrote your car off and you need to be put back in a position that you were before the incident either with a like for like replacement or a satisfactory financial settlement, how the garage then recover their costs is up to them. It is probably worth spending a 100 quid on Half an hour with a specialist solicitor
I agree. Your sister needs to get her own Solicitor. Why are their Solicitors playing hard ball when it's the negligence of the Dealer that's resulted in the loss?Flumpo said:
I’ve given her the key points from on here - are no people are not solicitors but worth a starting point.
She has phoned dealer:
-said she is not dealing with the solicitor any more - person from email and phone explicitly told her she was a solicitor - looks like she might not be.
- said she need to keep the courtesy car until this is resolved as she can’t get to work without a vehicle. At the very least this should be a gesture of good Will from the dealer
- said she wants a replacement like for like car, she can provide details from their own website of cars that match hers.
- tell that that she will be taking legal action if they can’t resolve this amicably and fairly.
- express how disappointed she is that she has bought a car from them, they have damaged it, all be it by accident but are unwilling to put it right. As a customer who was otherwise very happy is shocked by her treatment. She is not looking for compensation, just to be put back into a like for like vehicle, which funnily enough they have several of.
- is chasing up her insurance again to check motor legal cover.
She has managed to speak to dealer, he has said he will look into it and will phone her back. Was more helpful than the law firm. But she is prepared to be fobbed off.
If they are adamant on getting the courtesy car back get her to put in writing she will give it back if they provide her with a suitable hire car or agree to reimbursing the cost of her hiring her own.She has phoned dealer:
-said she is not dealing with the solicitor any more - person from email and phone explicitly told her she was a solicitor - looks like she might not be.
- said she need to keep the courtesy car until this is resolved as she can’t get to work without a vehicle. At the very least this should be a gesture of good Will from the dealer
- said she wants a replacement like for like car, she can provide details from their own website of cars that match hers.
- tell that that she will be taking legal action if they can’t resolve this amicably and fairly.
- express how disappointed she is that she has bought a car from them, they have damaged it, all be it by accident but are unwilling to put it right. As a customer who was otherwise very happy is shocked by her treatment. She is not looking for compensation, just to be put back into a like for like vehicle, which funnily enough they have several of.
- is chasing up her insurance again to check motor legal cover.
She has managed to speak to dealer, he has said he will look into it and will phone her back. Was more helpful than the law firm. But she is prepared to be fobbed off.
They want the car back so they can give it to other customers.
Just some general comments on stuff posted.
GAP insurance, covers a shortfall following a total loss claim you make on your own insurance policy. Subject to the terms of the gap policy. The OP's sister is not claiming on her own policy. Basically, she's handed the car over to someone else to drive who has their own insurance. The issue is with their insurance. So gap cover will not be valid in these circumstances.
Someone suggested she has a claim against the garage's business insurance. Wrong. She has a claim against the garage. End of story. Exactly the same claim she'd have against them if they had no insurance. Luckily for the garage, they have a policy to cover them for this, and that's their motor trade policy. This is nothing to do with the OP's sister, who must look to the garage to compensate her. The garage should be liaising with their insurer.
I still maintain the OP's sister should be on to the garage, and not dealing with their insurer. She wants £17K off the garage. How the garage pay her, and how much they get from their own insurance, is none of her concern.
She needs some proper legal advice to help fight her corner, and the suggestion that she check her household policy for any legal cover is a good one.
GAP insurance, covers a shortfall following a total loss claim you make on your own insurance policy. Subject to the terms of the gap policy. The OP's sister is not claiming on her own policy. Basically, she's handed the car over to someone else to drive who has their own insurance. The issue is with their insurance. So gap cover will not be valid in these circumstances.
Someone suggested she has a claim against the garage's business insurance. Wrong. She has a claim against the garage. End of story. Exactly the same claim she'd have against them if they had no insurance. Luckily for the garage, they have a policy to cover them for this, and that's their motor trade policy. This is nothing to do with the OP's sister, who must look to the garage to compensate her. The garage should be liaising with their insurer.
I still maintain the OP's sister should be on to the garage, and not dealing with their insurer. She wants £17K off the garage. How the garage pay her, and how much they get from their own insurance, is none of her concern.
She needs some proper legal advice to help fight her corner, and the suggestion that she check her household policy for any legal cover is a good one.
2Btoo 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.
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.
I think the OPs sister should follow up her conversation with the dealer by a recorded delivery letter sent both to the Dealer and to the manufacturers UK office.
Broadly need to state the facts
I bought the car from you
It came to you for work
You cashed it and the damage rights it off
I want to be out back in position I was
You therefore either provide me with cash to enable me to buy a replacement vehicle or give me on
You give me compensation due to the hassle
I would ask for compensation based on a hourly rate of trying to sort this out. Maybe the same hourly rate they charge when fixing cars.
Be surprising if it then doesnt get sorted.
Broadly need to state the facts
I bought the car from you
It came to you for work
You cashed it and the damage rights it off
I want to be out back in position I was
You therefore either provide me with cash to enable me to buy a replacement vehicle or give me on
You give me compensation due to the hassle
I would ask for compensation based on a hourly rate of trying to sort this out. Maybe the same hourly rate they charge when fixing cars.
Be surprising if it then doesnt get sorted.
Flumpo said:
I don’t have any further details from last night but a few quick responses:
Sister has spoken to her insurance, they have categorically said she isn’t covered with them for this. They are not going to get involved. - I will suggest she phoned them again and asks specifically about motor legal insurance.
The gap situation is being made slightly complicated. She has phoned them 3 times but the people she gets through to are ‘computer says no’ types. They are unable to start the claim until they have the insurance details of the driver. Solicitor won’t give out these details and says gdpr. Solicitor now refusing to discuss anything or take calls.
It takes over an hour to get through to the gap people who are only open 9-5. Added to that she works for a company who support working from home software. Unsurprisingly they are incredibly busy at the moment. Her boss isn’t happy about her making hour long phone calls during his busiest period ever.
I will ask if she is in the aa, I doubt it but I would think she has some scheme through Mercedes.
Thanks for replies.
Don't engage the garage about insurance or GAP. Sister has spoken to her insurance, they have categorically said she isn’t covered with them for this. They are not going to get involved. - I will suggest she phoned them again and asks specifically about motor legal insurance.
The gap situation is being made slightly complicated. She has phoned them 3 times but the people she gets through to are ‘computer says no’ types. They are unable to start the claim until they have the insurance details of the driver. Solicitor won’t give out these details and says gdpr. Solicitor now refusing to discuss anything or take calls.
It takes over an hour to get through to the gap people who are only open 9-5. Added to that she works for a company who support working from home software. Unsurprisingly they are incredibly busy at the moment. Her boss isn’t happy about her making hour long phone calls during his busiest period ever.
I will ask if she is in the aa, I doubt it but I would think she has some scheme through Mercedes.
Thanks for replies.
Your sister is NOT claiming on their insurance, they are to cover their loss (note, its their loss, not your sisters).
Demand replacement or full compensation, including any out of pocket expenses. DONT engage with their insurance.
Gary C said:
Your sister is NOT claiming on their insurance, they are to cover their loss (note, its their loss, not your sisters).
Demand replacement or full compensation, including any out of pocket expenses. DONT engage with their insurance.
Yup. It's none of the OP's sister's business if the garage even have insurance. Nothing to do with her at all. She has a valid claim against the garage. How the garage get the funds to pay her claim is nothing to do with her. Demand replacement or full compensation, including any out of pocket expenses. DONT engage with their insurance.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Yup. It's none of the OP's sister's business if the garage even have insurance. Nothing to do with her at all. She has a valid claim against the garage. How the garage get the funds to pay her claim is nothing to do with her.
The dealer's 'lawyer' is responding to the OPs sister.It's all very well people on here jumping up and down but in the real world she's being stone-walled by everyone - what do you do then, drive the courtesy car through the showroom window?
Must say I'm dismayed her own insurer won't deal with it - appreciate the car wasn't in her control but I'd have expected my insurer to take care of me, although in practice insurers tend to fob-off non-fault claims to AMCs anyway. Not going through them also blocks GAP - appreciate this event is unusual, but you'd a bit a bit miffed to find GAP didn't work becuase of a technicality.
Sheepshanks said:
The dealer's 'lawyer' is responding to the OPs sister.
It's all very well people on here jumping up and down but in the real world she's being stone-walled by everyone - what do you do then, drive the courtesy car through the showroom window?.
No you send a Letter Before Action then lodge a claim....It's all very well people on here jumping up and down but in the real world she's being stone-walled by everyone - what do you do then, drive the courtesy car through the showroom window?.
Sheepshanks said:
Must say I'm dismayed her own insurer won't deal with it - appreciate the car wasn't in her control but I'd have expected my insurer to take care of me, although in practice insurers tend to fob-off non-fault claims to AMCs anyway. Not going through them also blocks GAP - appreciate this event is unusual, but you'd a bit a bit miffed to find GAP didn't work becuase of a technicality.
If you insure your car for you and the wife only, but you lend it to your brother, who has his own insurance to cover him, and he writes it off, would you expect your own insurer to get involved in the claim. Because in reality, the same thing has happened here. Also, GAP insurance not covering this is hardly a technicality. That's a bit unfair on them. If she'd written the car off, and the market value is indeed £17K, her insurers would have paid out £17K. The trader's policy is only paying trade value, hence the shortfall. That's hardly what the gap insurers signed up to or agreed to in their contract. They agreed to pick up any shortfall on her insurance, which pays market value, not trade value.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff