Main dealer has written car off
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
Exactly. Why can't people here understand this?!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.
Sheepshanks said:
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.
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.It's amazing how receiving something like that will focus the mind
You would think the dealer would work with her to save face wouldn’t you?
The price will (I guess) be a trade price for the car so why not sit down with their customer and say “We can see how this looks but we can provide you with the same car for £12k when you get the money”
It looks to me like the garage’s trade car insurance is (rightly as that’s how trade ins works) offering trade money to the garage and the solicitor is passing the info on to your sister in a ‘this is what we can get you’ kind of way.
Maybe they’ve claimed off their car insurance rather than liability insurance? I know I had to pay two premiums to the same broker for both.
The price will (I guess) be a trade price for the car so why not sit down with their customer and say “We can see how this looks but we can provide you with the same car for £12k when you get the money”
It looks to me like the garage’s trade car insurance is (rightly as that’s how trade ins works) offering trade money to the garage and the solicitor is passing the info on to your sister in a ‘this is what we can get you’ kind of way.
Maybe they’ve claimed off their car insurance rather than liability insurance? I know I had to pay two premiums to the same broker for both.
p4cks said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
Exactly. Why can't people here understand this?!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.
Summary.....her own insurance have done nothing wrong, gap insurance have done nothing wrong, I even suspect the garage's insurance have done nothing wrong (it's a motor trade policy, the contract says it pays trade value only), the fault is 100% that of the actual garage.
But....blame the insurers, the crooks!!
uncleluck said:
Maybe they’ve claimed off their car insurance rather than liability insurance? I know I had to pay two premiums to the same broker for both.
Probably. Because liability insurance specifically excludes claims arising out of the use of mechanically propelled vehicles. That's why garages have motor trade road risks insurance, to cover....y'know, road risks. TwigtheWonderkid said:
Probably. Because liability insurance specifically excludes claims arising out of the use of mechanically propelled vehicles. That's why garages have motor trade road risks insurance, to cover....y'know, road risks.
Wouldn’t the liability insurance cover exactly this differential scenario?Insurance on someone else’s vehicle is different to insurance on stock. Their road risk is only covering trade price which is no good to the customer if they’re just spent £17k & the dealer says here’s £12k.
My vehicle insurance (trade) would only get back trade book price but the liability insurance was sold to me to cover this type of extra loss I thought. In this case wouldn’t they be able to claim off their vehicle insurance for the trade book price and then separately the liability (for negligence of their employee) to cover the loss to the customer?
uncleluck said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Probably. Because liability insurance specifically excludes claims arising out of the use of mechanically propelled vehicles. That's why garages have motor trade road risks insurance, to cover....y'know, road risks.
Wouldn’t the liability insurance cover exactly this differential scenario?Insurance on someone else’s vehicle is different to insurance on stock. Their road risk is only covering trade price which is no good to the customer if they’re just spent £17k & the dealer says here’s £12k.
My vehicle insurance (trade) would only get back trade book price but the liability insurance was sold to me to cover this type of extra loss I thought. In this case wouldn’t they be able to claim off their vehicle insurance for the trade book price and then separately the liability (for negligence of their employee) to cover the loss to the customer?
There is no loss here. The garage get £12K off their insurer. The say to the lady "you can have any car on our forecourt up to £17K", which is what she wants, knowing that the car probably cost them about £12K. Or they go to auction or whatever, buy the same model and year for around £12K, and give it to her. She cannot demand £17K in readies. They have to put her back in the same position as before, and can do that for £12K. If they choose not to do that, then they have to give her £17K, so she can buy a similar care elsewhere from another garage who bought it for £12K!!!! Another garage are entitled to make £5K profit. This garage are not, because you don't get rewarded for writing off cars.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
Yes I would. It's the law in the UK that every car must have its own insurance. I would expect my insurer, as the car's insurer, to deal with it in the first instance. Clearly I might be disappointed in this expectation.TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
I think the trade value is a red herring as clearly the garage or their insurer can't pay trade value and leave the OPs sister £K's worse off.One of the points of GAP is they will agree a value with the insurer and then pick up the difference. OPs sister may have RTI GAP - it's a bit off, to say the least, to have GAP and not be allowed to use it. If that is the case, then arguably the garage should simply replace the car with a new one - because that's the OPs sister's loss.
Sheepshanks said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
Yes I would. It's the law in the UK that every car must have its own insurance. I would expect my insurer, as the car's insurer, to deal with it in the first instance. Clearly I might be disappointed in this expectation.If aforementioned brother crashed the car into a tree (i.e. so there is no third-party claim) then your insurance company won't pay out as this is not a risk they have covered. That is pretty much the situation here, substituting the brother for a main dealer.
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.
Tell them to fark off and offer them their day in court.
I would do this.... I'd expect to be put back in a car of equal [or better!!] spec , condition and mileage.Tell them to fark off and offer them their day in court.
And to be honest I would also want a little something on top , certainly if they didn't want me sharing the story far and wide......
Sheepshanks said:
I think the trade value is a red herring as clearly the garage or their insurer can't pay trade value and leave the OPs sister £K's worse off.
I have explained several times that the insurer can, and should, pay trade value. If they pay market value, the garage can buy a replacement car at trade value, and make a profit out of writing off their customers car. That's unacceptable.As regards your other comments, I think you are completely misunderstanding some of the principles of insurance, and how they relate to the situation here.
I would reiterate than none of the insurers involved appear to be doing anything wrong at all, and the fault is entirely with the garage. But I realise that for many people, when a problem arises like this, the default position is that insurers are ripping everyone off. My experience tells me no amount of logical explanation or actual evidence will alter this mindset.
Jonno02 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I have explained several times that the insurer can, and should, pay trade value.
What the f
k did I just read?Does anyone think that would be a good thing. Anytime business is slow, and sales are down, just get a car in for service and smash it up. Money for old rope!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I would reiterate than none of the insurers involved appear to be doing anything wrong at all, and the fault is entirely with the garage.
It's not clear there's even an insurer involved - it sounds like the dealer are letting their solicitor deal with it. As other have said dealers often have very high excesses or my even be 3rd paty only.Whoever picks up the tab should be transparent to the OPs sister - the dealer should just sort it out.
I do understand your other points, but I would expect some assistance from my insurer directly or via their legal assistance (actually mine is separate so I'd be even more hopeful that would work). Again, it could well be my expectation is misplaced.
Sheepshanks said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I would reiterate than none of the insurers involved appear to be doing anything wrong at all, and the fault is entirely with the garage.
It's not clear there's even an insurer involved - it sounds like the dealer are letting their solicitor deal with it. As other have said dealers often have very high excesses or my even be 3rd party only..
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Jonno02 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I have explained several times that the insurer can, and should, pay trade value.
What the fk did I just read?Does anyone think that would be a good thing. Anytime business is slow, and sales are down, just get a car in for service and smash it up. Money for old rope!
Sheepshanks said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I would reiterate than none of the insurers involved appear to be doing anything wrong at all, and the fault is entirely with the garage.
It's not clear there's even an insurer involved - it sounds like the dealer are letting their solicitor deal with it. As other have said dealers often have very high excesses or my even be 3rd paty only.Whoever picks up the tab should be transparent to the OPs sister - the dealer should just sort it out.
I do understand your other points, but I would expect some assistance from my insurer directly or via their legal assistance (actually mine is separate so I'd be even more hopeful that would work). Again, it could well be my expectation is misplaced.
Twig is absolutely spot on through out this thread. I do not disagree with a word he has said. The solicitor should be told, in very plain English, exactly what is expected of their client and that it is not negotiable. The car must be replaced on a like-for-like basis. How this is done is entirely their concern. A Letter Before Action should be immediately sent to the Garage by signed-for post, their solicitors copied in and give them the 7 days to respond.
Personally speaking, if it was me, I would be putting their precious courtesy car into safe keeping pending agreement to a sensible negotiation. I think it would help concentrate minds. However I fully understand the problems this could give rise to, perhaps with PC Plod knocking on my door. But I am a paid-up member of the Awkward Squad and that's just me.
One final very important thing; do not involve the Financial Ombudsman. This is not a financial services dispute. The whole insurance thing is a deliberate red herring. Do not be deflected by this. You need to play hardball but equally importantly you need to know your onions. Listen to the Twig Kid.
blueg33 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Jonno02 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I have explained several times that the insurer can, and should, pay trade value.
What the fk did I just read?Does anyone think that would be a good thing. Anytime business is slow, and sales are down, just get a car in for service and smash it up. Money for old rope!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You may be right, but I'd be amazed if a main dealer had tpo cover, or an excess that would stop them from putting in a claim having written off a client's vehicle that'll cost £12K in the trade to replace. But it's not impossible, so you could have a point.
It could well be that the bigger the dealer group the more a bigger excess makes sense. Like the Post Office used to self-insure their own vehicles.I don't know how widespread this is, but I dug my LV= policy out and it includes cover for damage, fire and theft when being used by a member of the motor trade.
It wouldn't surprise me if the OP's sister's insurance is saying "nothing to do with us" as they don't want to be dragged into a joint liability dispute.
Edited by Sheepshanks on Wednesday 18th March 16:20
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Sheepshanks said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I would reiterate than none of the insurers involved appear to be doing anything wrong at all, and the fault is entirely with the garage.
It's not clear there's even an insurer involved - it sounds like the dealer are letting their solicitor deal with it. As other have said dealers often have very high excesses or my even be 3rd party only..
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff