Auxillis - Accident Claims Management - Non Fault Claim
Discussion
Chucklehead said:
I digress. My point is that the £380 rates that the OP is talking about is NOT the approved rate for a Macan. A Macan (if justified and required) is between £138/day for the 2 litre up to £244 for the turbo.
But that's just for the car - you need to add in the extras.In my, real-life example, the car was £220 and the 'extras' were another £100+ (for 3 types of damage waiver, roadside assistance, and sat-nav). Even though the car I was given had sat-nav as standard, they still charged a daily premium for it.
Chucklehead said:
Enterprise supply most of the insurers in the UK, so chances are you would. If Enterprise were pursuing a non fault claim on your behalf as a "walk in" to their location without being referred by an insurance company, then they'd supply basic CDW free of charge matching the excess on your own policy. If you'd been referred to Enterprise from your own insurance company then they'd be using your insurance policy to cover their car. My info is a bit out of date, but i don't expect it has changed much recently.
I digress. My point is that the £380 rates that the OP is talking about is NOT the approved rate for a Macan. A Macan (if justified and required) is between £138/day for the 2 litre up to £244 for the turbo.
Ok, the point here is, if you were supplied a CC by enterprise on behalf of your insurers, is would be something like a Corsa so potentially not suitable for the customers needs depending on their own vehicle, and is likely to be covered by Enterprises insurance policy, and if there car is a total loss then they would be unlikely to even get a CC.I digress. My point is that the £380 rates that the OP is talking about is NOT the approved rate for a Macan. A Macan (if justified and required) is between £138/day for the 2 litre up to £244 for the turbo.
If Enterprise provided a Credit Hire Vehicle, they would charge the same daily rates as an AMC, which is what the Issue that people on here have.
People are working on the assumption that a claim is straightforward, and that the TP will always accept fault, and the TPI will always offer a car, so AMC's are just rip of merchants, when in fact its not as black and white.
Chucklehead said:
I digress. My point is that the £380 rates that the OP is talking about is NOT the approved rate for a Macan. A Macan (if justified and required) is between £138/day for the 2 litre up to £244 for the turbo.
Is that still the rate if Enterprise agree to let you take the car without paying for it, on the understanding that the person who damaged your own Macan, hence your need to hire one, will probably pay for it, but might not. And it's Enterprise's job to get the money out of them? And if they can't get the money, it's their loss? mmm-five said:
Chucklehead said:
I digress. My point is that the £380 rates that the OP is talking about is NOT the approved rate for a Macan. A Macan (if justified and required) is between £138/day for the 2 litre up to £244 for the turbo.
But that's just for the car - you need to add in the extras.In my, real-life example, the car was £220 and the 'extras' were another £100+ (for 3 types of damage waiver, roadside assistance, and sat-nav). Even though the car I was given had sat-nav as standard, they still charged a daily premium for it.
Smurfsarepeopletoo said:
If Enterprise provided a Credit Hire Vehicle, they would charge the same daily rates as an AMC, which is what the Issue that people on here have.
They would charge the ABI rates as that's all they could hope to recoup, the same as any AMC should. Why the AMC in this post is trying to charge £380 is beyond me. They will never recoup those costs because they are higher than the ABI agreed rates for that car.TwigtheWonderkid said:
Chucklehead said:
I digress. My point is that the £380 rates that the OP is talking about is NOT the approved rate for a Macan. A Macan (if justified and required) is between £138/day for the 2 litre up to £244 for the turbo.
Is that still the rate if Enterprise agree to let you take the car without paying for it, on the understanding that the person who damaged your own Macan, hence your need to hire one, will probably pay for it, but might not. And it's Enterprise's job to get the money out of them? And if they can't get the money, it's their loss? TwigtheWonderkid said:
The punter is only liable for the costs the AMC can't recover, in very specific circumstances, that would be entirely the fault of the punter. Usually restricted to the punter refusing to cooperate with the AMC in their attempts to recover their outlay from the tp, refusing to sign court papers or refusing to attend court.
I've read on Pistonheads in the past that if you have a spare car available, or the funds to hire your own car, you should never accept the credit hire because it will later be shown that you didn't need the credit hire car.Is this no longer the case? (Was it ever?)
Bennet said:
I've read on Pistonheads in the past that if you have a spare car available, or the funds to hire your own car, you should never accept the credit hire because it will later be shown that you didn't need the credit hire car.
Is this no longer the case? (Was it ever?)
That is still the case, its mitigation in reducing the costs, so if you have a spare car, or the funds to hire a car for as long as needed, then a reputable company should provide you with a hire vehicle.Is this no longer the case? (Was it ever?)
Chucklehead said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Is that still the rate if Enterprise agree to let you take the car without paying for it, on the understanding that the person who damaged your own Macan, hence your need to hire one, will probably pay for it, but might not. And it's Enterprise's job to get the money out of them? And if they can't get the money, it's their loss?
Yes, basically, but they wouldn't likely let you take or keep the car if there wasn't a reasonably solid chance of getting their money back.
You think!!!!
How about..... they wouldn't let you take the car at all unless you'd paid for it.
Smurfsarepeopletoo said:
WonkeyDonkey said:
It may be fine to use them but I'd feel morally corrupt to be feeding them business.
So lets say you have a family of 6, you drive a 7 seater vehicle, you live month to month so have no money to hire a suitable car yourself that could be for an indeterminate amount of time, the other drivers insurance are disputing liability because the accident was changing lanes on a roundabout, or a head on crash on a narrow country lane.You decide to use your own insurance as you have courtesy car cover, but because of the damage, they suspect your car is going to be written off, so the garage wont supply a courtesy car because no repairs are going to be carried out on your car, so for the next possibly 2 to 3 months, your going to be without a car, you now cant get to work, you cant afford a replacement car, you cant get your kids to school, are you still not going to use an AMC?
They’ll only give you a vehicle if liability has already been admitted by the third party or it’s clear the third party are at fault ie a rear end shunt.
KungFuPanda said:
An AMC isn’t going to help you in those circumstances as liability is in dispute. If there’s a chance they’re not going to recover or only recover half, they won’t give you a vehicle.
They’ll only give you a vehicle if liability has already been admitted by the third party or it’s clear the third party are at fault ie a rear end shunt.
Not true, the AMC will look at wether it is commercially viable to provide a hire vehicle knowing they are going to only recover 50% of the costs.They’ll only give you a vehicle if liability has already been admitted by the third party or it’s clear the third party are at fault ie a rear end shunt.
Depending on the type of vehicle they were going to supply, they may still provide a hire vehicle, but advise that the repairs need to go through your on insurers.
As most big AMC's have their own fleet, there is minimal risk in providing a hire on a potential 50/50 claim, the risk is with the repairs, as there is no outlay for the hire, but if they repair a vehicle and then only get 50% of the repair costs back, they cant then ask your insurers to pay for the other 50%.
Smurfsarepeopletoo said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You think!!!!
How about..... they wouldn't let you take the car at all unless you'd paid for it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No, but I know how it works and I fully realise than an AMC has to charge substantially more than the basic hire charge in order to cover the cost of the times they aren't successful. Not to mention all the other usual business overheads; staff, premises etc.
I got the impression you maybe worked in the insurance industry in some capacity.Smurfsarepeopletoo said:
KungFuPanda said:
An AMC isn’t going to help you in those circumstances as liability is in dispute. If there’s a chance they’re not going to recover or only recover half, they won’t give you a vehicle.
They’ll only give you a vehicle if liability has already been admitted by the third party or it’s clear the third party are at fault ie a rear end shunt.
Not true, the AMC will look at wether it is commercially viable to provide a hire vehicle knowing they are going to only recover 50% of the costs.They’ll only give you a vehicle if liability has already been admitted by the third party or it’s clear the third party are at fault ie a rear end shunt.
Depending on the type of vehicle they were going to supply, they may still provide a hire vehicle, but advise that the repairs need to go through your on insurers.
As most big AMC's have their own fleet, there is minimal risk in providing a hire on a potential 50/50 claim,
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You might be right, but personally speaking, I've never known a credit hire firm provide a vehicle for anything other than what appears to be a nailed on 100% blame free claim, where there's a known tp. But that's not to say it can't / doesn't happen.
The company I used to work for would provide a hire vehicle on claims that could potentially be settled on a 50/50 basis, but they would only provide the hire on the basis that the customer utilises their own insurers for the repairs or total loss of the vehicle.Smurfsarepeopletoo said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You might be right, but personally speaking, I've never known a credit hire firm provide a vehicle for anything other than what appears to be a nailed on 100% blame free claim, where there's a known tp. But that's not to say it can't / doesn't happen.
The company I used to work for would provide a hire vehicle on claims that could potentially be settled on a 50/50 basis, but they would only provide the hire on the basis that the customer utilises their own insurers for the repairs or total loss of the vehicle.Chucklehead said:
mmm-five said:
But that's just for the car - you need to add in the extras.
In my, real-life example, the car was £220 and the 'extras' were another £100+ (for 3 types of damage waiver, roadside assistance, and sat-nav). Even though the car I was given had sat-nav as standard, they still charged a daily premium for it.
Which you really didn't need to take, but chose to. All of those charges could/should have been rejected, and don't need factored in to anything because the insurance company wouldn't reimburse them no matter who was supplying the car. In my, real-life example, the car was £220 and the 'extras' were another £100+ (for 3 types of damage waiver, roadside assistance, and sat-nav). Even though the car I was given had sat-nav as standard, they still charged a daily premium for it.
The documentation with the daily cost came via email a couple of days later (once my car was already in the bodyshop)...all I signed on delivery of the car was a 'delivery receipt'. I didn't see the total breakdown until I was asked to review & sign my statement for court.
I was never told that there was the option to not have these items, or that I could pick the car up, or choose a different vehicle...it was effectively a take it or leave it option. This is why I kept fixing my statement (that they wrote with my input - and got wrong 3 times) and why I pissed off the solicitors, as I kept removing references to things they said they discussed with me before I signed for the car, and had my signature on documents for...but ultimately they couldn't provide any documentary evidence that I had, because I hadn't.
Smurfsarepeopletoo said:
Bennet said:
I've read on Pistonheads in the past that if you have a spare car available, or the funds to hire your own car, you should never accept the credit hire because it will later be shown that you didn't need the credit hire car.
Is this no longer the case? (Was it ever?)
That is still the case, its mitigation in reducing the costs, so if you have a spare car, or the funds to hire a car for as long as needed, then a reputable company should provide you with a hire vehicle.Is this no longer the case? (Was it ever?)
How likely are they to pursue you and successfully get the funds out of you?
MrGeoff said:
What if you, unwittingly, maybe through naivety enter in to one of these and have another car, albeit a classic, insured on a classic policy and potentially have the means to hire a car. Technically you enter in to it thinking it's the right thing to do, not realising until the dispute comes through that the car you were in cost an absolute fortune and surprisingly the TPI is disputing the costs and wants to go to court.
How likely are they to pursue you and successfully get the funds out of you?
It would depend on what was asked by the AMC, a genuine classic car (not just a 20 year old merc that someone decides is a classic) would be different as daily usage over a few weeks could cause massive depreciation, so that could potentially be justified.How likely are they to pursue you and successfully get the funds out of you?
But if you had the means to hire a vehicle, and the question was asked, and you said no, then you could be liable for the costs, and the costs should be highlighted on the hire agreement that you sign, along with the relevant mitigation statement stating you need a replacement vehicle as you dont have an alternative vehicle or the means to hire one.
MrGeoff said:
What if you, unwittingly, maybe through naivety enter in to one of these and have another car, albeit a classic, insured on a classic policy and potentially have the means to hire a car. Technically you enter in to it thinking it's the right thing to do, not realising until the dispute comes through that the car you were in cost an absolute fortune and surprisingly the TPI is disputing the costs and wants to go to court.
How likely are they to pursue you and successfully get the funds out of you?
Exactly the situation I was in. We have an MX-5, an elderly Camaro and a Fiesta, and we needed a replacement for our MG ZS. I was aware of being accused of not needing a vehicle so I was very up front about what vehicles we had and why we still needed a replacement for our family car. The issuing of a hire car and the payments being covered was never an issue.How likely are they to pursue you and successfully get the funds out of you?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Smurfsarepeopletoo said:
KungFuPanda said:
An AMC isn’t going to help you in those circumstances as liability is in dispute. If there’s a chance they’re not going to recover or only recover half, they won’t give you a vehicle.
They’ll only give you a vehicle if liability has already been admitted by the third party or it’s clear the third party are at fault ie a rear end shunt.
Not true, the AMC will look at wether it is commercially viable to provide a hire vehicle knowing they are going to only recover 50% of the costs.They’ll only give you a vehicle if liability has already been admitted by the third party or it’s clear the third party are at fault ie a rear end shunt.
Depending on the type of vehicle they were going to supply, they may still provide a hire vehicle, but advise that the repairs need to go through your on insurers.
As most big AMC's have their own fleet, there is minimal risk in providing a hire on a potential 50/50 claim,
If people knew the extent to which credit hire has added to premiums (and not immediately think its every man and his dogs whiplash claims) they would be disgusted. Not only in "just" the hire costs themselves, but how many cars that have suffered only a minor knock being written off purely as an economic consideration of a credit hire car inflating the claim value to such an extent its cheaper to write off a modestly damaged car and get back a decent salvage value (as there is f all wrong with it). That particularly applies to anything that might be less "off the shelf" and face parts delays.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff