Auxillis - Accident Claims Management - Non Fault Claim
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Chris Jay said:
I'm glad I saw this thread, Auxillis (forwarded to me by my insurance company) provided me with a hire car whilst my own car was being repaired due to a bump (non fault claim).
I've just had a letter this morning stating that the third party (the AA) have not settled the outstanding amount and they will be seeking legal action through the courts to recover the monies should no agreement be reached.
I'm not sure how this one is going to pan out, the hire was for just over a week.
Just cooperate with them in their attempts to get their money back and you'll be fine. Even if Auxillis lose the case. I've just had a letter this morning stating that the third party (the AA) have not settled the outstanding amount and they will be seeking legal action through the courts to recover the monies should no agreement be reached.
I'm not sure how this one is going to pan out, the hire was for just over a week.
Hoofy said:
My experience with a non-fault has been great. The bill from Auxillis for a nearly new Merc came to about £25k, though. 
I paid £1800 for the car that was being fixed.
Not highlighting you as an example but when people were moaning to the rafters about whiplash claims (usually at “only” £2k a pop) causing insurance premiums to skyrocket, there were many AMC’s handing out £100k Range Rovers to give “like for like” hire to some happy soul whose 1994 L322 had taken a small knock. Unsurprisingly neither hire company nor hiree were particularly pressing to curtail the hire quickly and the end result was a minor knock costing third party insurers £50k in no time. I paid £1800 for the car that was being fixed.
That’s as well as the whippy claims, the referral fees, the legal costs and all the add ons that took a minor bump to the sums they did. The insurers did themselves no favours at times and even contributed in some ways, but it’s a sorry tale as to how a whole industry crept up that ultimately exploited those paying the premium.
Seems to me the answer is relatively simple. If you have a no fault accident you contact the 3rd party insurer. If they accept liability you then ask them to supply a replacement vehicle and fix your car at your preferred choice of repairer.
If they say no you then go through your own insurer and whatever AMC they use or accept the Corsa they'll supply.
If they say no you then go through your own insurer and whatever AMC they use or accept the Corsa they'll supply.
Shnozz said:
Hoofy said:
My experience with a non-fault has been great. The bill from Auxillis for a nearly new Merc came to about £25k, though.
I paid £1800 for the car that was being fixed.
Not highlighting you as an example but when people were moaning to the rafters about whiplash claims (usually at “only” £2k a pop) causing insurance premiums to skyrocket, there were many AMC’s handing out £100k Range Rovers to give “like for like” hire to some happy soul whose 1994 L322 had taken a small knock. Unsurprisingly neither hire company nor hiree were particularly pressing to curtail the hire quickly and the end result was a minor knock costing third party insurers £50k in no time. I paid £1800 for the car that was being fixed.
That’s as well as the whippy claims, the referral fees, the legal costs and all the add ons that took a minor bump to the sums they did. The insurers did themselves no favours at times and even contributed in some ways, but it’s a sorry tale as to how a whole industry crept up that ultimately exploited those paying the premium.
That said, it's a big different from people claiming whiplash who didn't have any whiplash aka fraud.
Smurfsarepeopletoo said:
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.
That's the question right there, in this situation I'm not sure if the question was asked or if it was buried in the T&Cs that were signed when the agreement was made. This is something my parents entered in to and are now finding out that it wasn't what they thought.Let's be honest we know how these companies work, I believe it was proposed by the bodyshop that the car went in to. The fees can be quite high and the kick backs to the bodyshop are favourable.
a few have mentioned already the obligation to keep costs down, not sure if this is right legally but seems to be morally.
I understand not everybody would agree, but as far as I'm concerned the obligation of the third party and their insurer is not to provide the claimant with a like for like or equivalent vehicle just something that is suitable if they actually need it.
I'll probably get flamed for this but the OP's Macan as example is a 5 seat car, ok its 4wd and likely an auto but does he actually need these features? the default offering would probably have been something like an astra or if needed a 4wd Hyundai Tucson or similar. Anything above this should be chargeable to the claimant. This is assuming the claimant doesn't have another car they can use whilst theirs is off the road for repair.
Yes the claimant is losing use of a premium vehicle but that's why most insurers now have bolt on products that cover an equivalent vehicle.
I understand not everybody would agree, but as far as I'm concerned the obligation of the third party and their insurer is not to provide the claimant with a like for like or equivalent vehicle just something that is suitable if they actually need it.
I'll probably get flamed for this but the OP's Macan as example is a 5 seat car, ok its 4wd and likely an auto but does he actually need these features? the default offering would probably have been something like an astra or if needed a 4wd Hyundai Tucson or similar. Anything above this should be chargeable to the claimant. This is assuming the claimant doesn't have another car they can use whilst theirs is off the road for repair.
Yes the claimant is losing use of a premium vehicle but that's why most insurers now have bolt on products that cover an equivalent vehicle.
andburg said:
a few have mentioned already the obligation to keep costs down, not sure if this is right legally but seems to be morally.
I understand not everybody would agree, but as far as I'm concerned the obligation of the third party and their insurer is not to provide the claimant with a like for like or equivalent vehicle just something that is suitable if they actually need it.
I'll probably get flamed for this but the OP's Macan as example is a 5 seat car, ok its 4wd and likely an auto but does he actually need these features? the default offering would probably have been something like an astra or if needed a 4wd Hyundai Tucson or similar. Anything above this should be chargeable to the claimant. This is assuming the claimant doesn't have another car they can use whilst theirs is off the road for repair.
Yes the claimant is losing use of a premium vehicle but that's why most insurers now have bolt on products that cover an equivalent vehicle.
I had a bump in my car recently, my fault, silly mistake. The lady on the phone said “I can see your car is an auto”, I said I wasn’t fussed and had a manual license. I ended up in a rather delightful 3 year old Vauxhall Corsa auto. Did the job for the few days mine was in and was a fitting punishment for not watching where I was going. I understand not everybody would agree, but as far as I'm concerned the obligation of the third party and their insurer is not to provide the claimant with a like for like or equivalent vehicle just something that is suitable if they actually need it.
I'll probably get flamed for this but the OP's Macan as example is a 5 seat car, ok its 4wd and likely an auto but does he actually need these features? the default offering would probably have been something like an astra or if needed a 4wd Hyundai Tucson or similar. Anything above this should be chargeable to the claimant. This is assuming the claimant doesn't have another car they can use whilst theirs is off the road for repair.
Yes the claimant is losing use of a premium vehicle but that's why most insurers now have bolt on products that cover an equivalent vehicle.
andburg said:
a few have mentioned already the obligation to keep costs down, not sure if this is right legally but seems to be morally.
I understand not everybody would agree, but as far as I'm concerned the obligation of the third party and their insurer is not to provide the claimant with a like for like or equivalent vehicle just something that is suitable if they actually need it.
I'll probably get flamed for this but the OP's Macan as example is a 5 seat car, ok its 4wd and likely an auto but does he actually need these features? the default offering would probably have been something like an astra or if needed a 4wd Hyundai Tucson or similar. Anything above this should be chargeable to the claimant. This is assuming the claimant doesn't have another car they can use whilst theirs is off the road for repair.
Yes the claimant is losing use of a premium vehicle but that's why most insurers now have bolt on products that cover an equivalent vehicle.
So the way I read that post is that if you drive a range rover because you need 5 seats, that you should only get a 5 seat car as a replacement, and if you want something similar to your own car, you should either pay out of your own pocket, or pay for an insurance premium out of your own pocket to cover that, even if it wasnt your fault?I understand not everybody would agree, but as far as I'm concerned the obligation of the third party and their insurer is not to provide the claimant with a like for like or equivalent vehicle just something that is suitable if they actually need it.
I'll probably get flamed for this but the OP's Macan as example is a 5 seat car, ok its 4wd and likely an auto but does he actually need these features? the default offering would probably have been something like an astra or if needed a 4wd Hyundai Tucson or similar. Anything above this should be chargeable to the claimant. This is assuming the claimant doesn't have another car they can use whilst theirs is off the road for repair.
Yes the claimant is losing use of a premium vehicle but that's why most insurers now have bolt on products that cover an equivalent vehicle.
Smurfsarepeopletoo said:
So the way I read that post is that if you drive a range rover because you need 5 seats, that you should only get a 5 seat car as a replacement, and if you want something similar to your own car, you should either pay out of your own pocket, or pay for an insurance premium out of your own pocket to cover that, even if it wasnt your fault?
in short yes.The replacement car is a short term courtesy to save the claimant having to go and hire something, they don't actually have to offer it but they get to retain cost control that way. Offer somebody a "free" car while their car is repaired and they'll take it, if they had to pay that money and then try to claim it back and they'd think twice about it what type of car they needed. The AMC appears to take this stress way from the claimant initially but as part of the contract they're agreeing to pay whatever they cant recover.
Put it this way how many range rover drivers couldn't make do with a focus for a week? Take the range rover to a bodyshop for work to be done and unless you're going to a main dealer you're not going to get an equivalent courtesy car.
When you see these £13000 claims just for car hire, is it any wonder insurance costs are going up?
andburg said:
Put it this way how many range rover drivers couldn't make do with a focus for a week? Take the range rover to a bodyshop for work to be done and unless you're going to a main dealer you're not going to get an equivalent courtesy car.
When you see these £13000 claims just for car hire, is it any wonder insurance costs are going up?
It's not so much the Range Rover driver making do with a Focus for a few weeks. It's the fact that "like for like" doesn't take into account whether its a £4k shed of a Range Rover or a £100k brand new one. A Range Rover is a Range Rover in the eyes of like for like. Likewise a ropy old 996 Porsche is a 911. Same as a shed of an old BMW E46, or a £1500 Mercedes as the earlier contributor to this thread mentioned. And the credit hire providers will of course try and aim for the highest end hire vehicle they can push out the door as a "like for like". When you see these £13000 claims just for car hire, is it any wonder insurance costs are going up?
andburg said:
in short yes.
The replacement car is a short term courtesy to save the claimant having to go and hire something, they don't actually have to offer it but they get to retain cost control that way. Offer somebody a "free" car while their car is repaired and they'll take it, if they had to pay that money and then try to claim it back and they'd think twice about it what type of car they needed. The AMC appears to take this stress way from the claimant initially but as part of the contract they're agreeing to pay whatever they cant recover.
Put it this way how many range rover drivers couldn't make do with a focus for a week? Take the range rover to a bodyshop for work to be done and unless you're going to a main dealer you're not going to get an equivalent courtesy car.
When you see these £13000 claims just for car hire, is it any wonder insurance costs are going up?
So lets say you own a lamborghini, your paying for it monthly, and someone drives into it when its parked up, Lamborghini are on partial shut down, so parts arent available for 6 months.The replacement car is a short term courtesy to save the claimant having to go and hire something, they don't actually have to offer it but they get to retain cost control that way. Offer somebody a "free" car while their car is repaired and they'll take it, if they had to pay that money and then try to claim it back and they'd think twice about it what type of car they needed. The AMC appears to take this stress way from the claimant initially but as part of the contract they're agreeing to pay whatever they cant recover.
Put it this way how many range rover drivers couldn't make do with a focus for a week? Take the range rover to a bodyshop for work to be done and unless you're going to a main dealer you're not going to get an equivalent courtesy car.
When you see these £13000 claims just for car hire, is it any wonder insurance costs are going up?
So your paying for a lamborgini, but now you have to drive around in a KA, because you obviously only need 2 seats, for 6 months, still paying for a lamborghini that you cant use, and the only way you can drive something equivelant is to pay for it yourself.
You think that its fair that the other person shouldnt be responsible for that?
Maybe we do this a different way, if you run into my car, I get a like for like replacement, Your insurance company cover the cost of everything, but then they will claim all of the hire and injury costs from you, and if you are not in a position to pay it, either add an attachment of earnings, or take your house or property to cover the costs.
As your the one at fault, then surely you should be the one inconvenienced and responsible, people would probably drive alot safer, and the amount of accidents would reduce massively.
Shnozz said:
It's not so much the Range Rover driver making do with a Focus for a few weeks. It's the fact that "like for like" doesn't take into account whether its a £4k shed of a Range Rover or a £100k brand new one. A Range Rover is a Range Rover in the eyes of like for like. Likewise a ropy old 996 Porsche is a 911. Same as a shed of an old BMW E46, or a £1500 Mercedes as the earlier contributor to this thread mentioned. And the credit hire providers will of course try and aim for the highest end hire vehicle they can push out the door as a "like for like".
Thats not true, if you have a BMW or Mercedes or prestige vehicle over 6 years old, the vehicle you get is reduced by an ABI group, if the car is 8 years old, its no longer classed as a prestige vehicle, and your only entitled to a standard vehicle.So if you own a 100 grand 7 series BMW that is 9 years old, then you will be entitled to something along the lines of a Mondeo, the company may provide you with something better, but they can only claim for the cost of a Mondeo, and if they try to charge more, the TPI dont have to pay it.
Smurfsarepeopletoo said:
Thats not true, if you have a BMW or Mercedes or prestige vehicle over 6 years old, the vehicle you get is reduced by an ABI group, if the car is 8 years old, its no longer classed as a prestige vehicle, and your only entitled to a standard vehicle.
So if you own a 100 grand 7 series BMW that is 9 years old, then you will be entitled to something along the lines of a Mondeo, the company may provide you with something better, but they can only claim for the cost of a Mondeo, and if they try to charge more, the TPI dont have to pay it.
Fair play that the industry now recognises the age of the vehicle. I am a few years behind as thank the lord I left behind that detestable area of shabby business a few years back. Still seems too many tales such as the one set out by a poster in this thread, however. So if you own a 100 grand 7 series BMW that is 9 years old, then you will be entitled to something along the lines of a Mondeo, the company may provide you with something better, but they can only claim for the cost of a Mondeo, and if they try to charge more, the TPI dont have to pay it.
Hoofy said:
My experience with a non-fault has been great. The bill from Auxillis for a nearly new Merc came to about £25k, though.
I paid £1800 for the car that was being fixed.
£1800 Merc, £25k hire charge. I would love to say that was uncommon. I paid £1800 for the car that was being fixed.
I saw thousands of these over the years and had an involved part in the Dimond v Lovell litigation back in the day. It was, and still is, a dirty little business.
Shnozz said:
£1800 Merc, £25k hire charge. I would love to say that was uncommon.
I saw thousands of these over the years and had an involved part in the Dimond v Lovell litigation back in the day. It was, and still is, a dirty little business.
I think the issue with this thread is that people here are working on how AMC's worked 15/20 years ago, before laws changed, ad they were more regulated and before the ABI came into play.I saw thousands of these over the years and had an involved part in the Dimond v Lovell litigation back in the day. It was, and still is, a dirty little business.
More insurance companies are now using AMC's because they can offer a better service to their customers, and reduces their own costs, which in theory can then be passed onto the customer.
Insurance companies are fully aware what they have to pay and what they dont have to, and regardless of what bill an AMC puts forward, the insurance company will only pay what they have to.
Alot of the horror stories these days are by the less reputable companies that dont care how they get there money, and will just try and recover from the hirer if the TPI disputes, and the Hirer will very rarely read the terms and conditions before signing.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff