Auxillis - Accident Claims Management - Non Fault Claim

[Jim1064]

Bennet said:

Received wisdom is that if there's no question of the other side not being liable, their insurer will be falling over themselves to provide you with a hire car (that won't be on a credit hire agreement.) Might be worth calling them.

I did - and they told me that, although the TP has a policy, he was running his car outside the T&Cs of the policy and they would not pay out!

So I guess that rules out Auxillis, and a claim on my own insurance

[catman]

Jim1064 said:

Bennet said:

Received wisdom is that if there's no question of the other side not being liable, their insurer will be falling over themselves to provide you with a hire car (that won't be on a credit hire agreement.) Might be worth calling them.

I did - and they told me that, although the TP has a policy, he was running his car outside the T&Cs of the policy and they would not pay out!

So I guess that rules out Auxillis, and a claim on my own insurance

I thought that the general rule was that they would cover the third party claim, but then look to their own client to reimburse them.

[Adrian E]

Agreed they’re not off the hook for you - any issues with use of the vehicle by the other party are between them and their client

[oldbanger]

Adrian E said:

If you don’t need a loan car because you have other vehicles available, then really don’t. Not worth the aggro. Similarly if you aren’t ‘impecunious’ in its legal sense (ie you really don’t have access to credit cards with available balance, or perish the thought of money in the bank, then you will eventually end up in a court hearing (as I did) having to explain specific bank transactions and how you manage your household finances over a 6 month-plus period…..

You may find you are not entitled to claim the Auxillis invoices from the other side if you failed to mitigate your losses by for example using your other car, or by taking up a courtesy car. You also usually need to be impecunious (ie broke) to justify credit hire instead of a normal hire vehicle

And yes they will want to see your bank statements if it goes to court

[Benmac]

I'm in a similar boat. I was at the front of a 3 car shunt back in October 2019. Chap at the back coughed for it immediately, it really was indisputable.

My car was driveable home but definitely not right but I was able to park it up for a few days at home and make do until it was time for it to go in. My wife uses her car and my toys were both SORN and / or broken given the time of year so using those would have been a royal pita. They were also not suitable for what I needed. Admiral (my insurer) put me on to Auxilis. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but there you go. Third party's insurer got in touch offering to help about a week after the accident. By then my car was already in the bodyshop.

I ended up with the hire car for just under a month as the bodyshop truly arsed up the repair. It was a BMW 420, a little different to my car but about the same value and crucially it fitted my needs for something I could do decent distances in. I ended up giving the hire car back and having my car back despite it not being right then having it go back in for a few days a while later to be finally sorted (for those days I just used the bodyshop's courtesy runabout).

Nearly 2 years later and the 3rd party insurers are refusing to pay the hire car bill. We're now at the submit bank statements stage before they take them to court. I've been incredibly helpful thus far and continue to be so. Today I've given them bank statements for the period and similar for the main savings account I have. I've asked if they really need the credit card ones as those are not available digitally and similarly do they really need the joint account details given that all we use that for is to transfer money in each money from our sole accounts which then pays various common bills. As such, not said they can't have them but more, do you really need them as my contribution to it is evident in my own current account.

Ultimately I blame the bodyshop for this as it should have been a week's worth tops and that's before they properly arsed it up (that's a whole other issue) but there's no real recourse there.

So, as with others I'm just going to keep playing along.

Edited by Benmac on Thursday 22 July 19:23

[Adrian E]

I had to provide all bank statements for accounts I’m named on, which included credit cards where online access didn’t go back far enough. I had to ring them and ask for paper/emailed copies of older statements. They then ballsed it up by sending someone else’s!!

The judge in my case was complimentary about my disclosure - it was all neatly sorted by account and in date order, and covered everything. I wasn’t impecunious and if I’d known that was part of the test I would never have accepted the car from Auxilis. Luckily the settlement reached in my case meant they recovered more than their costs so they were happy enough to write off the difference

[buggalugs]

oldbanger said:

Adrian E said:

If you don’t need a loan car because you have other vehicles available, then really don’t. Not worth the aggro. Similarly if you aren’t ‘impecunious’ in its legal sense (ie you really don’t have access to credit cards with available balance, or perish the thought of money in the bank, then you will eventually end up in a court hearing (as I did) having to explain specific bank transactions and how you manage your household finances over a 6 month-plus period…..

You may find you are not entitled to claim the Auxillis invoices from the other side if you failed to mitigate your losses by for example using your other car, or by taking up a courtesy car. You also usually need to be impecunious (ie broke) to justify credit hire instead of a normal hire vehicle

And yes they will want to see your bank statements if it goes to court

I'm not up to the bank statements stage yet. The thing is, I could easily have afforded to rent a car elsewhere - but why would I? My insurance company pointed me at Auxillis which as far as I knew was just a courtesy car, I knew nothing of all this credit hire business. They read a zillion pages of fine print over the phone which I didn't really take in as I'd just been in a car crash.

If it comes to the court / bank statements stage I think I'll get some of my own legal advice about what to do. I don't want Auxillis coming after me for some obscene hire charge because I didn't toe their line in court.

[Adrian E]

buggalugs said:

I'm not up to the bank statements stage yet. The thing is, I could easily have afforded to rent a car elsewhere - but why would I? My insurance company pointed me at Auxillis which as far as I knew was just a courtesy car, I knew nothing of all this credit hire business. They read a zillion pages of fine print over the phone which I didn't really take in as I'd just been in a car crash.

If it comes to the court / bank statements stage I think I'll get some of my own legal advice about what to do. I don't want Auxillis coming after me for some obscene hire charge because I didn't toe their line in court.

That's the issue - that you could easily afford to rent elsewhere. Depending on the length of hire, unless it runs to weeks and weeks, they'll argue if you've got more than that cost in your bank account at the start of any month for which they have statements then you are not impecunious and therefore the accident management company cannot claim the highest rates and they will default back to a lower rate that the court agrees with counsel (usually about half). The court has no interest in how you might otherwise have spent that money in that particular month. You are not liable for the difference in this scenario. Auxilis have to suck it up and make less money on that hire contract, that is all. You have an insurance policy that covers any losses for Auxilis so long as you play ball with the court hearing, which at the worst will be a couple of hours. Plus they'll be paying for a low end barrister to represent you (so your legal advice is covered through the solicitors that will agree your statement and sort out court bundle such as bank statements, and they appoint a barrister to act on your behalf. You're unlikely to hear from them till the day before any hearing)

Hope that helps - most cases are resolved before they go to court

[Benmac]

Adrian E said:

That's the issue - that you could easily afford to rent elsewhere. Depending on the length of hire, unless it runs to weeks and weeks, they'll argue if you've got more than that cost in your bank account at the start of any month for which they have statements then you are not impecunious and therefore the accident management company cannot claim the highest rates and they will default back to a lower rate that the court agrees with counsel (usually about half). The court has no interest in how you might otherwise have spent that money in that particular month. You are not liable for the difference in this scenario. Auxilis have to suck it up and make less money on that hire contract, that is all. You have an insurance policy that covers any losses for Auxilis so long as you play ball with the court hearing, which at the worst will be a couple of hours. Plus they'll be paying for a low end barrister to represent you (so your legal advice is covered through the solicitors that will agree your statement and sort out court bundle such as bank statements, and they appoint a barrister to act on your behalf. You're unlikely to hear from them till the day before any hearing)

Hope that helps - most cases are resolved before they go to court

Yep, that is helpful, ta.

[C. Grimsley]

I had all these a few years ago, bank statements, business bank statements, savings, joint accounts etc. In the end I took them to court, they never got the full payment for the hire car but about 50%, that was the end result, after that never heard a thing.

Insurance put you in to them and then don’t play ball, total arse.

Carl

[buggalugs]

Adrian E said:

That's the issue - that you could easily afford to rent elsewhere. Depending on the length of hire, unless it runs to weeks and weeks, they'll argue if you've got more than that cost in your bank account at the start of any month for which they have statements then you are not impecunious and therefore the accident management company cannot claim the highest rates and they will default back to a lower rate that the court agrees with counsel (usually about half). The court has no interest in how you might otherwise have spent that money in that particular month. You are not liable for the difference in this scenario. Auxilis have to suck it up and make less money on that hire contract, that is all. You have an insurance policy that covers any losses for Auxilis so long as you play ball with the court hearing, which at the worst will be a couple of hours. Plus they'll be paying for a low end barrister to represent you (so your legal advice is covered through the solicitors that will agree your statement and sort out court bundle such as bank statements, and they appoint a barrister to act on your behalf. You're unlikely to hear from them till the day before any hearing)

Hope that helps - most cases are resolved before they go to court

Thanks it does. I believe they want something like 3.5k for 2 weeks of car hire while I found and purchased a replacement vehicle so they have quite a bit of wiggle room in there. If I’d known about this credit hire biz i’d have borrowed a car instead.

[IJWS15]

Accident November 2018, Auxillis just called as they are about to engage solicitors as the other party appear to be stringing them along.

Glad I didn't take the Auxillis car and they only did the damage repair to mine.

[Sheepshanks]

buggalugs said:

Thanks it does. I believe they want something like 3.5k for 2 weeks of car hire while I found and purchased a replacement vehicle so they have quite a bit of wiggle room in there. If I’d known about this credit hire biz i’d have borrowed a car instead.

I don't think you're supposed to keep the hire car once your own has been written off and payment sent.

Had a bit of row about this on daughter's car as the insurer just posted a cheque (they're supposed to agree the amount first) and then left a message saying to return the car to Enterprise within two days. They did agree to extend to a week but were very iffy about who would be paying for it.

[buggalugs]

Sheepshanks said:

I don't think you're supposed to keep the hire car once your own has been written off and payment sent.

Had a bit of row about this on daughter's car as the insurer just posted a cheque (they're supposed to agree the amount first) and then left a message saying to return the car to Enterprise within two days. They did agree to extend to a week but were very iffy about who would be paying for it.

It was almost the opposite for me, they never contacted me and when I called them it sat there for another day or two before they sent someone for it.

[essayer]

Bumping this thread just like the front wing and headlight on our car, which was involved in an an accident Monday

There has been no determination of fault yet, I believe the third party is at fault but it's he said/she said and there are no witnesses.

Auxillis are trying to get on the claim. How does this work if we are deemed partially at fault ? The total hire costs + repair costs (+third party's) all get added to the costs and split accordingly? vs just accepting the courtesy car guaranteed as part of our policy ?

[Adrian E]

If you've got a guaranteed hire car with your policy just accept that and ignore Auxilis would be my advice. Apportionment of blame isn't a factor aside from adding to the total quantum of the claim for declaration purposes in future

[essayer]

I might have jumped the gun. It may be that Auxillis are just providing the ‘guaranteed hire car’ we get under our insurance. They’ve sent over a pretty standard looking hire agreement which covers c.£25 per day and are dropping the vehicle off tomorrow. I feel there’s a catch, but I can’t work out what! They haven’t even collected our car yet.

[BertBert]

there probably isn't a catch. (Assuming) It's what's provided for in your insurance cover, so very straightforward.

[dotty]

I’ve just found this thread after my parked car was hit by an elderly lady (whilst I was collecting anxiety medication of all things !) at the surgery car park yesterday afternoon.

My car is a 21 plate civic type r which will need a new wing by the looks of it, which is aluminium.

I am insured through admiral who closed the claim and said auxills would be dealing as it’s a none fault accident. I’ve read that they will only use their recommended body shop and I really would want this going to a Honda approved one.

The third party insurer is LV. I’d rather deal directly with them and go to a Honda approved body shop. I’ve already made contact with one and they want to see the car on Monday first thing. I spoke to LV and the incident was notified by the lady yesterday which is a relief.

How would my fellow PHers proceed with this ?

[surveyor]

I’d go through LV and the Honda workshop. It’s really quite straightforward.

Edit to add Iid quite happily use the ACM as a stalking house if LV play games.

I had a merc crashed into on a roundabout. The third party insurer wanted to deal direct then offered a micra as a replacement. I did not necessarily want or expect a direct like to like but something vaguely similar in size and comfort was expected eg a Mondeo.. they only budged when I pointed out that this was meant to save hassle and if he off to an ACM if they were going to waste my time arguing.

Edited by surveyor on Saturday 26th November 11:57