Auxillis - Accident Claims Management - Non Fault Claim

[shopper150]

SydneyBridge said:

What car is it for £380 a day.?

I would call Hastings, check that it has been reported and liability not in dispute first. If admitted, let them deal with everything

It doesn't state what car on the agreement! They said once I agree, then the hire company will let me know what's available.
We have a Macan

[shopper150]

fastbikes76 said:

Not necessarily, our Touareg was written off and we were put in a Audi Q5 replacement at £360 a day. We had no other alternate vehicle available and accident was 100% non fault. 3rd party insurance are refusing to cover hire car cost of 36 days which it took them to accept liability and payout. We have a court date in December where we are fighting a £13k hire car bill on behalf of management company. In their T&C’s they state if they lose the case they ‘may’ chase us for the costs which I’m guessing will be the 13k plus 12 months of legal fees on top !!

This is the type of scenario that I don't want the stress of.

[buggalugs]

I had a courtesy car from Auxillis recently, and for a week or two's hire car the bill to the third party's insurance was a shade under £3000. Unsurprisingly the third party is contesting it.

I had no idea they were a claims management company, my insurer put us in touch as I needed a car ASAP for work. They read out war & peace terms and conditions over the phone which I remember none of as I'd just been in an accident, and one of their operatives recently told me that if they can't recover their costs from the third party they could come after me. Nice one. Not.

[shopper150]

buggalugs said:

I had a courtesy car from Auxillis recently, and for a week or two's hire car the bill to the third party's insurance was a shade under £3000. Unsurprisingly the third party is contesting it.

I had no idea they were a claims management company, my insurer put us in touch as I needed a car ASAP for work. They read out war & peace terms and conditions over the phone which I remember none of as I'd just been in an accident, and one of their operatives recently told me that if they can't recover their costs from the third party they could come after me. Nice one. Not.

It's so unethical I'm surprised Government haven't taken any action.

[Smurfsarepeopletoo]

shopper150 said:

Thanks. Do you think I should try and get Admiral (my insurance) and Auxillis to get them to admit liability before proceeding?
I want to minimise the risk of being liable for any charges.

The incident is clear cut, as long as the TP driver doesn't lie.

What happened in the Accident?

And Auxillis only have 14 days to treat your car as unroadworthy, so if you wait for the liability, the TPI may argue your need for a hire vehicle.

[shopper150]

Smurfsarepeopletoo said:

What happened in the Accident?

I was driving along a main road. TP pulled out straight in front of me from a side road.
She admitted her error at the roadside, she was very shaken etc.

Smurfsarepeopletoo said:

And Auxillis only have 14 days to treat your car as unroadworthy, so if you wait for the liability, the TPI may argue your need for a hire vehicle.

Oh!! If nothing else, these incidents are such a hassle and drain on time!

[anonymous-user]

I used an accident management company, AMC, after my insurer offered them up for a non-fault claim. Foolishly I accepted as it meant I didn't have to pay my excess. Two days later the third party contacted me to sort everything out but I already accepted the AMC terms. All was fine, I was given a hire car and returned it once I had the payment from the third party.

A year later I get a phone call from the AMC telling me the third party has refused to pay the hire car costs and that they are starting court proceedings. As agreed when I signed the contract they said they would not come after me for any costs provided I co-operate and haven't lied about anything. I hadn't lied and I co-operated but it was unsettling to say the least..

I was chasing them to confirm they received my documents etc. I ended up super stressed about the whole thing as there was 8000 pound hire car fee which in my head could probably slung on to me if they really wanted to. I signed and completed all the paperwork and was due in court on a set date. The day before I got a phone call from them to confirm the third party had agreed to settle outside of court and I didn't need to attend and all was dealt with.

Turns out this is a common situation for anyone dealing with AMCs. They make their money through outrageous hire car fees. Even though I was protected I was still stressed and it was not a nice experience.

If I have to deal with the non-fault claim or any accident again I will either peruse the third party and find out if they admit liability and deal directly with them. If that's not an option I'll go through my insurer, pay the excess and sort the inevitable faff out with them; worst case I've got a 50-50 claim on me but I don't have to worry about any court case bullst.

I've also read that some people have used AMC with no issues but if it all goes wrong I'd just ask yourself how lucky you feel?

Edit: I'm 99% it was Auxillis. Also if it turns out that the accident was partly/wholly your fault then they will recover the hire costs from yourself.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 7th September 15:31

[Smurfsarepeopletoo]

fastbikes76 said:

Not necessarily, our Touareg was written off and we were put in a Audi Q5 replacement at £360 a day. We had no other alternate vehicle available and accident was 100% non fault. 3rd party insurance are refusing to cover hire car cost of 36 days which it took them to accept liability and payout. We have a court date in December where we are fighting a £13k hire car bill on behalf of management company. In their T&C’s they state if they lose the case they ‘may’ chase us for the costs which I’m guessing will be the 13k plus 12 months of legal fees on top !!

That depends on the situation though, they should have asked you to use your own insurers as the point of your car being declared a total loss if the TPI hadnt accepted liability. If you refused then you delayed the claim unnecessarily, its all about mitigation.

If the hire car company have delayed the claim unneccesarily, then they will just lose out, and you should be ok.

If you have refused to use your own insurers and refused to hand the hire back, you have delayed and they could then try and recover from you.

[shopper150]

AJ5641 said:

Turns out this is a common situation for anyone dealing with AMCs. They make their money through outrageous hire car fees. Even though I was protected I was still stressed and it was not a nice experience.

Do you mind if I ask how you were protected?
Also, as the policy is in my wife's name, I'm sure she will get ultra stressed

[davek_964]

When I had a no fault claim a couple of years ago, the TP insurers (Direct Line) contacted me very quickly (about 4 hours later), admitted liability and said they'd deal with it (and offered a like for like car I didn't need). I guess they were keen to avoid me using an accident management company.

Until the 3rd party insurers admit liability, I think you need to act assuming it might not be.

(I notified my insurers of what happened before the 3rd party insurers contacted me. Although it was clearly the other party fault, my insurers told me that since it occurred on a roundabout, it would probably be 50/50 because most accidents on a roundabout went that way).

ETA - read your description of what happened. Many years ago, I pulled out of a side road - it was a bit more complicated than yours, and if I'd had dash cam could have proved I wasn't at fault - but my own insurers attitude was that I'd pulled out of a side road therefore it was my fault. Hopefully the 3rd party insurers think the same

Edited by davek_964 on Monday 7th September 15:35

[shopper150]

davek_964 said:

When I had a no fault claim a couple of years ago, the TP insurers (Direct Line) contacted me very quickly (about 4 hours later), admitted liability and said they'd deal with it (and offered a like for like car I didn't need). I guess they were keen to avoid me using an accident management company.

Until the 3rd party insurers admit liability, I think you need to act assuming it might not be.

(I notified my insurers of what happened before the 3rd party insurers contacted me. Although it was clearly the other party fault, my insurers told me that since it occurred on a roundabout, it would probably be 50/50 because most accidents on a roundabout went that way).

ETA - read your description of what happened. Many years ago, I pulled out of a side road - it was a bit more complicated than yours, and if I'd had dash cam could have proved I wasn't at fault - but my own insurers attitude was that I'd pulled out of a side road therefore it was my fault. Hopefully the 3rd party insurers think the same

Edited by davek_964 on Monday 7th September 15:35

I had a call this morning from another claims management company!!!

[Chucklehead]

Also remember that if you have the ability to hire a suitable (note: suitable, not necessarily identical) vehicle on your own for a fraction of the cost, then the insurance company may not see it as mitigating your losses when they get a £6k car rental invoice. You could easily hire a Range Rover for under 1k/week just now.. not that you should have to, but £380/day is nonsense. Even the ABI rate for a FFRR is about £260/day.

[anonymous-user]

shopper150 said:

AJ5641 said:

Turns out this is a common situation for anyone dealing with AMCs. They make their money through outrageous hire car fees. Even though I was protected I was still stressed and it was not a nice experience.

Do you mind if I ask how you were protected?
Also, as the policy is in my wife's name, I'm sure she will get ultra stressed

They basically said provided that you were not a fault and you co-operate with them if it needs to go to court they won't go after you for the costs if they lose in court.

I was very lucky in my opinion as my accident involved the local council bin lorry reversing down a private driveway and smashing into my car while I was hungover in bed. There was no doubt in my mind that I was not at fault and in a court of law that would of been obvious.

What did unsettle me was that I was chasing them to get the cheque pay out to me ASAP and collect the hire car. They could of spun that in a court of law with a good lawyer if they wanted to and basically say that I was not co-operating. Recorded calls? I bet they would of lost them.

My understanding is that it would be whoever signs the AMC contract. If you sign then they would come after you. It's just not worth it in my opinion. You pay your insurer for them to do all this for you. Why on earth would you use an AMC; unless you weren't aware what they were like me. What really threw me was that my insurer recommended that I use them!! Now that's fked up and corrupt; they must be getting a hand off for referrals.

[buggalugs]

AJ5641 said:

Turns out this is a common situation for anyone dealing with AMCs. They make their money through outrageous hire car fees. Even though I was protected I was still stressed and it was not a nice experience.

Yeah same. I had a few sleepless nights once I'd got the gist of what was going on. Mine's still going on now. They made no mention of costs beforehand. First they said because your car was older you'll get a basic hire car. They another call saying is a C class OK. Then they didn't have the C class so is an XC60 OK. No costs given and I'm hardly going to say no then not be able to get to work the next day.

If I'd known the costs and risks I'd just have borrowed my mum's or bought a banger for the duration.

[Smurfsarepeopletoo]

shopper150 said:

I had a call this morning from another claims management company!!!

The other claims management company may have been acting on behalf of the TPI, they may deal with fault accisdents for them.

Or maybe just a company chancing it, what was their name?

[anonymous-user]

buggalugs said:

AJ5641 said:

Turns out this is a common situation for anyone dealing with AMCs. They make their money through outrageous hire car fees. Even though I was protected I was still stressed and it was not a nice experience.

Yeah same. I had a few sleepless nights once I'd got the gist of what was going on. Mine's still going on now. They made no mention of costs beforehand. First they said because your car was older you'll get a basic hire car. They another call saying is a C class OK. Then they didn't have the C class so is an XC60 OK. No costs given and I'm hardly going to say no then not be able to get to work the next day.

If I'd known the costs and risks I'd just have borrowed my mum's or bought a banger for the duration.

They said to me that the car that is hire is a suitable alternative and not an excess/want. For example my car was an old Mercedes C Class and they gave me a new Lexus hybrid hatchback, CT something. Turns out the Lexus and c class were both in the same 'class' of car so there was no contest from the third party that I had chosen something that was in excess/a want.

Not sure about yourself as you may be covered by the fact that they were in charge of getting you the vehicle and it was their problem. As long as you didn't decline the suitable vehicles being offered.

[djc206]

Chucklehead said:

Also remember that if you have the ability to hire a suitable (note: suitable, not necessarily identical) vehicle on your own for a fraction of the cost, then the insurance company may not see it as mitigating your losses when they get a £6k car rental invoice. You could easily hire a Range Rover for under 1k/week just now.. not that you should have to, but £380/day is nonsense. Even the ABI rate for a FFRR is about £260/day.

Yep, Hertz will rent you a Nissan GTR for £375/day. That’s an incredible sum of money!

[theboss]

The F90 M5 they gave me was rated at £600

Think it went down to £500/day after the first 10 or so days.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

shopper150 said:

fastbikes76 said:

Not necessarily, our Touareg was written off and we were put in a Audi Q5 replacement at £360 a day. We had no other alternate vehicle available and accident was 100% non fault. 3rd party insurance are refusing to cover hire car cost of 36 days which it took them to accept liability and payout. We have a court date in December where we are fighting a £13k hire car bill on behalf of management company. In their T&C’s they state if they lose the case they ‘may’ chase us for the costs which I’m guessing will be the 13k plus 12 months of legal fees on top !!

This is the type of scenario that I don't want the stress of.

I don't think Fastbikes has read the Ts & Cs properly. They can only come after you if you haven't cooperated with the ARM in trying to recover their outlay from the tp. If you have, then they cannot come after you. It's their loss, that's the risk to them of credit hire. They will either have an insurance policy covering their loss (perhaps with a £10K excess or similar) or they will take it on the chin.

When people complain about the ARM's high daily rate, they forget the ARM has to build in a margin to pay for the cases where they don't recover their costs, or to pay for their insurance policy, and the excess on their policy.

[anonymous-user]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

shopper150 said:

fastbikes76 said:

Not necessarily, our Touareg was written off and we were put in a Audi Q5 replacement at £360 a day. We had no other alternate vehicle available and accident was 100% non fault. 3rd party insurance are refusing to cover hire car cost of 36 days which it took them to accept liability and payout. We have a court date in December where we are fighting a £13k hire car bill on behalf of management company. In their T&C’s they state if they lose the case they ‘may’ chase us for the costs which I’m guessing will be the 13k plus 12 months of legal fees on top !!

This is the type of scenario that I don't want the stress of.

I don't think Fastbikes has read the Ts & Cs properly. They can only come after you if you haven't cooperated with the ARM in trying to recover their outlay from the tp. If you have, then they cannot come after you. It's their loss, that's the risk to them of credit hire. They will either have an insurance policy covering their loss (perhaps with a £10K excess or similar) or they will take it on the chin.

When people complain about the ARM's high daily rate, they forget the ARM has to build in a margin to pay for the cases where they don't recover their costs, or to pay for their insurance policy, and the excess on their policy.

You have to co-operate and ensure you have accepted a reasonable car of the same 'class'. If you have a hatchback in class 'A' and you choose say a large family SUV in class 'C' then that is not reasonable. They will then be able to recover the costs from you.