Auxillis - Accident Claims Management - Non Fault Claim
Discussion
AJ5641 said:
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.
If its a reputable, genuine AMC, they wont give you the option to have anything of a different class than your own vehicle, the only time this is likely to happen is if they have either dual use vehicles, or they dont have anything in your class, so they offer something better, but should then only bill the TPI for the class of vehicle you have.Unfortunately there are a number of companies out there that just try to con the TPI out of money, and then try and screw you over if they cant.
Smurfsarepeopletoo said:
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?
03333443213
Smurfsarepeopletoo said:
AJ5641 said:
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.
If its a reputable, genuine AMC, they wont give you the option to have anything of a different class than your own vehicle, the only time this is likely to happen is if they have either dual use vehicles, or they dont have anything in your class, so they offer something better, but should then only bill the TPI for the class of vehicle you have.Unfortunately there are a number of companies out there that just try to con the TPI out of money, and then try and screw you over if they cant.
I think AMC do work well for some people in certain situations but after my experience, and many others which have had similar, I would advise people to give them a miss.
AJ5641 said:
Of course, but why take the risk? It only takes a small get out clause for the AMC to go after you. It's not very likely to happen but I wouldn't want to test it personally if I knew I could go through my insurer and let them sort it for me.
I think AMC do work well for some people in certain situations but after my experience, and many others which have had similar, I would advise people to give them a miss.
But alot of insurers now use AMC's to deal with their claims as its easier for them, in the OP's case, that is whats happened, he has contacted Admiral who have put Auxillis on the case.I think AMC do work well for some people in certain situations but after my experience, and many others which have had similar, I would advise people to give them a miss.
Smurfsarepeopletoo said:
AJ5641 said:
Of course, but why take the risk? It only takes a small get out clause for the AMC to go after you. It's not very likely to happen but I wouldn't want to test it personally if I knew I could go through my insurer and let them sort it for me.
I think AMC do work well for some people in certain situations but after my experience, and many others which have had similar, I would advise people to give them a miss.
But alot of insurers now use AMC's to deal with their claims as its easier for them, in the OP's case, that is whats happened, he has contacted Admiral who have put Auxillis on the case.I think AMC do work well for some people in certain situations but after my experience, and many others which have had similar, I would advise people to give them a miss.
There is a significant difference if the OP has signed a contract with Auxillis as this means Admiral have absolutely nothing to do with this claim going forward; other than adding the incident to their records.
AJ5641 said:
Has he signed the contract with Auxillis or are Auxillis being contracted to deal with it through Admiral?
There is a significant difference if the OP has signed a contract with Auxillis as this means Admiral have absolutely nothing to do with this claim going forward; other than adding the incident to their records.
He has contacted Admiral who have instructed Auxillis to deal, alot of insurers now are using AMC's to deal with non fault claims on their behalf, as its easier and less hassle for them.There is a significant difference if the OP has signed a contract with Auxillis as this means Admiral have absolutely nothing to do with this claim going forward; other than adding the incident to their records.
AJ5641 said:
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.
Mine decided that I was not cooperating when I wouldn't update my statement to match some of the untruths/exaggerations they'd put into the court claim documents (like the car being undriveable when it wasn't).So I said I'd happily go to court and then tell the truth there instead.
Was told I wasn't needed after all, and my very vague statement from months previously would suffice.
Haven't heard any more 5 years later, so I assume it's settled by now.
Smurfsarepeopletoo said:
AJ5641 said:
Has he signed the contract with Auxillis or are Auxillis being contracted to deal with it through Admiral?
There is a significant difference if the OP has signed a contract with Auxillis as this means Admiral have absolutely nothing to do with this claim going forward; other than adding the incident to their records.
He has contacted Admiral who have instructed Auxillis to deal, alot of insurers now are using AMC's to deal with non fault claims on their behalf, as its easier and less hassle for them.There is a significant difference if the OP has signed a contract with Auxillis as this means Admiral have absolutely nothing to do with this claim going forward; other than adding the incident to their records.
I've also recently had a non-fault accident (tractor scrapped my wheel arch) and my insurance company put me in touch with Auxillis. I've signed a credit agreement with Auxillis for a car in the same class at an eye-watering £735 per day but they also provide a Credit Protection Policy to protect me in the event the Third Party insurers dispute the amount for the hire car, providing I comply with their T&C's.
A lesson about not going for the cheapest quote on confused.com if you actually want a like for like car or the other perks of more bespoke insurance.
If it were me I’d be pressuring Hastings to come to a decision about what they’re prepared to do. I wouldn’t seek to enrich myself from the incident, by driving around in a car I don’t particularly need, or is a significant upgrade.
If it were me I’d be pressuring Hastings to come to a decision about what they’re prepared to do. I wouldn’t seek to enrich myself from the incident, by driving around in a car I don’t particularly need, or is a significant upgrade.
Took 3 years of hassle and stress to get my Auxillis rip off hire car settled. I would never ever accept those terms and conditions again.
I even had to provide bank statements to court to demonstrate why I could not have minimised my costs (such as buying a cheap banger or something, they dont explain all that stuff when your desperate for a car). All for a claim which wasnt my fault and I felt like the one at fault in the end.
I even had to provide bank statements to court to demonstrate why I could not have minimised my costs (such as buying a cheap banger or something, they dont explain all that stuff when your desperate for a car). All for a claim which wasnt my fault and I felt like the one at fault in the end.
Edited by MElliottUK on Monday 7th September 20:35
Smurfsarepeopletoo said:
But alot of insurers now use AMC's to deal with their claims as its easier for them, in the OP's case, that is whats happened, he has contacted Admiral who have put Auxillis on the case.
It might be easier for them but its not easier for those who are paying the premiums!How much do the AMCs pay the insurance companies to get their business?
Can you also let us know what you do for a living?
Chrisgr31 said:
It might be easier for them but its not easier for those who are paying the premiums!
How much do the AMCs pay the insurance companies to get their business?
Can you also let us know what you do for a living?
I used to work for an AMC, luckily it was a reputable company and they would not look to recover the costs from the client, although this was built into the contract just in case.How much do the AMCs pay the insurance companies to get their business?
Can you also let us know what you do for a living?
But just to put the hire costs into perspective, to insure their fleet was 7 million a year, they had a high number of hire vehicles stolen every year, some through people making fraudulent claims, they have probably 20 - 30 people crash their vehicles a week, plus all of the other overheads.
And the only reason that AMC's are around is because a large percentage of people cant make do with a small courtesy car to replace theirs, and also bodyshops will tend to only keep a couple of courtesy cars.
So the only other option is for the insurers to provide you with a car through someone like enterprise, but they would still have to recover those costs, and then you have the extra issue of Enterprise then charging £1200 for a small amount of damage to the hire, unless you decide to pay £10 a day for CDW.
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 !!
I had similar, but their main concern is you not backing them up in court if push comes to shove. Send the form back signed to say you will and the other side come over all reasonable and pay up.Smurfsarepeopletoo said:
Chrisgr31 said:
It might be easier for them but its not easier for those who are paying the premiums!
How much do the AMCs pay the insurance companies to get their business?
Can you also let us know what you do for a living?
I used to work for an AMC, luckily it was a reputable company and they would not look to recover the costs from the client, although this was built into the contract just in case.How much do the AMCs pay the insurance companies to get their business?
Can you also let us know what you do for a living?
But just to put the hire costs into perspective, to insure their fleet was 7 million a year, they had a high number of hire vehicles stolen every year, some through people making fraudulent claims, they have probably 20 - 30 people crash their vehicles a week, plus all of the other overheads.
And the only reason that AMC's are around is because a large percentage of people cant make do with a small courtesy car to replace theirs, and also bodyshops will tend to only keep a couple of courtesy cars.
So the only other option is for the insurers to provide you with a car through someone like enterprise, but they would still have to recover those costs, and then you have the extra issue of Enterprise then charging £1200 for a small amount of damage to the hire, unless you decide to pay £10 a day for CDW.
shopper150 said:
That’s very interesting. We all large insurance premiums. Why don’t our insurance companies use the same ‘laws’ or mechanisms to recover money from third parties in the same way as these accident management companies?
Because then they would need to have a fleet of vehicles, pay people to maintain and clean them, deliver and collect them, they would then need to go through all of the details of making sure someone is entitled to one, then they have to employ people to deal with those claims, as well as deal with the recovery of those claims, and because your limited to what you can recover, and repair turnaround times, you have to have someone chasing for liability every couple of days, and chasing repairers, and witnesses, as well as all of the other associated costs, and there is no point if you can just pay a company to do it for you that already has the infastructure.Smurfsarepeopletoo said:
shopper150 said:
That’s very interesting. We all large insurance premiums. Why don’t our insurance companies use the same ‘laws’ or mechanisms to recover money from third parties in the same way as these accident management companies?
Because then they would need to have a fleet of vehicles, pay people to maintain and clean them, deliver and collect them, they would then need to go through all of the details of making sure someone is entitled to one, then they have to employ people to deal with those claims, as well as deal with the recovery of those claims, and because your limited to what you can recover, and repair turnaround times, you have to have someone chasing for liability every couple of days, and chasing repairers, and witnesses, as well as all of the other associated costs, and there is no point if you can just pay a company to do it for you that already has the infastructure.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff