car insurance recovering my hire costs in court .

[nsmith1180]

Agrilla said:

Must say, I echo Paoloh's sentiments.

Bottom line is that OP accepted a service - did they think that it was going to be for free, out of the goodness of their hearts?

OP (or ex-husband presumably under op's instruction) would have signed something which is likely to have specifcally said:

"I have had credit hire and the cover provided by my own policy explained to me. I understand that if I choose to hire on credit I am personally responsible for paying for the hire costs which I would not have incurred had I used a courtesy vehicle available to me from my own motor insurer or legal expenses insurer. I have read and understood the above and I believe that the answers I have given are true"

or if it was slightly more recent

"I understand that if I choose to hire on credit I am personally liable for paying for the hire costs which I would not have incurred had I been offered and accepted a suitable courtesy vehicle from my own motor insurer or legal expenses insurer...I have read and understood the above and I believe that the answers I have given are true"

I'm sure that the OP's life is very stressful - we all have different crap to deal with - it's not the hire company's fault, but surely if you're going to be taking thousands of pounds worth of any item or service you would spend five minutes reading through the pages that you sign to make sure that when you sign to say you understand, that you actually do.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Still, the likelihood depending on which hire company it was, will choose not to pursue directly, but times are tight for everyone, so if they want their money back, what option do they have?

Neither I nor any member of my family has ever had an Insurance company courtesy car, Its always been a hire car. This is standard practice and therefore should be covered under the courtesy car part of the policy. The Policyholder should not be held in anyway responsible for the cost of the hire because she has used an insurance policy to TRANSFER THE RISK (proper FSA type term!) to the insurer.

Sorry for terrible typing 5 bottles of Kopperberg and coutnign

[TROOPER88]

I was going through a very similar situation recently.
As a part time car trader I had a TVR Chimeara. A guy reversed into the front of it and admitted liability straight away. I was contacted by a few solicitors the following morning offering to act on my behalf. I accepted the assistance from one. The first question was 'do you need/require a 'hire' car?. I said 'yes please'. The TVR was not my main driver 'but' I simply answered the question. There were no 'conditions' attached to the offer.

That evening a hire car was dropped of as agreed; I have a feeling I did sign a credit agreement with them.

The TVR was eventually written of and in total I had the hire car for apprx 6 weeks.
They collected the car shortly after I recieved a full payout from the 3rd parties insurance.

Skip on 4 or 5 months and I recieved a call from the solicitors acting on my behalf stating that the 3rd party insurance company have looked into the case and it would appear that the TVR was untaxed at the time of the incident. Therfore why did I accept a hire car when my own car should not legally be on the highway. They were therefore unwilling to pay the hire costs (which must be about £5000).

I informed the solicitor that I believed the TVR was taxed and that as a used car trader many cars go through our hands and that particular car was sold to a dealer many months before.

They asked me many times to provide 'proof' that the car was taxed???
I wrote to them twice stating that I accepted the hire car in good faith and at the time of acceptance no questions such as 'is your car taxed?' were asked.

It seems to me that someone at the insurance company has paid out the settlement witout the case being water tight first.

It has now been about 3-4 months since I last heard. I am sure that the TVR was taxed at the time but there is no way I will be assissting them with this matter.

I hope the matter works out for you; I am sure it will.

[Noger]

I keep trying to comment on this, but just get more and more confused each day

7 weeks "included with the policy" hire car ???? Blimey, 21 days is generous and you will mostly pay extra for that. Which insurer ?

The OP has been taken down the Credit Hire route without them knowing ???

Or has the insurer taken out the hire car, thinking they will have a simple recovery and
now it has gone pear side ? Really ???

[jessica]

Noger said:

I keep trying to comment on this, but just get more and more confused each day

7 weeks "included with the policy" hire car ???? Blimey, 21 days is generous and you will mostly pay extra for that. Which insurer ?

The OP has been taken down the Credit Hire route without them knowing ???

Or has the insurer taken out the hire car, thinking they will have a simple recovery and
now it has gone pear side ? Really ???

car was provided as a curtisity car. parts on back order,bodged up paint job etc. on and on.
took 7 weeks. to sort.
none of it my fault.
i wont be signing anything it would appear that this is the insurance companies last ditched attempt to get their money back. I am not going to the small claims court for them. well i can but it will cost them at least £100 an hour for my time and to provide care for my children whilst i am there.

[skwdenyer]

jessica said:

Noger said:

I keep trying to comment on this, but just get more and more confused each day

7 weeks "included with the policy" hire car ???? Blimey, 21 days is generous and you will mostly pay extra for that. Which insurer ?

The OP has been taken down the Credit Hire route without them knowing ???

Or has the insurer taken out the hire car, thinking they will have a simple recovery and
now it has gone pear side ? Really ???

car was provided as a curtisity car. parts on back order,bodged up paint job etc. on and on.
took 7 weeks. to sort.
none of it my fault.
i wont be signing anything it would appear that this is the insurance companies last ditched attempt to get their money back. I am not going to the small claims court for them. well i can but it will cost them at least £100 an hour for my time and to provide care for my children whilst i am there.

As should be clear from my other comment, I believe you are acting in good faith. However, you also have some other duties. If your car was hit by a third party's car, your insurer may sort it all out for you as a part of the service to you. "Sort it out" in this context will include making arrangements for you to get a courtesy car, making the claim on your behalf from the third party's insurers, and so on.

However, if you want to ensure that you keep your NCB (if you have one, or if it is not protected), or maintain your "claim free" standing, you are going to have to help your insurer to make that claim on your behalf. If not then you are, in effect, making a claim on your own insurance for the part of the loss which the third party's insurers are refusing to pay. Your policy will probably compel you to do this.

Don't forget that you could have claimed off the third party's insurance directly - there was no need, other than a little convenience, for you to involve your own insurer at all. You chose to use your insurer to do the work on your behalf, and, in consequence, you have to play by their rules.

Having thought about this some more, I think the paperwork you've been asked to sign is actually OK. Just because you sign to say "I'm claiming this hire cost from the third party; I understand that, if I don't win, the cost will be born by me" doesn't mean you'll have to pay it - not because the hire company won't want their money, but because your own insurance policy with your own insurer indemnifies you against this as it is an insured loss.

That being so, instead of signing it now, I would ask your insurer to assure you in writing that, if the case fails, your policy with them will pay for the hire car. With that document in hand, you can safely sign what has been asked.

If you don't sign anything and don't agree to help, your insurer may be within their rights to cancel your insurance cover, and to reclaim any costs from you that it hasn't got back from the third party because you haven't held up your end of the bargain and helped them in that recovery process.

As for turning up to court then, yes, you may well have to do that. That's just part of the joy of life - if you want to be recompensed for your loss then you may have to take active steps to make sure that that happens. By using your own insurer, you are avoiding having to bring a case yourself; instead you may (just may) have to attend court for a few hours one day to tell your side of the story.

I agree with you that, in an ideal world, your insurance policy would "make this all go away", but life really isn't quite like that, is it? Your insurer is only your agent in chasing the third party, unless you want to make an enemy of your own insurer and just claim directly from them.

[JustinP1]

jessica said:

Noger said:

I keep trying to comment on this, but just get more and more confused each day

7 weeks "included with the policy" hire car ???? Blimey, 21 days is generous and you will mostly pay extra for that. Which insurer ?

The OP has been taken down the Credit Hire route without them knowing ???

Or has the insurer taken out the hire car, thinking they will have a simple recovery and
now it has gone pear side ? Really ???

car was provided as a curtisity car. parts on back order,bodged up paint job etc. on and on.
took 7 weeks. to sort.
none of it my fault.
i wont be signing anything it would appear that this is the insurance companies last ditched attempt to get their money back. I am not going to the small claims court for them. well i can but it will cost them at least £100 an hour for my time and to provide care for my children whilst i am there.

That just makes you sound a bit spoilt I am afraid - and continuing like that will be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Your insurance covers you so you don't have to take the other party to court. You could have not involved your insurance at all, rented a car from your own money and paid for the repair on your credit card and then started legal action against the other driver.

You chose not to and asked your insurer to do this on your behalf - AND YOU AGREED TO ASSIST THEM IN WHAT WAS NEEDED TO PURSUE YOUR CLAIM.

They have been out of pocket for 5 years on your behalf. Silly comments about them paying you £100 an hour to follow up your claim will do you no favours whatsoever. Indeed, as I have said and others have said again and again, it is very, very unlikely that you will have to go to court - however, before your insurers rack up another few thousand quid in legal fees ON YOUR BEHALF they simply want to know that you are not going to leave them at even more of a loss.

So this can either go two ways:

1) You tell your insurer that you will assist them and return the form, even if you put a line through some parts - they tell the other party they are ready for court and not bluffing, they pay up, you keep your no claims bonus and you hear no more.

2) You tell them to **** off, or pay you £100 an hour, and instead of chasing the other party, you lose your no claims bonus as there is now an unrecoverable loss as you have refused to assist them. Further to that, they may even chase you for breaching a prior policy agreement is assisting them in the claim and YOU are at the sharp end of the few thousand quid loss they incurred because of it. You will then have to employ your own solicitor, and of course still no one will pay you £100 an hour to come to court.

Just rethink for a second, and look at the bigger picture.

[frosted]

May I ask how much you got for whiplash injuries ?

[TomJS]

jessica said:

it has five clauses.
i confirm i have not had a settlement already.
i confirm that i will co operate fully
i derstand that if i agree then later refuse to attend i will be liable for all court costs and credit hire charges.
i confirm information provided at the time of the accident are true.
i confirm that by signing this document i give sol to sign a statement of truth on my behalf
i understand it is a criminal offence to provide a false statement and if i did then i could go to prison.

Read the clauses chaps.

This means OP is only liable for hire charges and court costs IF HE DOESN'T ATTEND COURT WHEN NEEDED.

i.e. insurer is willing to shell out all the costs of bringing a claim, and all they want is OP to back them up by attending and giving a witness statement. It's hardly rocket science.

[Noger]

It isn't *that* simple.

This reads like a CHO agreement. It is unlike any Insurer's Recovery Dept. document I have seen. An insurer is very very unlikely to want to make YOU liable for Hire Charges. And they don't *need* to get you to sign something to say you must help them, because you already HAVE agreed (in your policy). That is really not worth the paper it is written on. What is the insurer going to do if you don't co-operate ? Void the contract and claim it back ? No chance.

Maybe the repair garage put them in touch with the CHO and pretended it was a "courtesy car" ? (And then got commission for the referral).

Maybe if you are with Chubb or Hiscox you get a "free" car for as long as you need it. Most insurers don't give you that. And they don't care about the "courtesy car" that the network repairers give you as the costs are factored into the repair rates. It doesn't cost the insurer any more or less. So maybe that is it. I wonder who supplied the car.

[Piglet]

Can I say again, the whole basis of Credit Hire is that the Claimant *MUST* be personally liable for it as otherwise they don't have a loss that can be claimed against the defendant as the loss is incurred by the CHO who have no ability to claim it back.

To avoid going to Court the OP needs to tell her insurers that she was never of the view that she was personally liable and that when she goes to Court and the Defendant's barrister asks her if she knew that she was personally liable she will say that she was never advised that she was liable and was of the view that this was a benefit being provided by her insurer. As soon as she clearly says this nobody is going to put her anywhere near a court.

(I'm not getting into the morality of it!).

[TomJS]

Piglet said:

Can I say again, the whole basis of Credit Hire is that the Claimant *MUST* be personally liable for it as otherwise they don't have a loss that can be claimed against the defendant as the loss is incurred by the CHO who have no ability to claim it back.

To avoid going to Court the OP needs to tell her insurers that she was never of the view that she was personally liable and that when she goes to Court and the Defendant's barrister asks her if she knew that she was personally liable she will say that she was never advised that she was liable and was of the view that this was a benefit being provided by her insurer. As soon as she clearly says this nobody is going to put her anywhere near a court.

(I'm not getting into the morality of it!).

What her view of whether she was liable is neither here nor there. Either she signed a contract or she didn't.

[JustinP1]

TomJS said:

Piglet said:

Can I say again, the whole basis of Credit Hire is that the Claimant *MUST* be personally liable for it as otherwise they don't have a loss that can be claimed against the defendant as the loss is incurred by the CHO who have no ability to claim it back.

To avoid going to Court the OP needs to tell her insurers that she was never of the view that she was personally liable and that when she goes to Court and the Defendant's barrister asks her if she knew that she was personally liable she will say that she was never advised that she was liable and was of the view that this was a benefit being provided by her insurer. As soon as she clearly says this nobody is going to put her anywhere near a court.

(I'm not getting into the morality of it!).

What her view of whether she was liable is neither here nor there. Either she signed a contract or she didn't.

Yes.

There would be no need whatsoever for the OP to have to go to court.

What could she add to proceedings above her witness statement stating why she needed an expensive MPV and the signed contract for the hire?

Nothing.

In fact for £1500, it would not be worth the risk of the third party insurers going to court as the fees would end up matching that. They are just playing the game and calling the OPs insurance companies bluff. When the witness statement and the contract is supplied in disclosure they won't bother.

[Piglet]

TomJS said:

Piglet said:

Can I say again, the whole basis of Credit Hire is that the Claimant *MUST* be personally liable for it as otherwise they don't have a loss that can be claimed against the defendant as the loss is incurred by the CHO who have no ability to claim it back.

To avoid going to Court the OP needs to tell her insurers that she was never of the view that she was personally liable and that when she goes to Court and the Defendant's barrister asks her if she knew that she was personally liable she will say that she was never advised that she was liable and was of the view that this was a benefit being provided by her insurer. As soon as she clearly says this nobody is going to put her anywhere near a court.

(I'm not getting into the morality of it!).

What her view of whether she was liable is neither here nor there. Either she signed a contract or she didn't.

Sorry, you're not correct. This is about Credit Hire, it's not about ordinary contract law. What is fundamental about a credit hire claim is that the Claimant must believe that they are liable to for the costs. Whereas in 99.9% of cases Claimant's are told clearly that there is no financial risk to them regardless of what the contract actually says. Some CHO's also don't get a contract signed by the Claimant, they collect an electronic signature and transfer it to a contract at a later date.

As I said in my first post, Credit Hire is a trick of the light, it's all smoke and mirrors, the barristers I use for these cases take great delight in trying to get the claim thrown out in one question...that question being, did you believe that you were personally liable...

[Piglet]

JustinP1 said:

TomJS said:

Piglet said:

Can I say again, the whole basis of Credit Hire is that the Claimant *MUST* be personally liable for it as otherwise they don't have a loss that can be claimed against the defendant as the loss is incurred by the CHO who have no ability to claim it back.

To avoid going to Court the OP needs to tell her insurers that she was never of the view that she was personally liable and that when she goes to Court and the Defendant's barrister asks her if she knew that she was personally liable she will say that she was never advised that she was liable and was of the view that this was a benefit being provided by her insurer. As soon as she clearly says this nobody is going to put her anywhere near a court.

(I'm not getting into the morality of it!).

What her view of whether she was liable is neither here nor there. Either she signed a contract or she didn't.

Yes.

There would be no need whatsoever for the OP to have to go to court.

What could she add to proceedings above her witness statement stating why she needed an expensive MPV and the signed contract for the hire?

Nothing.

In fact for £1500, it would not be worth the risk of the third party insurers going to court as the fees would end up matching that. They are just playing the game and calling the OPs insurance companies bluff. When the witness statement and the contract is supplied in disclosure they won't bother.

There is very little costs risk, it's small claims at that value so fixed solicitors costs of c. £80, court fee £85, AQ £35, hearing fee £100 - all but the hearing fee will be payable by now anyway so the additional risk is very low.

The solicitors dealing with it for the Defendant insurance co will be on a fixed fee, so once it's passed to them the fee is incurred anyway and a panel barrister will carry out the hearing for approx £150.

I'd very possibly run this one if I were the Def solicitor, a Claimant who is probably not impecunious so could have afforded spot hire, an extended period of hire with foreign travel and always the likelihood that the CL will say they didn't believe that they were liable and/or a Claimant who won't go to court.

I'd imagine the Def insurer has paid the bulk of the Credit Hire and is objecting to the duration.

[jessica]

frosted said:

May I ask how much you got for whiplash injuries ?

As I wasn t in the car at the time Jack st.
also how can i lose my no claims bonus five years down the line. doh!!!!!!!!!!!!

If i have to go to court so be it. but it was my understanding at the time that the car i was supplied with was just an insurance replacement Like for like.
i had a grande renault espace...... and five kids.

Edited by jessica on Saturday 27th February 22:08