Insurance company versus Solicitor dilemma

[mattnunn]

I wonder if we've got similair phone number, because I've got a text message here says I am entitled to £3500 compensation due to the accident I recently had curiously I haven't had one for years.

I'd avoid the solicitors if at all possible, they are not motivated to do anything other than maximise their own take in my experience, unless your injuries are serious enough to warrant lost earning, ongoing issues, but you can revisit that later anyway.

[Noger]

KungFuPanda said:

I've not yet had the opportunity of reading the full judgment regards the claim for hire presented by Darren Bent where he hired an Aston Martin DB9 as a replacement for his CL63 (??) but the Court of Appeal allowed the majority of his hire charges even though he had the use of another vehicle and would of course have had access to enough funds to hire another one on a regular day rate rather than on a credit basis. Most of the general public don't have access to ready funds to effect their own repairs / purchase a new vehicle or hire their own vehicle and this is where the mitigation argument fails.

Despite Allianz claiming victory (although I can see what they are saying, it was very specific, and maybe overall Bent will make costs more predictable, but lets wait until the dust settles and Steve Evan's smug grin fades a little) things are not all bad. Pattni was won. Walker v Veolia too (£800 a day new Bentley when his own was an old £18,000 model but he needed to look posh for his job as an actuary, jeez). Be nice if Sayce was upheld, get to the client first and you don't have to pay hire charges...nice

[julian64]

TameRacingDriver said:

KungFuPanda said:

You've seemingly been contacted by the other guy's insurer's "third party capture team". This has been a recent thing which has been rolled out a few years ago by insurers to try and avoid the exhorbitant cost when hire and accident management companies get involved. These guys will have existing contracts with repairers and hire providers and will seek to reduce their outlay by using these existing suppliers at preferential rates. Your hire car will in all likelihood be on a like for like basis however they may try and force you to use one of their approved repairers whose work may not be of the best standard and will be engineered down to a price.

These guys will also arrange for you to be seen by a medical expert already on their panel who will assess your injuries and offer a prognosis upon which your level of damages will be based.

One thing you will have to remember however is that there could well be a conflict of interest as not only will the other guy's insurers be dealing with all of your claim, but they will also be the paymaster so will they really have your best interests at heart or will their sole objective be dealing with the claim as economically as possible???

If you stick with your own solicitors, they will obviously have your best interested in mind and will ensure that you will receive the maximum compensation in relation the any injury or out of pocket expenses but they will also ensure that the hire car you received will be charged at a higher daily rate and the repairs will probably also be higher too. They will also seek to recover their own costs from the third party insurers.

Ultimately, the decision is yours. it's easy to bemoan the alleged "compensation culture" for bumping up premiums but if you were in this position would you let the other insurance company deal with the totality of your claim to save a few quid or would you hire your own legal representation at an ultimately higher cost to ensure that your interests were fully protected?

Bloody good post, and you've made up my mind for me TBQH. Thanks for that

Not exactly impartial though is it. Indignation seems to be whats making your mind up. He's only jusifying your decision.

[TameRacingDriver]

julian64 said:

Not exactly impartial though is it. Indignation seems to be whats making your mind up. He's only jusifying your decision.

That and all the extra hassle I'd have to go through to get the same or lesser of a result, and to be honest, rightly or wrongly, what he said seems to make sense to me. YMMV.

[KungFuPanda]

Noger said:

Despite Allianz claiming victory (although I can see what they are saying, it was very specific, and maybe overall Bent will make costs more predictable, but lets wait until the dust settles and Steve Evan's smug grin fades a little) things are not all bad. Pattni was won. Walker v Veolia too (£800 a day new Bentley when his own was an old £18,000 model but he needed to look posh for his job as an actuary, jeez). Be nice if Sayce was upheld, get to the client first and you don't have to pay hire charges...nice

Wasn't there an insurer or some kind of commercial transport organisation that issued their drivers with business cards to give out to third parties? These cards didn't admit liability as such, but offered repairs and hire vehicles at no cost to the third party?

[U T]

zeb said:

True

not my fault or my insurers

Not your insurers fault?

Possibley the first time that phrase has ever been used on this forum.

Surely insurers are to blame for everything!! Who else are we going to blame?

[Noger]

KungFuPanda said:

Noger said:

Despite Allianz claiming victory (although I can see what they are saying, it was very specific, and maybe overall Bent will make costs more predictable, but lets wait until the dust settles and Steve Evan's smug grin fades a little) things are not all bad. Pattni was won. Walker v Veolia too (£800 a day new Bentley when his own was an old £18,000 model but he needed to look posh for his job as an actuary, jeez). Be nice if Sayce was upheld, get to the client first and you don't have to pay hire charges...nice

Wasn't there an insurer or some kind of commercial transport organisation that issued their drivers with business cards to give out to third parties? These cards didn't admit liability as such, but offered repairs and hire vehicles at no cost to the third party?

Yes, there was talk of giving Policyholders a tax disc holder with a wodge of cards on the back. Think may have even trialled it.

[huwp]

KungFuPanda said:

It pisses me off royally when I have to settle claims such as this however I'd rather do this than go over to the dark side...

"Dark side" that's how those on the Def side normally descibe themselves!

My specialism is in dealing with Claimant catastrophic injury claims involving very severe brain injuries.

I cannot abide the adverts we see on the T.V. every day that court the slips, trips and whiplash claims (especially low velocity impacts) but see the impact that a serious brain injury has and you may be persuaded to come over to the light. When you see the devastation that an injury has that results in 24 hour care it is quite sobering, especially in children and adolescents. I've seen Third Party Capture try and ensnare these victims and try and settle their cases for a fraction of what they are reasonably entitled to.

Just a further insight to a complex issue.

[LeeMad]

you may have signed a mitigation statement, if you have it will state youre ultimately responsible for the costs of hire if its unrecoverable byt the solicitors. if the other guys insurance have offered a hire car to you for less then from that day they'll refuse to pay any more per day to the solicitor than it would have cost them. this will leave the solicitors with an under recovery and they'll either bill you or take it out of any other compensation