Has my insurer stolen my car???
Discussion
GrazedNConfused said:
The only thing of relevance is their inibility to return my car, a tort of conversion.
By your logic, if someone assaulted me and took my watch, if I got the watch back, I should move on. That's not how I work!
Unless I have missed something they didn't beat you up before picking the car up, so the assault comparison is flawed. By your logic, if someone assaulted me and took my watch, if I got the watch back, I should move on. That's not how I work!
They may be able to return your car if you withdraw the claim. If not you can accept their best offer or go through their complaints procedure and ultimately the ombudsman.
Either way it's not theft.
ked up and put him in a stronger position than he'd otherwise be in.GrazedNConfudsed said:
My insurers took away my car to local approved repairers.
I connected the boss of the approved repairers and got a “normal” quote 50% of the quote sent to the insurers.
Car was declared right off. Undervalued cheque was issued to me.
I objected, saying I wanted to either dispute valuation or cancel the claim get the repairs done myself and deal with GP insurance direct.
I was to be called back, but weeks went by with no contact, despite many chasings.
Wednesday I finally got someone who said she'd get a manager to call me as she could see there was a cock up.
Yesterday I was called by the chief engineer and told my car could not be returned as it had already been sold on as salvage.
I have not cashed the cheque nor sent them the V5, nor at any point indicated I was going to accept their valuation or cash the cheque. On the contrary, if they have recorded the calls, or the callcentre staff have made notes about my many calls, every communication from me has been about getting the car back one way or another ASAP.
I'm awaiting a return call from the CE.
As already said, seek professional legal advice: I've been in a similar situation, sending you the cheque is not a get out for them. The settlement of your claim is a matter of negotiation, which isn't over until both parties agree. They've taken the action of destroying your property (whether accidentally or not) presumptuously, & therefore taken away your option to retain your property. Tell them you are taking legal advice on that basis, see what happens next - but seek proper legal advice as well!!I connected the boss of the approved repairers and got a “normal” quote 50% of the quote sent to the insurers.
Car was declared right off. Undervalued cheque was issued to me.
I objected, saying I wanted to either dispute valuation or cancel the claim get the repairs done myself and deal with GP insurance direct.
I was to be called back, but weeks went by with no contact, despite many chasings.
Wednesday I finally got someone who said she'd get a manager to call me as she could see there was a cock up.
Yesterday I was called by the chief engineer and told my car could not be returned as it had already been sold on as salvage.
I have not cashed the cheque nor sent them the V5, nor at any point indicated I was going to accept their valuation or cash the cheque. On the contrary, if they have recorded the calls, or the callcentre staff have made notes about my many calls, every communication from me has been about getting the car back one way or another ASAP.
I'm awaiting a return call from the CE.
GrazedNConfused said:
And in this case, XXX would be far higher than "maket value" as I would never sell it for that!
I would only have sold it if it gave me cash for a SIGNIFICANTLY upgraded replacement car.
And if your home is compulsory purchased to make way for a bypass, you don't just get market value, you are also compensated for your involuntary loss; inconvenience, emotional distress etc.
Surely the only way they can legitamise the transfer of the title to a third party now would be to purchase said title from me.
And my price would be XXX not market value.
Any thoughts?
Doesn't matter what you would have sold it for, you only insured it for market value, it is now up to you to prove that you car was worth significantly more than every other one of the same make, model, milage on sale,why did you not insure it agreed value if it was worth so much more than market value?I would only have sold it if it gave me cash for a SIGNIFICANTLY upgraded replacement car.
And if your home is compulsory purchased to make way for a bypass, you don't just get market value, you are also compensated for your involuntary loss; inconvenience, emotional distress etc.
Surely the only way they can legitamise the transfer of the title to a third party now would be to purchase said title from me.
And my price would be XXX not market value.
Any thoughts?
Chances of getting your car back are virtually nil, so now you have to negotiate as to why you think the insurance company's valuation is wrong, and I would only have sold it for XXX ain't going to count for anything.
berlintaxi said:
Doesn't matter what you would have sold it for, you only insured it for market value, it is now up to you to prove that you car was worth significantly more than every other one of the same make, model, milage on sale,why did you not insure it agreed value if it was worth so much more than market value?
Forgive me if I'm missing something, however the OPs insurance policy should be irrelevant. His loss was caused by the third party and the recompense is owed by that third party- typically via their own insurers. The OP had no contractual or insured relationship with the TP's insurer. If he had not informed his own insurer of the claim, could he not have liaised directly with the TP insurer and have avoided this issue altogether?In either case, the obligation is to put the innocent party back in the position they were in prior to the other party's negligence. If the OP's vehicle has a market value of, say, £7k, but he would have been prepared to spend £8k repairing it, the guilty party or their insurer cannot be liable for that. If the OP wanted that level of protection, he would need an agreed value policy and they, I presume, would pay the difference between market value and agreed value in the event of a non fault claim.
In the present case, assuming the transaction between the OPs insurer and salvage company cannot be unravelled, all they owe him is market value of the car, subject to them being able to prove the OP accepted settlement of the claim (which may be in dispute).
Assuming this is not a car of significant financial value, going down a long and stressful complaint and/or legal process to recover a badly damaged vehicle, however valuable sentimentally, is a folly.
If I were the OP, I would ensure I made a reasonable and clearly laid out complaint direct to the insurer. It would state that I had not agreed to settlement of the claim, on the basis the amount offered was below market value. I would indicate what I considered fair market value and that this would be sufficient to settle both the claim and the complaint.
Once the claim was settled, I'd move on.
Fighting faceless, will funded corporations, arguing the toss with low-level line managers in call centres, will cause them no stress whatsoever and the OP lots. It's worth it if the prize is significant, but for a handful of pounds or some low level sentimental value, it's not worth the stress.
Edited by janesmith1950 on Saturday 15th December 08:27
It’s been mentioned before - but the GP’s insurer will not pay for storage that is unnecessary. By reporting the claim to your insurer you’re giving them authority to handle it on your behalf and do as they see fit. You’re insured for a market value and that’s that.
Once the market value has been paid, the car then becomes their property. The GP will not pay £10-15 a day for you to wait and decide whether you accept or want to retain etc.
If you told your insurer that you want to retain, they owe you compensation for not handling that IF their terms and conditions allow you to retain salvage once a claim is logged and it’s deemed a total loss. Some insurers allow it, others do not.
Also just a note on market value - a weird spec doesn’t neccesarily make an older car worth more or less than a newer one. When I used to deal with claims, I used to tell customers that the market value would be the figure they could get for their car selling it privately the day before the accident. Not what they think it’s worth.
As a car lover - I know we all have an idea in our head as what our cars are worth, I had a Saab 9-3 with thousands of pounds worth of receipts, brilliant spec in the right colour etc. I’d have said it was worth £1500 all day but I couldn’t sell it for that! Went for £900 in the end. Why should my insurer pay me £1500 when the car wouldn’t actually sell for that.
You’ve got to remember your insurer has to approach the GP insurer and prove their losses should it go to court. They will not pay your insurer if they say they paid you over market value because your older car has leather seats etc, and you loved the car when it can be replaced with a similar car for XYZ. They also won’t pay the storage charges while you argue over the value. Even bodyshops charge storage these days. Insurance is now seen as the new money spinner.
Advice for the future for anyone reading or who cares - if your car is worth a lot to you, get an agreed value policy not a market value policy - and if possible keep hold of the car on your own property as it’s free storage. Anything you can do to mitigate costs makes your insurers position easier and better.
Once the market value has been paid, the car then becomes their property. The GP will not pay £10-15 a day for you to wait and decide whether you accept or want to retain etc.
If you told your insurer that you want to retain, they owe you compensation for not handling that IF their terms and conditions allow you to retain salvage once a claim is logged and it’s deemed a total loss. Some insurers allow it, others do not.
Also just a note on market value - a weird spec doesn’t neccesarily make an older car worth more or less than a newer one. When I used to deal with claims, I used to tell customers that the market value would be the figure they could get for their car selling it privately the day before the accident. Not what they think it’s worth.
As a car lover - I know we all have an idea in our head as what our cars are worth, I had a Saab 9-3 with thousands of pounds worth of receipts, brilliant spec in the right colour etc. I’d have said it was worth £1500 all day but I couldn’t sell it for that! Went for £900 in the end. Why should my insurer pay me £1500 when the car wouldn’t actually sell for that.
You’ve got to remember your insurer has to approach the GP insurer and prove their losses should it go to court. They will not pay your insurer if they say they paid you over market value because your older car has leather seats etc, and you loved the car when it can be replaced with a similar car for XYZ. They also won’t pay the storage charges while you argue over the value. Even bodyshops charge storage these days. Insurance is now seen as the new money spinner.
Advice for the future for anyone reading or who cares - if your car is worth a lot to you, get an agreed value policy not a market value policy - and if possible keep hold of the car on your own property as it’s free storage. Anything you can do to mitigate costs makes your insurers position easier and better.
janesmith1950 said:
Forgive me if I'm missing something, however the OPs insurance policy should be irrelevant. His loss was caused by the third party and the recompense is owed by that third party- typically via their own insurers. The OP had no contractual or insured relationship with the TP's insurer. If he had not informed his own insurer of the claim, could he not have liaised directly with the TP insurer and have avoided this issue altogether?
Yep, that is relevant & I've argued on that basis for repairs to my own car. 
desolate said:
GrazedNConfused said:
The only thing of relevance is their inibility to return my car, a tort of conversion.
By your logic, if someone assaulted me and took my watch, if I got the watch back, I should move on. That's not how I work!
Unless I have missed something they didn't beat you up before picking the car up, so the assault comparison is flawed. By your logic, if someone assaulted me and took my watch, if I got the watch back, I should move on. That's not how I work!
They may be able to return your car if you withdraw the claim. If not you can accept their best offer or go through their complaints procedure and ultimately the ombudsman.
Either way it's not theft.
Though I definitely feel I've been mugged!
We've established it's not a "crime of theft", but rather a "tort of conversion".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)
Basically it's theft without dishonest intent, with damages payable (including punitive damages) instead of a stint in pokey for the defendant. Which is fine by me, as the satisfaction someone is banged up for this mess won't pay for a new car.
Edited by GrazedNConfused on Saturday 15th December 13:30
GrazedNConfused said:
Ehh, the example of assault was given to show that restitution of property alone does not equate to justice being served, nowhere did I suggest I'd been assaulted?? Though I definitely feel I've been mugged!
We've established it's not a "crime of theft", but rather a "tort of conversion".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)
Basically it's theft without dishonest intent, with damages payable (including punitive damages) instead of a stint in pokey for the defendant. Which is fine by me, as the satisfaction someone is banged up for this mess won't pay for a new car.
Jeez I've read some stuff in my time on this site, give over, nobody is going to be "banged up" for this.We've established it's not a "crime of theft", but rather a "tort of conversion".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)
Basically it's theft without dishonest intent, with damages payable (including punitive damages) instead of a stint in pokey for the defendant. Which is fine by me, as the satisfaction someone is banged up for this mess won't pay for a new car.
If you feel the insurer hasn't acted appropriately then raise a complaint with them, exhaust the complaint process and if you feel like they still haven't addressed the issue then you can go to the Ombudsman who will make a decision on the matter.
Stop faffing about being outraged and think logically to get the matter sorted.
ZOLLAR said:
Jeez I've read some stuff in my time on this site, give over, nobody is going to be "banged up" for this.
If you feel the insurer hasn't acted appropriately then raise a complaint with them, exhaust the complaint process and if you feel like they still haven't addressed the issue then you can go to the Ombudsman who will make a decision on the matter.
Stop faffing about being outraged and think logically to get the matter sorted.
Have you actually asked them for more money or your car back?If you feel the insurer hasn't acted appropriately then raise a complaint with them, exhaust the complaint process and if you feel like they still haven't addressed the issue then you can go to the Ombudsman who will make a decision on the matter.
Stop faffing about being outraged and think logically to get the matter sorted.
OP I can't help but feel you're just not accepting what everyone is telling you.
I understand cars can be very sentimental and mean more than money ever could in some cases.
However, the cold hard truth is, there was no "theft" here, and there is a strong chance you will not have that vehicle in your possession again.
Yes the insurance company have acted either thoughtlessly (just got on with the business of value the repair, too pricey vs market value, salvage it and pay you off) or ,debatable, negligently (sold the car on before knowing your position)
Which one of those it is, is open to debate, you clearly believe it to be the latter and want the vehicle plus i suspect compensation for it. however, those of us looking at this from the outside and knowing insurance companies, i would say most (and i do) believe the insurance have gone with the first, they've just gone through the motions that they do with every claim
So your options are this
1. Debate the cheque value with your insurance co to get the payout the car would be worth(evidence needed from adverts, owners clubs etc) and moen on to the next vehicle in your life
2 Pursue your negligence/theft "claim" and attempt legal advice for the return of the vehicle plus compensation via solicitor/ombudsman
personally, I believe 2. to be a complete waste of time.
I understand cars can be very sentimental and mean more than money ever could in some cases.
However, the cold hard truth is, there was no "theft" here, and there is a strong chance you will not have that vehicle in your possession again.
Yes the insurance company have acted either thoughtlessly (just got on with the business of value the repair, too pricey vs market value, salvage it and pay you off) or ,debatable, negligently (sold the car on before knowing your position)
Which one of those it is, is open to debate, you clearly believe it to be the latter and want the vehicle plus i suspect compensation for it. however, those of us looking at this from the outside and knowing insurance companies, i would say most (and i do) believe the insurance have gone with the first, they've just gone through the motions that they do with every claim
So your options are this
1. Debate the cheque value with your insurance co to get the payout the car would be worth(evidence needed from adverts, owners clubs etc) and moen on to the next vehicle in your life
2 Pursue your negligence/theft "claim" and attempt legal advice for the return of the vehicle plus compensation via solicitor/ombudsman
personally, I believe 2. to be a complete waste of time.
berlintaxi said:
By the sound of it you should have gone for agreed value, you will need to demonstrate that equivalent spec'd models are selling for more than they have offered if you hope to get a bigger payout.
XXX is not what I belive market value should be, its what I would have sold the car for the day before the crash, plus an amount for the inconvenience of being without a car since September, many hours time wasted queuing on the phone, the months of stress this had all caused, and now, the emotional distress of basically feeling like being a victim of a crime of theft (ever been burgled?).See anything unreasonable in that? Is UK law not based on the principle of "reasonable man"?
If XXX is the "agreed value" I would gladly settle.
If we agree a tort of conversion has been committed, discussion on market value and insured value is irrelevant. The law provides for restitution in the form of return of lost value (including for zero market value items of sentimental value) AND punative damages. That's the law. Terms and conditions of either my or GPs policy are irrelevant. My issuer has broken the law by being unable to return my car.
I would be most interested to hear the opinions of anyone with legal qualifications in this area or specific experience of a case of tort of conversion, I can't help feeling the rest of the discussion is a bit of a red herring.
I am of course seeking legal advice, and would appreciate if anyone can recommend someone with revenant expertise who might be able to represent me.
Thanks for all your ongoing comments.
MarkwG said:
janesmith1950 said:
Forgive me if I'm missing something, however the OPs insurance policy should be irrelevant. His loss was caused by the third party and the recompense is owed by that third party- typically via their own insurers. The OP had no contractual or insured relationship with the TP's insurer. If he had not informed his own insurer of the claim, could he not have liaised directly with the TP insurer and have avoided this issue altogether?
Yep, that is relevant & I've argued on that basis for repairs to my own car. Getting rid of the car was at worst human error, stop looking too much into it..... it may do you a favour in negotiating the value of your car if you say you wanted yours back repaired because now it will cost £xxxx to go out and buy a replacement.... may just get you paid to go away if your value isn’t silly...
Your claims management company should have sorted you a hire car or at a minimum told you to hire a sensible car and send them bill into them to pass on to 3rd party insurers. This is worth mentioning if you’ve been left without a car for two months.
I think you will also find everyone sympathetic to what’s happened to you if you behave reasonably and practicaly trying to work for solution...
Edited by Black_S3 on Saturday 15th December 14:03
desolate said:
ZOLLAR said:
Jeez I've read some stuff in my time on this site, give over, nobody is going to be "banged up" for this.
If you feel the insurer hasn't acted appropriately then raise a complaint with them, exhaust the complaint process and if you feel like they still haven't addressed the issue then you can go to the Ombudsman who will make a decision on the matter.
Stop faffing about being outraged and think logically to get the matter sorted.
Have you actually asked them for more money or your car back?If you feel the insurer hasn't acted appropriately then raise a complaint with them, exhaust the complaint process and if you feel like they still haven't addressed the issue then you can go to the Ombudsman who will make a decision on the matter.
Stop faffing about being outraged and think logically to get the matter sorted.
If course I have, right from the beginning!
ZOLLAR said:
GrazedNConfused said:
Ehh, the example of assault was given to show that restitution of property alone does not equate to justice being served, nowhere did I suggest I'd been assaulted?? Though I definitely feel I've been mugged!
We've established it's not a "crime of theft", but rather a "tort of conversion".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)
Basically it's theft without dishonest intent, with damages payable (including punitive damages) instead of a stint in pokey for the defendant. Which is fine by me, as the satisfaction someone is banged up for this mess won't pay for a new car.
Jeez I've read some stuff in my time on this site, give over, nobody is going to be "banged up" for this.We've established it's not a "crime of theft", but rather a "tort of conversion".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)
Basically it's theft without dishonest intent, with damages payable (including punitive damages) instead of a stint in pokey for the defendant. Which is fine by me, as the satisfaction someone is banged up for this mess won't pay for a new car.
If you feel the insurer hasn't acted appropriately then raise a complaint with them, exhaust the complaint process and if you feel like they still haven't addressed the issue then you can go to the Ombudsman who will make a decision on the matter.
Stop faffing about being outraged and think logically to get the matter sorted.
Please reread my last paragraph quoted. I clearly state a tort of converion is remedied with payment of damages NOT jail time. You seem to have misunderstood a little humour.
GrazedNConfused said:
berlintaxi said:
By the sound of it you should have gone for agreed value, you will need to demonstrate that equivalent spec'd models are selling for more than they have offered if you hope to get a bigger payout.
XXX is not what I belive market value should be, its what I would have sold the car for the day before the crash, plus an amount for the inconvenience of being without a car since September, many hours time wasted queuing on the phone, the months of stress this had all caused, and now, the emotional distress of basically feeling like being a victim of a crime of theft (ever been burgled?).See anything unreasonable in that? Is UK law not based on the principle of "reasonable man"?
Whilst unpleasant things this is not what car insurance pays out.
If you make a formal complaint then they may pay you compensation as part of the complaint.
GrazedNConfused said:
I would be most interested to hear the opinions of anyone with legal qualifications in this area or specific experience of a case of tort of conversion, I can't help feeling the rest of the discussion is a bit of a red herring.
I am of course seeking legal advice, and would appreciate if anyone can recommend someone with revenant expertise who might be able to represent me.
Thanks for all your ongoing comments.
A solicitor will happily take this on, they'll happily send many letters and emails to your insurer, they will happily draw this out because they are fee earners.I am of course seeking legal advice, and would appreciate if anyone can recommend someone with revenant expertise who might be able to represent me.
Thanks for all your ongoing comments.
You have a free option to dispute what has happened, it's called the Financial Ombudsman Services (it may have been mentioned once or twice already), I've seen plenty of cases where an individual has spent a fortune on solicitors fee when it can quite easily be dealt with by the FOS.
You are highly unlikely to get your fees back.
But of course if you want to endure more stress and hassle crack on.
GrazedNConfused said:
I'm neither faffing nor outraged, I'm calmly getting my ducks in line for a civil case against the insurer for tort of conversion.
Please reread my last paragraph quoted. I clearly state a tort of converion is remedied with payment of damages NOT jail time. You seem to have misunderstood a little humour.
Oh I see, you're one of those "My day in court!" types.Please reread my last paragraph quoted. I clearly state a tort of converion is remedied with payment of damages NOT jail time. You seem to have misunderstood a little humour.
fair enough, spend your monies and clog up the system, I'm not surprised you're making this a mountain out of a mole hill.
I'll just leave you too it.
GrazedNConfused said:
Have you read my OP?
If course I have, right from the beginning!
The last line of your OP is that you are waiting for a call from their engineer.If course I have, right from the beginning!
To me that implies you haven't made a formal complaint.
If you have made a formal complaint and you arent happy with the outcome then the next step is the ombudsman.
I'd expect you to get a generous settlement and maybe a couple of hundred quid for the inconvenience.
GrazedNConfused said:
I'm neither faffing nor outraged, I'm calmly getting my ducks in line for a civil case against the insurer for tort of conversion.
Please reread my last paragraph quoted. I clearly state a tort of converion is remedied with payment of damages NOT jail time. You seem to have misunderstood a little humour.
You are jumping the gun and in thinking down that route before exhausting the options with the insurance company who have not refused to negotiate, then with the onumbusman you will likely incurr costs and they may be viewed as unreasonable.Please reread my last paragraph quoted. I clearly state a tort of converion is remedied with payment of damages NOT jail time. You seem to have misunderstood a little humour.
VWDaz86 said:
OP I can't help but feel you're just not accepting what everyone is telling you.
I understand cars can be very sentimental and mean more than money ever could in some cases.
However, the cold hard truth is, there was no "theft" here, and there is a strong chance you will not have that vehicle in your possession again.
Yes the insurance company have acted either thoughtlessly (just got on with the business of value the repair, too pricey vs market value, salvage it and pay you off) or ,debatable, negligently (sold the car on before knowing your position)
Which one of those it is, is open to debate, you clearly believe it to be the latter and want the vehicle plus i suspect compensation for it. however, those of us looking at this from the outside and knowing insurance companies, i would say most (and i do) believe the insurance have gone with the first, they've just gone through the motions that they do with every claim
So your options are this
1. Debate the cheque value with your insurance co to get the payout the car would be worth(evidence needed from adverts, owners clubs etc) and moen on to the next vehicle in your life
2 Pursue your negligence/theft "claim" and attempt legal advice for the return of the vehicle plus compensation via solicitor/ombudsman
personally, I believe 2. to be a complete waste of time.
Correct, no theft; tort of conversion.I understand cars can be very sentimental and mean more than money ever could in some cases.
However, the cold hard truth is, there was no "theft" here, and there is a strong chance you will not have that vehicle in your possession again.
Yes the insurance company have acted either thoughtlessly (just got on with the business of value the repair, too pricey vs market value, salvage it and pay you off) or ,debatable, negligently (sold the car on before knowing your position)
Which one of those it is, is open to debate, you clearly believe it to be the latter and want the vehicle plus i suspect compensation for it. however, those of us looking at this from the outside and knowing insurance companies, i would say most (and i do) believe the insurance have gone with the first, they've just gone through the motions that they do with every claim
So your options are this
1. Debate the cheque value with your insurance co to get the payout the car would be worth(evidence needed from adverts, owners clubs etc) and moen on to the next vehicle in your life
2 Pursue your negligence/theft "claim" and attempt legal advice for the return of the vehicle plus compensation via solicitor/ombudsman
personally, I believe 2. to be a complete waste of time.
So you forgot option 3, a civil case through the courts because the law has been broken.
The ombudsman handles issues to do with insurance claims, this is a case of the law having been broken, it's not under the juristiction of the ombudsman.
With respect, many posters seem to be failing to grasp this and keep repeating market value, negotiate agreed value, etc etc. Until I hear from a solicitor that no tort of conversion has taken place, yes, I'm not focusing on that advice /opinions.
Again I invite any further advice from PHers with relevant legal qualifications or experience, as I feel the best advice posted here so far has been get legal representation.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff