Rear ended last year - legal fee liability?
Discussion
OK so almost exactly a year ago to the day I was rear ended by a Transit on the motorway at what I'd call a decent lick of pace. The damage was confined to the rear bumper and boot lid and it was driveable. The guy admit fault (given I was stood still at the back of a queue) and we swapped details. I took it to my local bodyshop that I've used a few times in the past who deal with this kind of thing, gave them his details, and they told me they'd get it booked in, a hire car will be provided, and everything taken care of. That was all sorted, drove round in a 4-series for a while as it was like-for-like (my car being an E92 at the time) until my car was done then job jobbed.
Anyway I got a call a few months ago from my solicitors (who were appointed to me) stating that the other party's insurer was disputing the hire costs, which I believe totalled around £3k, with the argument being if I had the income to sort out my own hire car or transport elsewhere I should've done. I said I couldn't have afforded that, and wasn't aware that was even an option. I was told to not worry about it they're just trying to save some money.
Now last week I've had a letter stating my solicitors are taking court action on my behalf against the other party "due to us not being able to agree settlement of your hire charges." Does anyone have any advice on this? As far as I'm concerned I was the victim in all of this, merely sat in traffic, so a year down the line I shouldn't be expected to pay legal costs because they can't agree on something...right? It was enough hassle at the time but this seems neverending now. They're definitely expecting me to pay because there's some tables in the letter explaining where I may qualify for part or full exemption of their costs based on income, which I don't qualify for.
Any insight welcome.
Anyway I got a call a few months ago from my solicitors (who were appointed to me) stating that the other party's insurer was disputing the hire costs, which I believe totalled around £3k, with the argument being if I had the income to sort out my own hire car or transport elsewhere I should've done. I said I couldn't have afforded that, and wasn't aware that was even an option. I was told to not worry about it they're just trying to save some money.
Now last week I've had a letter stating my solicitors are taking court action on my behalf against the other party "due to us not being able to agree settlement of your hire charges." Does anyone have any advice on this? As far as I'm concerned I was the victim in all of this, merely sat in traffic, so a year down the line I shouldn't be expected to pay legal costs because they can't agree on something...right? It was enough hassle at the time but this seems neverending now. They're definitely expecting me to pay because there's some tables in the letter explaining where I may qualify for part or full exemption of their costs based on income, which I don't qualify for.
Any insight welcome.
Those tables are probably something they have to send to everyone by law, whether it applies to you or not. I'm sure thye don't expect you to pay, so call them to check. But you will be expected to cooperate by attending court etc., if required. That's part of the deal for not having to pay for hire car etc. You have to assist them in recovering their outlay.
You hired a car on credit terms and the solicitors need your assistance in claiming the monies from the third party (insurer). Just co-operate and fill in any paperwork they ask of you. It will likely settle before Court but if not then you might be required to attend to confirm that you were not in a position to pay for a car under your own steam - they will likely require bank/credit card statements to this effect however.
Alucidnation said:
Just pass it on to your insurers.
It's what you are paying them for.
No.It's what you are paying them for.
This is an uninsured loss the OP has decided to incur himself. He has to go along with the legal action which the solicitors will issue in his name as he is ultimately responsible for the hire charges.
OP, you have to go along with it and provide the required assistance to the solicitors. Prepare to have to disclose all your financial statements.
Had a similar experience a few years ago.
Hit by another driver who admitted liability at the scene.
Mercedes main dealer put me in touch directly with an accident management company.
Had over priced hire car for 3 weeks whilst they did nothing to “manage” my accident.
Other drivers insurance quibbled the cost.
My car insurance policy company weren’t remotely interested as in essence it had nothing to do with them, the cost was borne by the AMC.
The hire car policy document you’ve signed ordinarily comes with a free legal cover policy. This indemnifies you from actually being liable should the AMC not be able to recover the cost from the 3rd party insurers, BUT ONLY if you fully cooperate with their process.
If you don’t there will be a clause cancelling the legal cover part of the contract and then you’re on the hook for the bill.
For me this meant responding to call after call, providing statements, supplying supporting documentation and ultimately attending court for the day.
In short be very careful to fully cooperate with their requests; you may well as stated have to provide evidence that you didn’t have alternative transport and couldn’t financially hire one yourself. I didn’t have to provide any level of financial detail on mine but have heard of people having to do so.
I simply explained whilst I was in a 2 car household it was 2 cars for a reason and I needed my car to commute, SDP, business use etc.
The judge eventually awarded less than 50% of what the AMC claimed but because I’d cooperated that was just their hard luck!
Hit by another driver who admitted liability at the scene.
Mercedes main dealer put me in touch directly with an accident management company.
Had over priced hire car for 3 weeks whilst they did nothing to “manage” my accident.
Other drivers insurance quibbled the cost.
My car insurance policy company weren’t remotely interested as in essence it had nothing to do with them, the cost was borne by the AMC.
The hire car policy document you’ve signed ordinarily comes with a free legal cover policy. This indemnifies you from actually being liable should the AMC not be able to recover the cost from the 3rd party insurers, BUT ONLY if you fully cooperate with their process.
If you don’t there will be a clause cancelling the legal cover part of the contract and then you’re on the hook for the bill.
For me this meant responding to call after call, providing statements, supplying supporting documentation and ultimately attending court for the day.
In short be very careful to fully cooperate with their requests; you may well as stated have to provide evidence that you didn’t have alternative transport and couldn’t financially hire one yourself. I didn’t have to provide any level of financial detail on mine but have heard of people having to do so.
I simply explained whilst I was in a 2 car household it was 2 cars for a reason and I needed my car to commute, SDP, business use etc.
The judge eventually awarded less than 50% of what the AMC claimed but because I’d cooperated that was just their hard luck!
Thanks all, some helpful info here. No legal cover on my policy, and my insurers weren't notified of the incident as I was advised I didn't need to bother since the fault wasn't on my end. Of course I'm happy to co-operate wherever I can.
In terms of disclosing my financial information, would this realistically be that hard to argue? If it came to it I wouldn't hire a car for a month I'd buy a s
tter at auction and flip it, had I known it was on me. I don't personally see why I should be on the hook for any costs, regardless of if I can pay them, unless that's me just being belligerent. I took the hire car because the garage didn't have a courtesy car they could lend for that length of time, and because it was offered to me. This certainly sounds like a case of me not reading the small print, though.
Thanks gmlgml, that does sound remarkably similar. I've responded to my solicitors via email as I like to have everything in writing, so we'll see what they say.
In terms of disclosing my financial information, would this realistically be that hard to argue? If it came to it I wouldn't hire a car for a month I'd buy a s
tter at auction and flip it, had I known it was on me. I don't personally see why I should be on the hook for any costs, regardless of if I can pay them, unless that's me just being belligerent. I took the hire car because the garage didn't have a courtesy car they could lend for that length of time, and because it was offered to me. This certainly sounds like a case of me not reading the small print, though. Thanks gmlgml, that does sound remarkably similar. I've responded to my solicitors via email as I like to have everything in writing, so we'll see what they say.
Regards your personal finances, the other side will argue that if you had enough spare cash in the bank, you should have hired a car yourself from a cheaper supplier who wouldn’t have charged for for the credit element of the credit hire thereby mitigating your losses.
The argument usually doesn’t get far though and the case will probably settle before you have to go to Court.
The argument usually doesn’t get far though and the case will probably settle before you have to go to Court.
chml said:
You hired a car on credit terms and the solicitors need your assistance in claiming the monies from the third party (insurer). Just co-operate and fill in any paperwork they ask of you. It will likely settle before Court but if not then you might be required to attend to confirm that you were not in a position to pay for a car under your own steam - they will likely require bank/credit card statements to this effect however.
100% this.They need to issue Court proceedings in your name as it's technically your loss (even though it's on credit and you haven't "lost" anything - it's called a subrogated claim).
Just do what they have asked and give them any assistance they need.
If you don't you could be left paying the bill for the hire charges as, ultimately, you're responsible for those given you signed the hire agreement.
Nezquick said:
chml said:
You hired a car on credit terms and the solicitors need your assistance in claiming the monies from the third party (insurer). Just co-operate and fill in any paperwork they ask of you. It will likely settle before Court but if not then you might be required to attend to confirm that you were not in a position to pay for a car under your own steam - they will likely require bank/credit card statements to this effect however.
100% this.They need to issue Court proceedings in your name as it's technically your loss (even though it's on credit and you haven't "lost" anything - it's called a subrogated claim).
Just do what they have asked and give them any assistance they need.
If you don't you could be left paying the bill for the hire charges as, ultimately, you're responsible for those given you signed the hire agreement.
groundcontrol said:
Thanks all, some helpful info here. No legal cover on my policy, and my insurers weren't notified of the incident as I was advised I didn't need to bother since the fault wasn't on my end. Of course I'm happy to co-operate wherever I can.
In terms of disclosing my financial information, would this realistically be that hard to argue? If it came to it I wouldn't hire a car for a month I'd buy a stter at auction and flip it, had I known it was on me. I don't personally see why I should be on the hook for any costs, regardless of if I can pay them, unless that's me just being belligerent. I took the hire car because the garage didn't have a courtesy car they could lend for that length of time, and because it was offered to me. This certainly sounds like a case of me not reading the small print, though.
Thanks gmlgml, that does sound remarkably similar. I've responded to my solicitors via email as I like to have everything in writing, so we'll see what they say.
You need to speak to the hire company or their solicitors before making rash comments about buying a snotter etc as this can have an impact on the recovery of hire charges from the third party (insurer). Most cases don't get to Court, and based on your comments above then the CHO should have no interest in pushing it that far but you need to be careful as to what you say in the heat of the moment (above) as this could cause you problems. In terms of disclosing my financial information, would this realistically be that hard to argue? If it came to it I wouldn't hire a car for a month I'd buy a s
tter at auction and flip it, had I known it was on me. I don't personally see why I should be on the hook for any costs, regardless of if I can pay them, unless that's me just being belligerent. I took the hire car because the garage didn't have a courtesy car they could lend for that length of time, and because it was offered to me. This certainly sounds like a case of me not reading the small print, though. Thanks gmlgml, that does sound remarkably similar. I've responded to my solicitors via email as I like to have everything in writing, so we'll see what they say.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff