Insurance - mutal agreement to reduce costs?
Discussion
Interested to see if this is an odd situation or quite common...
Involved in a non-fault RTA 48 hours ago - liability accepted a couple of hours after making the claim directly with my insurer, I was hit from behind whilst stationary
all good so far, my car isn't roadworthy and got a call to arrange a replacement vehicle... now I was under the impression that as a non-fault driver I'd be put in a similair class car to my own (it's an automatic 4x4 that I use to get up to woodland)
I got the call to arrange a replacement car & it was a manual S1 catagory (small hatch) after being bounced between insurer and their AMC (Enterprise) was told that "the two insurance parties have reached a mutual agreement to reduce the cost of the claim and have therefore reduced your replacement vehicle class to the one below that which you would normally be entitled to"
that's life I suppose... but what I'm not overly impressed with is that the two parties... are the same insurance company! Is it o.k. for them to decide to save cost on a claim if they represent both parties? It makes sense I suppose but had assumed there was to be a measure of independence in dealing with both sides and this looks like they are being a tiny bit biased
Have sucked it up as no desire to deal with a 3rd party claim company (who I'm sure will be able to justify a like for like replacement) as I'm nervous if it gets written off and under-valued I only have redress with Ombudsman if it's directly with the insurer (I think)
common occurence, normal practise or seem off?
Involved in a non-fault RTA 48 hours ago - liability accepted a couple of hours after making the claim directly with my insurer, I was hit from behind whilst stationary
all good so far, my car isn't roadworthy and got a call to arrange a replacement vehicle... now I was under the impression that as a non-fault driver I'd be put in a similair class car to my own (it's an automatic 4x4 that I use to get up to woodland)
I got the call to arrange a replacement car & it was a manual S1 catagory (small hatch) after being bounced between insurer and their AMC (Enterprise) was told that "the two insurance parties have reached a mutual agreement to reduce the cost of the claim and have therefore reduced your replacement vehicle class to the one below that which you would normally be entitled to"
that's life I suppose... but what I'm not overly impressed with is that the two parties... are the same insurance company! Is it o.k. for them to decide to save cost on a claim if they represent both parties? It makes sense I suppose but had assumed there was to be a measure of independence in dealing with both sides and this looks like they are being a tiny bit biased
Have sucked it up as no desire to deal with a 3rd party claim company (who I'm sure will be able to justify a like for like replacement) as I'm nervous if it gets written off and under-valued I only have redress with Ombudsman if it's directly with the insurer (I think)
common occurence, normal practise or seem off?
Edited by lard on Friday 1st December 18:43
Off, you should be put in the the position you would have been i had the incident not occurred due to the insured persons negligence.
I had similar when someone crashed into my spanking new A8 then his insurance tried to palm me off with a base model mundano. They refused to budge so I hired a Merc S series and sued them for the cost. They took it all the way to county court and lost. The judge said that providing a car is not enough, it should be a car of a similar class and characteristics as the damaged one. What absolutely sealed it was that I sent them the quote for the hire first and offered them the chance to see if they could mitigate their loss by providing the same car on a better deal, they ignored me and I don’t like being ignored.
I had similar when someone crashed into my spanking new A8 then his insurance tried to palm me off with a base model mundano. They refused to budge so I hired a Merc S series and sued them for the cost. They took it all the way to county court and lost. The judge said that providing a car is not enough, it should be a car of a similar class and characteristics as the damaged one. What absolutely sealed it was that I sent them the quote for the hire first and offered them the chance to see if they could mitigate their loss by providing the same car on a better deal, they ignored me and I don’t like being ignored.
lard said:
common occurence, normal practise or seem off?
I was involved in my first insurance claim in about 20 years last year.I was 100% not at fault, the other driver hit me when I was parked.
His insurance company badgered me like hell in an attempt to reduce their costs. Repeatedly intimidated, lied to and one guy tried to trick me into settling the whole claim for £300, The final claim was over £2K
I must have heard "IT IS YOUR DUTY TO KEEP COSTS TO AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM" a thousand times. I just kept replying "its my duty to ensure my car is properly repaired"
so yeah, in your case they will do everything to keep the costs down. Cheapest hire car, cheapest repair.
Is it a genuine accident management company/credit hire arrangement, or is your insurer providing a replacement car under the terms of your own policy (ie does your policy come with an add-on called something like "guaranteed hire car/guaranteed hire car plus)?
If it's the latter then precisely what replacement car you can claim for under your policy will be set out by the terms of the policy - your insurer might have the right not to provide a literal like for like replacement.
If it's a credit hire situation however then your insurer should have basically no role to play, besides possibly recommending you a credit hire company in the first place. Your entitlement to claim the cost of a replacement car from the third party is entirely independent of your own insurer. I suppose if they recommend you a tame credit hire company who will look to push you into taking a slightly smaller car they're not obviously breaking any rules - but you don't have to accept their recommendation and would be fully entitled to engage a credit hire company of your own instead and insist on a like for like replacement. But as you say it depends on how much of a fuss you want to make and whether you can live with a smaller car for a little while.
If it's the latter then precisely what replacement car you can claim for under your policy will be set out by the terms of the policy - your insurer might have the right not to provide a literal like for like replacement.
If it's a credit hire situation however then your insurer should have basically no role to play, besides possibly recommending you a credit hire company in the first place. Your entitlement to claim the cost of a replacement car from the third party is entirely independent of your own insurer. I suppose if they recommend you a tame credit hire company who will look to push you into taking a slightly smaller car they're not obviously breaking any rules - but you don't have to accept their recommendation and would be fully entitled to engage a credit hire company of your own instead and insist on a like for like replacement. But as you say it depends on how much of a fuss you want to make and whether you can live with a smaller car for a little while.
Personally, I wouldn't be driving a hire car up to the woods, or anywhere which needed a 4x4.
Just too much bickering about inevitable damage.
I'd suggest checking the T's and C's of the hire carefully.
Just because they are hiring you a go-anywhere tank, doesn't mean they agree to you taking it off the tarmac
(I have a mate who sorts things on remote sites, lots of anecdotes!)
I would concentrate on the long term outcome.
If my car got a serious whack up the arse, I'd probably not want to drive it again, so I'd be shopping for a replacement.
That's maybe easier for me, because the value of my car is low and I tend to look forwards and move on from things which have gone wrong.
But I'd be asking whether the car is ever going to be the same again, and playing a long game.
If you need a 4x4 for your job, then that's a conversation to be had with the insurer.
If you're just taking your dog for a crap, maybe it won't hurt to be a bit flexible?
Where do you want to be in a year's time?
It's all very annoying, but quibbling over minor short term inconvenience gets you nowhere in the long run.
On the upside, some canute crashed into you and you're OK apart from your car?
Just too much bickering about inevitable damage.
I'd suggest checking the T's and C's of the hire carefully.
Just because they are hiring you a go-anywhere tank, doesn't mean they agree to you taking it off the tarmac
(I have a mate who sorts things on remote sites, lots of anecdotes!)
I would concentrate on the long term outcome.
If my car got a serious whack up the arse, I'd probably not want to drive it again, so I'd be shopping for a replacement.
That's maybe easier for me, because the value of my car is low and I tend to look forwards and move on from things which have gone wrong.
But I'd be asking whether the car is ever going to be the same again, and playing a long game.
If you need a 4x4 for your job, then that's a conversation to be had with the insurer.
If you're just taking your dog for a crap, maybe it won't hurt to be a bit flexible?
Where do you want to be in a year's time?
It's all very annoying, but quibbling over minor short term inconvenience gets you nowhere in the long run.
On the upside, some canute crashed into you and you're OK apart from your car?
NFT said:
OutInTheShed said:
Where do you want to be in a year's time?
It's all very annoying, but quibbling over minor short term inconvenience gets you nowhere in the long run.
On the upside, some canute crashed into you and you're OK apart from your car?
This, Couldn't have said it better.It's all very annoying, but quibbling over minor short term inconvenience gets you nowhere in the long run.
On the upside, some canute crashed into you and you're OK apart from your car?
t happens, they have given you a car. just imagine how much the hire is costing, then imagine a better car and the cost, and then come moaning about how much insurance costs next year, these are the things driving up the premiems, you might be an exeption and need a 4+4, but did your insurance co know this?sometimes things come out of the blue and inconviance us, thats life.
At least they are fixing the car.
New a guy who was in a similar position, had an old knackered ranger, used it for work, and insisted on like for like hire car, the end cost at the end was over 5k, his car was an old shed probaply not going to pass the next mot, he got a brand new one for months due to part supply. Dread to think what that cost.
I do agree that you shouldnt be unduly put out, but for a month or two while the car is being fixed, or a payment in a write off, isnt really that is it.
OutInTheShed said:
It's all very annoying, but quibbling over minor short term inconvenience gets you nowhere in the long run.
On the upside, some canute crashed into you and you're OK apart from your car?
Thanks all for the responses, yes I'm on the more philosofical side of the fence and yes all o.k. thank you, I said to the young lad who slid into the back of me, it could have been a lot worse - was black ice that caused one person to flip their car onto it's side, me to brake after coming around the corner and having to avoid people going around her (whilst she was still trapped in the car - aOn the upside, some canute crashed into you and you're OK apart from your car?
holes!) and him subsequently going into the back of meGet the comments on saving cost for everyone, I tried that approach with the insurance company pointing out that I could go with an accident management company to get a like for like but that ends up costing everyone money including me in the long run, and as enterprise are managing the claim, surely it's much less cost to match my vehicle class than going down that route but they basically said if that's what I wanted then go ahead & blamed Enterprise policy
I called Enterprise and lovely person on the phone explained that they have a tool that you put in a car, tells you the equivilant rental class, but that my case had a marker on it that they were to minimise cost and reduce by one class, only found out about it after multiple calls between them thinking they had just wrongly classified by car - who knew there was a specific catagory for claims to keep costs low
Never know, could be the difference between a write-off or repair, want to avoid write off as took me ages to find this exact car, age, mileage and going by parkers they value it about half what they go for, so on reflection maybe keep quiet and wait for the repair quote....
Brave man!
fatjon said:
Off, you should be put in the the position you would have been i had the incident not occurred due to the insured persons negligence.
I had similar when someone crashed into my spanking new A8 then his insurance tried to palm me off with a base model mundano. They refused to budge so I hired a Merc S series and sued them for the cost. They took it all the way to county court and lost. The judge said that providing a car is not enough, it should be a car of a similar class and characteristics as the damaged one. What absolutely sealed it was that I sent them the quote for the hire first and offered them the chance to see if they could mitigate their loss by providing the same car on a better deal, they ignored me and I don’t like being ignored.
I had similar when someone crashed into my spanking new A8 then his insurance tried to palm me off with a base model mundano. They refused to budge so I hired a Merc S series and sued them for the cost. They took it all the way to county court and lost. The judge said that providing a car is not enough, it should be a car of a similar class and characteristics as the damaged one. What absolutely sealed it was that I sent them the quote for the hire first and offered them the chance to see if they could mitigate their loss by providing the same car on a better deal, they ignored me and I don’t like being ignored.
Your insurance costs are presumably high because of the type of car that you are insuring.
Why should they replace that car with something of lower value that you haven’t insured for?
Are they going to offer you a refund for the time you are driving a car that would cost substantially less to insure?
Slightly off topic I know, but given hire costs are extortionate, if I don’t need a hire car (as I have another car I can use), are there policies that don’t offer a hire car, or where it can be removed - in exchange for a significantly cheaper policy?
It seem the hire car cover is provided at the general policy holders expense purely for everyone else to make money on.
It seem the hire car cover is provided at the general policy holders expense purely for everyone else to make money on.
lard said:
Never know, could be the difference between a write-off or repair, want to avoid write off as took me ages to find this exact car, age, mileage and going by parkers they value it about half what they go for, so on reflection maybe keep quiet and wait for the repair quote....
Maybe start gathering evidence (autotrader ads etc) for the write-off valuation in case it goes that way and be prepared to challenge it.Depends on the damage (is it structural etc) and how you feel about repairing it yourself but a write off and buy back could work out well for you if you like the car so much
There's a couple of options with replacement vehicles whilst yours gets repaired.
If you're processing the claim directly, via your own insurance policy then they decide which hire vehicle you get and you don't have much say.
If you're processing the claim directly via the third party's insurance (this is the route i always take for non faults) they almost every time they will provide a similar vehicle to the one you drive.
If neither of these options are suitable you can also hire a similar car out yourself, then once yours is repaired and you return the hire vehicle you can send the invoice to the third parties insurance company for the hire car, or the driver of the other vehicle directly.
Since you both use the same insurance company, i would be tempted to go via the third option if they won't agree to provide one for you.
If you're processing the claim directly, via your own insurance policy then they decide which hire vehicle you get and you don't have much say.
If you're processing the claim directly via the third party's insurance (this is the route i always take for non faults) they almost every time they will provide a similar vehicle to the one you drive.
If neither of these options are suitable you can also hire a similar car out yourself, then once yours is repaired and you return the hire vehicle you can send the invoice to the third parties insurance company for the hire car, or the driver of the other vehicle directly.
Since you both use the same insurance company, i would be tempted to go via the third option if they won't agree to provide one for you.
Decky_Q said:
Why don't you tell them.that you need a 4x4 for forestry work daily and that if they provide you anything less it's highly likely it will be a write off by the end of the week?
That's maybe OK if you put 'Occupation: Lumberjack' on the proposal form and pay for full business use.lard said:
OutInTheShed said:
It's all very annoying, but quibbling over minor short term inconvenience gets you nowhere in the long run.
On the upside, some canute crashed into you and you're OK apart from your car?
SnipOn the upside, some canute crashed into you and you're OK apart from your car?
I called Enterprise and lovely person on the phone explained that they have a tool that you put in a car, tells you the equivilant rental class, but that my case had a marker on it that they were to minimise cost and reduce by one class, only found out about it after multiple calls between them thinking they had just wrongly classified by car - who knew there was a specific catagory for claims to keep costs low
I wouldn’t object to not getting a direct replacement but I’d not be renewing with an insurer that has just deliberately down-graded me.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff