Advice on Insurance Case
Discussion
My Lotus got reversed into last july, hole in bonnet with ventureshield keeping the bits together.
Other driver admitted all blame (eventually...) and I was passed to helphire by my insurers.
I asked for replacement vehicle whilst my car was dealt with, as (at that point) full extent of damage not known.
Took mine for estimate (to lotus approved) and quote came to £3k - new clam etc...
I advised bodyshop the vehicle was basically crushed and the hole (fist sized) in the clam is the result (large 4x4 hit it) so bodyshop would investigate and repair suspension when clam off.
New clam arrived after 3 months and repair all done and dusted - to my satisfaction.
The liable drivers insurance company will now only pay for the rental car (which I had from the week after the accident until mine was fully sorted) for the period in which the bodyshop had my car (which was only 2 weeks) - as the rest of the time THEY claimed it was roadworthy because I managed to drive to and from the bodyshop.
Obviously various solicitors are involved and I've send in the original estimate with line saying 'inspect inner structure with clam removed' - which backs up my tale of the suspension.
As a born worrier I'm worrying, as these insurance people will do anything not to cough up.
From my point of view, there was no way I was going to drive around in a car with a holed clam, and unknown suspension damage for 3 months - hence the use of the helphire car.
Any advice form anyone experienced in these things - as I've got trouble sleeping thinking about it.....
Incidently, the third party insurance people also wanted to provide me with a car for the duration (3 months) but I said no, don't worry someone else has sorted.....
Cheers
Rog
Other driver admitted all blame (eventually...) and I was passed to helphire by my insurers.
I asked for replacement vehicle whilst my car was dealt with, as (at that point) full extent of damage not known.
Took mine for estimate (to lotus approved) and quote came to £3k - new clam etc...
I advised bodyshop the vehicle was basically crushed and the hole (fist sized) in the clam is the result (large 4x4 hit it) so bodyshop would investigate and repair suspension when clam off.
New clam arrived after 3 months and repair all done and dusted - to my satisfaction.
The liable drivers insurance company will now only pay for the rental car (which I had from the week after the accident until mine was fully sorted) for the period in which the bodyshop had my car (which was only 2 weeks) - as the rest of the time THEY claimed it was roadworthy because I managed to drive to and from the bodyshop.
Obviously various solicitors are involved and I've send in the original estimate with line saying 'inspect inner structure with clam removed' - which backs up my tale of the suspension.
As a born worrier I'm worrying, as these insurance people will do anything not to cough up.
From my point of view, there was no way I was going to drive around in a car with a holed clam, and unknown suspension damage for 3 months - hence the use of the helphire car.
Any advice form anyone experienced in these things - as I've got trouble sleeping thinking about it.....
Incidently, the third party insurance people also wanted to provide me with a car for the duration (3 months) but I said no, don't worry someone else has sorted.....
Cheers
Rog
As they have no way to prove it was roadworthy, I'd keep pushing and insist they pay the lot.
As a result of the impact, was any work done on the suspension (even just realignment if no damage found)?
Did they need to disassemble any of the suspension to inspect?
Either of those would reinforce your argument.
As a result of the impact, was any work done on the suspension (even just realignment if no damage found)?
Did they need to disassemble any of the suspension to inspect?
Either of those would reinforce your argument.
I got no report on whether there was suspension issues or not.
It was just mentioned when estimating after I described how the clam came to be damaged, that there could be and they would inspect when repairing.
It was roadworthy to get to and from the bodyshop, that much is true - but who knows what could have happened if I'd continue to drive for another 3500 miles (as I did on the rental car) ?? (clam could have fallen off, hole could have spread and disintegrated, suspension might have collapsed etc...)
Hindsight is a great thing, if I'd known I wouldnt have an accident for 8 years, I wouldnt have paid for insurance !!!!
But I guess thats not a legal argument ??
It was just mentioned when estimating after I described how the clam came to be damaged, that there could be and they would inspect when repairing.
It was roadworthy to get to and from the bodyshop, that much is true - but who knows what could have happened if I'd continue to drive for another 3500 miles (as I did on the rental car) ?? (clam could have fallen off, hole could have spread and disintegrated, suspension might have collapsed etc...)
Hindsight is a great thing, if I'd known I wouldnt have an accident for 8 years, I wouldnt have paid for insurance !!!!
But I guess thats not a legal argument ??
There are seperate but interconnected issues here.
First up the condition of your car. Did the third party insurer have the car inspected? If they did and the car was roadworthy then even if it didn't look very pretty you would be obliged to carry on using it whilst waiting on parts unless you were prepared to pay for a hire car. Once repairs started then the third party insurer has an obligation to provide you with a car for the duration of the repair.
The fact that the car could be driven to the garage to be looked at doesn't make it roadworthy: I can drive a car to an MOT centre but it might fail!
Check through any correspondence you recieved from either your or the third party insurers. Ask the third party insurers if they had the car inspected and if they could provide you with a copy of their letter to you or your insurers stating that your car was roadworthy.
Next the issue of hire. Turning down the third party insurers offer of hire wasn't a good move. To Jo Public it doesn't matter who provides the hire car but it matters a lot to the insurance companies. Basically if you decline a third party insurance company's offer of a hire car then they are not obliged to pay for the hire car provided through your insurers. (This has been supported by case law recently). The reason for this is money I'm afraid. The rate that Helphire will be charging your the third party insurers will be very high. The third party insurer (like all insurers) will have arrangments with hire companies at much lower rates for the same car. Remember (check your insurance policy) that you have an obligation to mitigate losses in the event of a claim. The third party insurer ought to have written to you or your insurers however, so ask for a copy of the letter. I hope your legal eagles can sort this for you.
Its difficult to comment on this without knowing exactly what the T and Cs of the agreement were with Helphire. However as a generalisation the above holds.
If all else fails and the bill lands at your feet then what sort of car did you have for the three months? If you didn't insist on a direct replacement or something of similiar cost then the third party insurer might be prepared to take that into consideration and look at the bill.
Best of luck.
First up the condition of your car. Did the third party insurer have the car inspected? If they did and the car was roadworthy then even if it didn't look very pretty you would be obliged to carry on using it whilst waiting on parts unless you were prepared to pay for a hire car. Once repairs started then the third party insurer has an obligation to provide you with a car for the duration of the repair.
The fact that the car could be driven to the garage to be looked at doesn't make it roadworthy: I can drive a car to an MOT centre but it might fail!
Check through any correspondence you recieved from either your or the third party insurers. Ask the third party insurers if they had the car inspected and if they could provide you with a copy of their letter to you or your insurers stating that your car was roadworthy.
Next the issue of hire. Turning down the third party insurers offer of hire wasn't a good move. To Jo Public it doesn't matter who provides the hire car but it matters a lot to the insurance companies. Basically if you decline a third party insurance company's offer of a hire car then they are not obliged to pay for the hire car provided through your insurers. (This has been supported by case law recently). The reason for this is money I'm afraid. The rate that Helphire will be charging your the third party insurers will be very high. The third party insurer (like all insurers) will have arrangments with hire companies at much lower rates for the same car. Remember (check your insurance policy) that you have an obligation to mitigate losses in the event of a claim. The third party insurer ought to have written to you or your insurers however, so ask for a copy of the letter. I hope your legal eagles can sort this for you.
Its difficult to comment on this without knowing exactly what the T and Cs of the agreement were with Helphire. However as a generalisation the above holds.
If all else fails and the bill lands at your feet then what sort of car did you have for the three months? If you didn't insist on a direct replacement or something of similiar cost then the third party insurer might be prepared to take that into consideration and look at the bill.
Best of luck.
I tend to agree with Tipper in that your error was not letting the TP's insurer provide you with the hired car. They would have been responsible for the bill and you would have no issues at all.
Your worry is that if you took this to a court, would the judge accept the TP's argument that by going alone you decided to turn down their help and therefore (unreasonably) increase costs for all?
There is little doubt the price the TP's insurer pays for car hire is much, much cheaper than you or I pay for it.
You will probably find the best deal you can reach here is to accept them paying you the amount they would have paid if you had accepted their deal, but again this throws difficulties at you as they could say a fiver is what they pay - how can you prove this is silly? (OK, that would be silly.....I'm guessing 30% to 50% will be the offer)
If you are not paying for solicitor's fees then let them sort it. If you are, it may be less pain and easier on the pocket to work towards a healthy contribution from them, than expecting them to pay the whole bill.
Your worry is that if you took this to a court, would the judge accept the TP's argument that by going alone you decided to turn down their help and therefore (unreasonably) increase costs for all?
There is little doubt the price the TP's insurer pays for car hire is much, much cheaper than you or I pay for it.
You will probably find the best deal you can reach here is to accept them paying you the amount they would have paid if you had accepted their deal, but again this throws difficulties at you as they could say a fiver is what they pay - how can you prove this is silly? (OK, that would be silly.....I'm guessing 30% to 50% will be the offer)
If you are not paying for solicitor's fees then let them sort it. If you are, it may be less pain and easier on the pocket to work towards a healthy contribution from them, than expecting them to pay the whole bill.
The only people to inspect the car was the lotus bodyshop at the time of the accident.
I have received no mail at all from the third party insurers, its all been phone calls.
After reporting the accident to my insurers (as I'm supposed to) they put me on to helphire to sort things out.
Shortly after the third party finally admitted liability their insurers called me, and asked if I had a car sorted out - which of course I said Yes I did and they didnt pursue any further.
The original replacement was a like-for-like but all they could get was a M-B E280 - which was a bit of a barge, so I asked them to find something smaller and they came up with a small coupe from a lower vehicle class (saving money incidently as well)
So all real inspection came about during the repair process itself - some 3 months after the initial accident.
I have received no mail at all from the third party insurers, its all been phone calls.
After reporting the accident to my insurers (as I'm supposed to) they put me on to helphire to sort things out.
Shortly after the third party finally admitted liability their insurers called me, and asked if I had a car sorted out - which of course I said Yes I did and they didnt pursue any further.
The original replacement was a like-for-like but all they could get was a M-B E280 - which was a bit of a barge, so I asked them to find something smaller and they came up with a small coupe from a lower vehicle class (saving money incidently as well)
So all real inspection came about during the repair process itself - some 3 months after the initial accident.
I can't comment other than say that in my post above I'm making generalisations. Probably best to let the legal boys sort it.
Its worth making the point to anybody else looking in though that you need to be wary of where your replacement car is coming from. You'll have to sign something before you accept the car so read it very carefully
Its worth making the point to anybody else looking in though that you need to be wary of where your replacement car is coming from. You'll have to sign something before you accept the car so read it very carefully
Don't know, but the car was some £300 a day (I think?) and I had it for about 3 months.......
Suspect it was a fair old wedge
Apparently all the rates are pre-negotiated, but £300 a day (looking back on it) sounds a little steep.
I have no bills myself, as its all the various solicitors sorting it out.
Suspect it was a fair old wedge
Apparently all the rates are pre-negotiated, but £300 a day (looking back on it) sounds a little steep.
I have no bills myself, as its all the various solicitors sorting it out.
OK so this is going to get me into trouble with most of the people on this forum and most probably with anyone on PH that sees it
Why do people take cars that cost X £100s a day as a replacement for their damaged car, and then wonder why their insurance premiums go up. I'm not saying Roger is that person, just that so many people on here and in general complain about premiums and then go and get replacement cars that cost stupid money, that the insurance company then has to pay out on.
I have unfortunately had 2 reasons to have cars provided by insurance, in the last 15 months. The first was an S2000 that I later found out cost £5000 for the 4 weeks I had it. Once I knew this, the 2nd occassion I just got a Fiesta that cost £30/day from Hertz. As it turns out I should have asked for something a bit larger and more bhp as I eneded up with it for 6 weeks and had to do some serious millage in that time. Having said that £50/day gets a 2ltr Focus.
As I've already said this isnt a specirfic comment at Roger, but a more general view on the general attitude of most.
I'll now go get my fire proof suit
Why do people take cars that cost X £100s a day as a replacement for their damaged car, and then wonder why their insurance premiums go up. I'm not saying Roger is that person, just that so many people on here and in general complain about premiums and then go and get replacement cars that cost stupid money, that the insurance company then has to pay out on.
I have unfortunately had 2 reasons to have cars provided by insurance, in the last 15 months. The first was an S2000 that I later found out cost £5000 for the 4 weeks I had it. Once I knew this, the 2nd occassion I just got a Fiesta that cost £30/day from Hertz. As it turns out I should have asked for something a bit larger and more bhp as I eneded up with it for 6 weeks and had to do some serious millage in that time. Having said that £50/day gets a 2ltr Focus.
As I've already said this isnt a specirfic comment at Roger, but a more general view on the general attitude of most.
I'll now go get my fire proof suit
Yes, it does seem a lot on first inspection - but the small print says the rates are all pre-agreed with insurance companies as are the bandings for vehicles - so they know what they are getting into.
In a given financial year, very little actual monies exchange hands, as the insurance companies just do an audit of their various liabilities between each other and refund or pay the difference.
In theory it should all even out and the actual winners seem to be the rental companies as far as I can make out...
In a given financial year, very little actual monies exchange hands, as the insurance companies just do an audit of their various liabilities between each other and refund or pay the difference.
In theory it should all even out and the actual winners seem to be the rental companies as far as I can make out...
You pay the higher premiums first then have the accident. which means higher premiums .. you can't blame someone for having a like for like replacement when they are going to be paying for it with higher premiums regardless of wether they have a 1.1 fiesta or a 3.2 porsche. If the third parties supplied like for like replecements directly rather than wriggling and arguing to get out of paying. Thus encouraging people to involve accident management companies to deal with it, they would be better off and not have to pay £30k to hire a car for 3 months. They could even offer a cheap rental car and a wedge of cash compensation Id take a Fiesta and a few grand if someone hit my car .. the cash would offset my increased insurance.
I had a similar accident last year and went through helphire. I agreed to the hire car (an alfa spider) before I realised how expensive it was, and that I was liable for the costs if the insurer didn't pay out. When I spoke to helphire they said I was insured against the insurance company not paying(!). Luckily the insurers did payout, as I had the car for a month which I think cost around £6000, quite ridiculus.
Edited by kahuna on Wednesday 11th February 13:19
Yes, I seem to remember there was some insurance policy from helphire that covers in case the liable insurance company don't pay as well. Sort of a win-win situation really.
Its all a bit hazy now as it happened last July.
I think it was £10, but MY insurance company paid that (or something along those lines).
Its all a big rip-off as most of the posters on this thread have said.
Its all a bit hazy now as it happened last July.
I think it was £10, but MY insurance company paid that (or something along those lines).
Its all a big rip-off as most of the posters on this thread have said.
Tipper has summarised this very well, the other insurer attempted to put you in an alternative vehicle which would cost them less. You like many other people wouldn't have know about the long running rate argument between insurers and credit hire companies.
You would be amazed how much 'debt' a credit hire company like Helphire has outstanding and now that cash is harder to raise the squeeze is on.
Did Helphire point out that you would be liable for repaying the cost of the hire should they be unable to recover? some companies would simply say not to worry as the other side would pay.
I know you will worry but play hard with Helphire if they try to recover costs from you. Encourage them simply to refer to the insurer and this case will be one of many that remains outstanding. Good luck, horrible situation to be in.
You would be amazed how much 'debt' a credit hire company like Helphire has outstanding and now that cash is harder to raise the squeeze is on.
Did Helphire point out that you would be liable for repaying the cost of the hire should they be unable to recover? some companies would simply say not to worry as the other side would pay.
I know you will worry but play hard with Helphire if they try to recover costs from you. Encourage them simply to refer to the insurer and this case will be one of many that remains outstanding. Good luck, horrible situation to be in.
miro said:
You pay the higher premiums first then have the accident. which means higher premiums .. you can't blame someone for having a like for like replacement when they are going to be paying for it with higher premiums regardless of wether they have a 1.1 fiesta or a 3.2 porsche. If the third parties supplied like for like replecements directly rather than wriggling and arguing to get out of paying. Thus encouraging people to involve accident management companies to deal with it, they would be better off and not have to pay £30k to hire a car for 3 months. They could even offer a cheap rental car and a wedge of cash compensation Id take a Fiesta and a few grand if someone hit my car .. the cash would offset my increased insurance.
Strange logic there?Are you only looking to pay insurance preiums for a year? What do you think will happen the following year? Premiums keep rising because the costs of settling claims keeps rising. Hire costs followed by personal injury payments are normally the biggest costs to motor insurers (it'll vary from company to company). If everyone involved in an accident took Beachbum's view then premiums would probably be lower. Insurer's are obliged to provide a like for like replacement if insisted on and there shouldn't be any need for accident management. Take accident management companies out of the loop and another cost would disappear.
With regards the insurance companies 'wriggling': you'd be amazed at the number of suspect claims that go through insurance companies and the number of 'whiplash' injuries (not uncommon for the solicitors bills to exceed the payment on PI claims). Unfortunately the peeps dealing with claims probably tend to become a bit jaded and view everyone the same - the lowest common denominator. I'm not saying that's right, just human nature.
BTW legal issues aside, I doubt any insurer would offer a few grand 'inconvenience money' for you to take a smaller car: the third party insurer would just like you to accept their offer of hire (for an identical car if you want it) as it costs a whole lot less than paying accident management company hire rates.
jondude said:
I tend to agree with Tipper in that your error was not letting the TP's insurer provide you with the hired car. They would have been responsible for the bill and you would have no issues at all.
You think? These "free" hire car offers from insurance companies aren't anything of the sort. Do you think that the hire car company (normally a credit hire company by the way) just roll up with some keys and hand them over? The driver has to sign an agreement, making them liable for the charges as per a normal credit hire agreement. But rather mysteriously if you ask the insurer for one of these agreements to read before the car is supplied, they will refuse to provide it to you. What if the insurer can't/won't pay it's bill(s)? Who do you think will end up with the hire companies invoice? Surely the insurance company wouldn't expect you to have to pay for the car up front and then they will consider reimbursing that cost to you - would they?It happens, trust me....maybe, just maybe, it's better for the innocent motorist to get themselves some backup and assistance from somebody that wants to fight their corner for them as opposed to being at the mercy of an at-fault insurance company themselves?
Yes, I'm biased but I truly believe that credit hire companies provide a valuable service to the innocent motorist and help in some small way to keep people going. Not only to the innocent motorist but also to the insurance industry itself! Surely you wouldn't get insurance companies receiving commissions from some credit hire companies for their business, would you??.......nor commissions from lawyers for personal injury claims (guess who's getting a "not commensurate to level of injury" payout?)...surely not!!.....
The OP suggested it was his insurer that got the Helphire car....think about that for a moment.....
Helphire's methods are interesting. The protocol daily rate for a car similar to a Lotus Elise 1.8 is £118.00 + VAT per day, this rate has been agreed with credit hire companies and the insurance industry and is the rate that we work to/from. I can assure you that the reason these rates may appear high on the face of it is one of utilisation. These are quite poor on prestige/sports vehicles (don't even get me started on depreciation). £300.00 per day is extremely excessive for this type of car however.
Cheers.
edited to add: I disagree entirely that premiums would reduce if credit hire companies went by the wayside, simply insurers profits would increase....
Further edited to add: To the OP, there's not a lot I can do for you, but if you do want to have a chat about your case please feel free to contact me on the number listed on our webiste.
Edited by anniesdad on Thursday 12th February 16:34
Edited by anniesdad on Thursday 12th February 16:43
OK so anniesdad, makes a fair point about profits and the fact that if claimants kept their costs down we wouldnt see a drop in premiums, just a rise in the Insurance Companies profits. However how did we get here in the first place, obviously by costs going up in the first place.
People just dont realise the implications of the deicsions they make and then complain later that they suffer from them. Premiums go up, because costs go up. If people continue to make ludicrous claims, then their premiums will become ludicrous too. There are obviously other reasons why premiums go up, the desire for the Ins Co to increase profits being one, however if people didnt make claims for replacement cars that cost horrendous amounts of money, then their profits would naturally go up and in theory premiums would not need to.
Going back to the instance of my 2nd replacement car, the 3rd party helphire equivelent comapany, tried everything in their power to get me to take a Z4M as the replacement car. The primary reason that the arguement became mute, was that they could not get it to me until the following day and I needed a car that night. So I went to Hertz at their direction picked up the fiesta and kept it, even though they then continued to cal me daily for a week, trying to convince me that the Z4 was available and a better option for me. Obviously the only reason they would waste resource trying to tempt me with the upgrade was that they were going to make more money on that, than the Fiesta. Which then gets claimed back from the persons Ins Co. that drove into the back of me. That comapanies costs therefore go up and therefore their premiums, to recoup that cost. For all I know that company may have had ties to my Ins Co, so mine would have gone up too.
If anyone seriously thinks that they get something for nothing, they are fooling themselves. I understand that some people need a specific type of vehicle to perform their job, or have personal reasons for a certain type, however for the majority a small/medium sized car for a few weeks is more than enough. If you want the Like for Like replacement then dont then complain when your premiums rise each year, especially given the case of the OP where £300/day equated to about £27K for the term of the hire.
Rant over, sorry.
People just dont realise the implications of the deicsions they make and then complain later that they suffer from them. Premiums go up, because costs go up. If people continue to make ludicrous claims, then their premiums will become ludicrous too. There are obviously other reasons why premiums go up, the desire for the Ins Co to increase profits being one, however if people didnt make claims for replacement cars that cost horrendous amounts of money, then their profits would naturally go up and in theory premiums would not need to.
Going back to the instance of my 2nd replacement car, the 3rd party helphire equivelent comapany, tried everything in their power to get me to take a Z4M as the replacement car. The primary reason that the arguement became mute, was that they could not get it to me until the following day and I needed a car that night. So I went to Hertz at their direction picked up the fiesta and kept it, even though they then continued to cal me daily for a week, trying to convince me that the Z4 was available and a better option for me. Obviously the only reason they would waste resource trying to tempt me with the upgrade was that they were going to make more money on that, than the Fiesta. Which then gets claimed back from the persons Ins Co. that drove into the back of me. That comapanies costs therefore go up and therefore their premiums, to recoup that cost. For all I know that company may have had ties to my Ins Co, so mine would have gone up too.
If anyone seriously thinks that they get something for nothing, they are fooling themselves. I understand that some people need a specific type of vehicle to perform their job, or have personal reasons for a certain type, however for the majority a small/medium sized car for a few weeks is more than enough. If you want the Like for Like replacement then dont then complain when your premiums rise each year, especially given the case of the OP where £300/day equated to about £27K for the term of the hire.
Rant over, sorry.
These hire companies are scum, and one of the reasons why we all pay so much for insurance.
When you have an accident, and you get offered a DB9 as a replacement, at least have the brains to read the terms and conditions, which WILL say that if the other party's insurers don't pay, you have to.
Gassing Station | Elise/Exige/Europa/340R | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff