Insurance co won't cover my replacement vehicle costs...
Discussion
A woman reversed off her drive into the side of my (private hire) vehicle last October. She admits liability, I deal with her company directly.
They agree to pay me a day rate until mine is fixed as it should be within a week or so and it saves the time and hassle of them sourcing me a licenced vehicle. That repair turns into nigh on 6 weeks due to their incompetence.
I hired another vehicle in the meantime (which I told them I was going to do) from another driver. Five and a half week's hire totalling £1120 which I am now trying to get reimbursed for. However, the insurance company are stalling and asking for all sorts of ridiculous proof that the hire took place.
Being an almost 100% cash business, there is nothing to physically prove I was handing over £200PW to this guy.
I first provided them with an invoice from the other driver. They didn't like that as it "is not a proper invoice". This guy isn't a huge corporation. He has a few cars he hires out and therefore doesn't have an invoicing system detailing lots of boring T&C's.
I provide his details to the company and they speak with him directly to confirm everything. They don't accept this.
The car was scrapped at the beginning of this year which the insurance company start quibbling about. I point out to them it wasn't scrapped at the time I was driving it around!
Jump to today; having (so far) provided them with an invoice, the hirer's details, a copy of the vehicle's insurance certificate and a copy of it's MOT (all seperately as they ask for one thing at a time once I chase them to see what's going on!), they are now asking for proof of my earnings for the 3mths PRIOR to the hire, the 5 weeks of the hire period, and 1mth AFTER the hire finished. I have now sent proof I was working during the hire period as the rest is completely irrelevant to the hire as far as I'm concerned.
I've had enough now and can see them refusing to pay even having provided them with proof I was working. The day rate they were paying (without hesitation) is more than the equivalent daily hire charge I am asking for! They even at one point asked me to get the other guy's bank statements to prove I had paid him £200PW!
Where do I go from here?
TL;DR a third party insurance company won't reimburse my hire costs and are stalling at every turn and are asking for all sorts of irrelevant information. Not once have they chased me for anything and it's only when I chase them do they then ask for ANOTHER bit of paperwork hence this has dragged on for seven months now and I'm still £1120 out of pocket.
They agree to pay me a day rate until mine is fixed as it should be within a week or so and it saves the time and hassle of them sourcing me a licenced vehicle. That repair turns into nigh on 6 weeks due to their incompetence.
I hired another vehicle in the meantime (which I told them I was going to do) from another driver. Five and a half week's hire totalling £1120 which I am now trying to get reimbursed for. However, the insurance company are stalling and asking for all sorts of ridiculous proof that the hire took place.
Being an almost 100% cash business, there is nothing to physically prove I was handing over £200PW to this guy.
I first provided them with an invoice from the other driver. They didn't like that as it "is not a proper invoice". This guy isn't a huge corporation. He has a few cars he hires out and therefore doesn't have an invoicing system detailing lots of boring T&C's.
I provide his details to the company and they speak with him directly to confirm everything. They don't accept this.
The car was scrapped at the beginning of this year which the insurance company start quibbling about. I point out to them it wasn't scrapped at the time I was driving it around!
Jump to today; having (so far) provided them with an invoice, the hirer's details, a copy of the vehicle's insurance certificate and a copy of it's MOT (all seperately as they ask for one thing at a time once I chase them to see what's going on!), they are now asking for proof of my earnings for the 3mths PRIOR to the hire, the 5 weeks of the hire period, and 1mth AFTER the hire finished. I have now sent proof I was working during the hire period as the rest is completely irrelevant to the hire as far as I'm concerned.
I've had enough now and can see them refusing to pay even having provided them with proof I was working. The day rate they were paying (without hesitation) is more than the equivalent daily hire charge I am asking for! They even at one point asked me to get the other guy's bank statements to prove I had paid him £200PW!
Where do I go from here?
TL;DR a third party insurance company won't reimburse my hire costs and are stalling at every turn and are asking for all sorts of irrelevant information. Not once have they chased me for anything and it's only when I chase them do they then ask for ANOTHER bit of paperwork hence this has dragged on for seven months now and I'm still £1120 out of pocket.
Edited by Centurion07 on Saturday 21st July 13:02
PurpleMoonlight said:
You have no hire agreement and no proof of payment, I'm not surprised the insurer is refusing to pay up.
The whole think reeks of you borrowing an old banger from a mate and trying to pocket the dosh.
This is clearly their attitude. I have provided perfectly adequate proof that the vehicle was a fully legal and compliant private hire vehicle to be used for hire and reward. Either way they are liable to provide me with a replacement vehicle which they couldn't do in a timely manner or cover my hire costs.The whole think reeks of you borrowing an old banger from a mate and trying to pocket the dosh.
TooMany2cvs said:
What sort of "invoice" are we talking about? A scratty piece of paper ripped from a notebook, with "rental £1120, <signed> Dave" scrawled on it in crayon? Or something that looks convincing, from an actual independently traceable business (even if sole trader)?
It was a word document with all the relevant details on but they complained it didn't have any T&Cs and was capable of being edited.Mandat said:
Did they pay you the day rate for the whole of the 6 weeks that the car was being repaired?
No, that was just for the 9 days I was waiting for their mobile repairer to come out, even though I told them it was beyond the scope of a mobile repairer and would need a proper bodyshop.desolate said:
Did you have access to another vehicle?
Just read it properly: it's a plated vehicle.get your mate to type an invoice in word, it will look better.
If they don't pay issue MCOL against the third party.
See above. I have already provided them with a Word invoice amongst all the other numerous bits of proof (relevant or not) but every time I go back to them they want something else.Just read it properly: it's a plated vehicle.get your mate to type an invoice in word, it will look better.
If they don't pay issue MCOL against the third party.
Tim2k9 said:
A county court summons won’t help in this case as he seems to be unable or unwilling to prove his costs.
The insurance company seem quite fair in asking for alternative ways to prove the cost but the OP continues to refuse to provide them with any of the information.
OP provide them with the information they have asked and I’m sure it will speed up your claim.
I'm not sure exactly what else I can provide them with since they have had an invoice and also spoken to the guy I hired the car from who confirmed everything to them.The insurance company seem quite fair in asking for alternative ways to prove the cost but the OP continues to refuse to provide them with any of the information.
OP provide them with the information they have asked and I’m sure it will speed up your claim.
No amount of bank statements from either myself or the hirer will prove anything since the taxi business is primarily cash in hand and earnings can vary greatly from week to week.
From my POV, they accepted liability for the crash making them liable to provide me with a replacement vehicle. One person at this firm I spoke to even commented how cheap £200PW was so it's not about the cost for them, it's about whether or not the hire took place, which IMO I have done. They just keep refusing to accept every bit of evidence I give them.
The salient point for me is that the day rate they paid me, without quibbling, for the nine days before my car went to the bodyshop, is more than the daily rate I was paying for the hire car. Hence me getting bloody pissed off, especially since they've accepted liability, that they're refusing to pay out on a hire they are legally responsible to cover.
Edited by Centurion07 on Saturday 21st July 14:02
As I've pointed out already, that makes absolutely no difference. I've already proven to them it was on the road, taxed, tested and insured for the period I was using it. It could've been scrapped the day I stopped using it, it makes no difference; it was legal for the period I was using it. Hence my annoyance at their bringing up irrelevant facts.
PurpleMoonlight said:
None of that proves it was hired to you or that you paid anything for it though.
You claim to have paid £200 pw in cash. Where did that cash come from, is it traceable as being withdrawn from your bank?
Why would I be withdrawing cash from the bank when 90-odd% or so of my business is cash? So no, it's not traceable, but then I shouldn't have to be proving anything of the sort to them.You claim to have paid £200 pw in cash. Where did that cash come from, is it traceable as being withdrawn from your bank?
The condition of the car at the time of hire is irrelevant. The person I hired it from is irrelevant. The fact it has since been scrapped is irrelevant.
They have accepted their driver's liability. They acknowledge my vehicle was a private hire vehicle and therefore I needed a replacement. They have acknowledged the amount I'm claiming is more than reasonable. So whilst I can understand them wanting something in the way of proof, I am also pissed off at their continuing stalling in asking for one bit of proof after another after another. You honestly think asking me to get the other guy's bank statements is reasonable?!
With regard to the day rate, as it exceeds the amount I'm claiming for I don't think they'll go for it although logic would dictate that they should just pay that out as that requires no proof whatsoever.
InitialDave said:
In a world of claims management companies and their eye-watering loading of costs for credit hire etc, you'd think that - proof in the format they're used to or not - they'd take your arm off claiming at less than £30 a day.
I know, right? Ironically I dealt with them directly thinking they'd appreciate the opportunity to keep their costs and hassle to a minimum. So much for trying to do the decent thing, eh...?Truffs said:
Durzel said:
Chucklehead said:
You said that you were sending them copies of the invoice, and their complaint was that it could have been edited... Did you email them a word doc??
Printed/signed/stamped as paid and then posted would obviously look more legitimate.
Or save it as a PDF. It could be as simple as that they have opened it and thought "this is easy to edit" therefore not legit.Printed/signed/stamped as paid and then posted would obviously look more legitimate.
Virtually everywhere is going to have Microsoft Office installed, but not Adobe Acrobat Pro or equivalent (for editing).
No, cash fares are not documented individually, nor do I make regular deposits at the bank and as already mentioned earnings vary wildly week to week so there is no way of showing a £200 cash outgoing each week.
Leaving aside the fact they've spoken to the guy themselves who confirmed everything.
Leaving aside the fact they've spoken to the guy themselves who confirmed everything.
Monkeylegend said:
Is it not part of your local licensing authority private hire requirements to document/record all journeys/fares you make. HMRC would also expect you to keep these records as well.
Mine insisted you had to make a record of the date and time of the pre booking, who took the booking, the name of the customer making the booking, the cost of the journey, the date of the journey and the pick up and drop off points.
It's a requirement to keep a record those things, yes. What is not required is a record of how much the customer was charged. Required by neither the local authority nor HMRC, as was confirmed to me by the HMRC agent that came out to do a "surprise audit" of my records. They RECOMMEND it, yes, but I am not legally obliged to record the amount of each individual fare.Mine insisted you had to make a record of the date and time of the pre booking, who took the booking, the name of the customer making the booking, the cost of the journey, the date of the journey and the pick up and drop off points.
Monkeylegend said:
You presumably have all these records to show the insurance company as proof of your claim.
In what way would anything you mentioned support the fact I was using that specific vehicle? All that will show is that I was working.Monkeylegend said:
Presumably you also had to inform your licensing authority that you were using a different licensed vehicle for a period of time to keep their records in order. They should be able to provide you some sort of confirmation to show the insurance company.
Maybe I should've, but when you can be using one rental car one day and another the next as your one is in the garage then nobody bothers.Monkeylegend said:
Mine also insisted you had to inform them of every little knock/accident, if you didn't and you were found out you would have to go through their disciplinary procedure, again all info supporting your claim.
I would be surprised if your licensing authority was much different.
Yeah, fallen foul of that before. Had a long conversation with them about their draconian policies actually meaning drivers don't inform them of every tiny issue as they know what a ballache it can be.I would be surprised if your licensing authority was much different.
Monkeylegend said:
If you didn't notify your licensing authority of the temp vehicle change, there is a good chance you didn't notify your insurance because the insurance company would want verification that the replacement vehicle is authorised and tested for PH work and vice versa.
The local licensing authority would need to see you insurance documents for the temp vehicle, which would be awkward as you didn't notify the local authority of the change.
You missed the bit where I mentioned I have provided them with a copy of the insurance certificate. The third party insurer, that is.The local licensing authority would need to see you insurance documents for the temp vehicle, which would be awkward as you didn't notify the local authority of the change.
The £200PW rent included insurance. I didn't need to do anything with my own insurance apart from notify them.
I'm not so sure.
The council know who the vehicle is registered to and it's up to HIM to make sure he knows who's driving the vehicle at any given time. Their insurance policy states "any licenced driver, with the permission of the policyholder, is insured to drive this vehicle". The third party insurer want proof I was added to the policy and won't accept the actual certificate that has that printed on it.
As I said, I can understand their need for proof but they're wriggling at every opportunity and making some outlandish requests given that, as has been mentioned, if I'd got an AMC involved or decided my neck was twinging a bit it would be costing them a hell of a lot more than £1100 quid!
The council know who the vehicle is registered to and it's up to HIM to make sure he knows who's driving the vehicle at any given time. Their insurance policy states "any licenced driver, with the permission of the policyholder, is insured to drive this vehicle". The third party insurer want proof I was added to the policy and won't accept the actual certificate that has that printed on it.
As I said, I can understand their need for proof but they're wriggling at every opportunity and making some outlandish requests given that, as has been mentioned, if I'd got an AMC involved or decided my neck was twinging a bit it would be costing them a hell of a lot more than £1100 quid!
Monkeylegend said:
I think your case would be a lot stronger if you had the relevant paper licence from the council relating to the car in question.
My licensing authority would issue me with a paper copy of my Operators licence, Drivers licence and vehicle plate. This in addition to the insurance certificate would be very difficult for the third party insurance to ignore.
Anyway good luck getting it resolved
I have all of those. For myself and my own vehicle. I have all of those for the vehicle I hired. They want more.My licensing authority would issue me with a paper copy of my Operators licence, Drivers licence and vehicle plate. This in addition to the insurance certificate would be very difficult for the third party insurance to ignore.
Anyway good luck getting it resolved
xxChrisxx said:
Unfortunately for you; there are many people in this world that engage in pretending and lying. Insurance co. needs to weed these out from the genuine claims. Having a nearly untraceable sequence of events and payments is the root of your problem. You also fall into the unfortunate situation that if one thing looks fishy, rightly or not, everything else will be scrutinized to the Nth degree.
It's all a matter of perspective. What is an outlandish request to you is them being more diligent over the 'evidence' because they don't believe your story.
Next time; use an AMC or make sure there is a bulletproof paper trail that they have OK'd in advance.
Yep, all valid points. That being said, they are/were legally obliged to provide me with a replacement vehicle. They have agreed the amount I'm claiming is far from unreasonable. They are, in my eyes, trying to get out of paying for something they legally were obliged to provide. It's all a matter of perspective. What is an outlandish request to you is them being more diligent over the 'evidence' because they don't believe your story.
Next time; use an AMC or make sure there is a bulletproof paper trail that they have OK'd in advance.
What I'm saying is, they should automatically, without quibbling, be paying me a sum at least equal to what it would've cost them had they provided their own vehicle to me. Anything above that, sure, I can see why they would argue the toss.
Lesson learnt though; screw the insurance company before they screw you.
Gavia said:
You keep saying that they’re legally obliged to provide you with a replace,met vehicle. They aren’t. They are legally obliged to ensure you’re not out of pocket, but have up to 7 years to resolve this legally.
Same difference. Either way, they're wriggling. It'll be in court long before 7yrs is up!Monkeylegend said:
If you are working for another operator driving one of their vehicles I would agree, but the way I understand it is that the OP essentially works for himself, he says he has an Operators licence, in which case he probably should advise the council of the change of vehicle, and of the damage to his own vehicle if he wishes to continue working.
The paper licence issued by the council is specific to his particular car as would be the insurance if he works for himself with just the one vehicle.
They get very fussy over things like that, and it was clearly stated in the Licensing agreement/requirements provided by my local authority that we all sign up to.
I have my own operator's licence, I was driving someone else's car (one of a few he hires out) on their insurance, for another operator. The paper licence issued by the council is specific to his particular car as would be the insurance if he works for himself with just the one vehicle.
They get very fussy over things like that, and it was clearly stated in the Licensing agreement/requirements provided by my local authority that we all sign up to.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff