Clarification on Legal Stuff after non-fault accident

[fezster]

£120 a day?

Still very high no? I can go to the local Hire place and hire a nice motor for £50 a day :/

Perhaps, but the insurance company is arranging the courtesy car, and is happy paying that cost (btw, the cost is not that high, considering the type of car which was being rented).

In the Albany scenario, the insurance company is being *forced* to pay costs it has not agreed to up front.

 

[Haggisman]

I'm curious as to what you providing bank statements/bills etc is actually going to show? Surely your financial position is irrelevant as to whether you are/were entitled to (and required) a rental car?

Can you bill them for your admin time?

 

[fezster]

I'm curious as to what you providing bank statements/bills etc is actually going to show? Surely your financial position is irrelevant as to whether you are/were entitled to (and required) a rental car?

It has to do with impecuniosity. You have to mitigate costs where you can do so. If you have the funds to hire a car at 'spot' rates yourself, you have no need to enter an expensive credit hire agreement. Likewise, if your car is a total loss and you have the funds to buy a like for like replacement, you would reasonably be expected to do so to mitigate costs, and then claim the money back.

http://apps.abi.org.uk/tphire/

 

[muon]

I'm curious as to what you providing bank statements/bills etc is actually going to show? Surely your financial position is irrelevant as to whether you are/were entitled to (and required) a rental car?

Can you bill them for your admin time?

Bill who?

This is a defense being set up by Albany. A company who you agreed to help as much as possible to ensure everything is decided in your favour.

The third party insurer is likely just refusing to pay and so Albany is likely having to show them that if this goes to court they will lose.

As long as the OP complies, they won't have to foot any bill if Albany lose.

 

[Tute]

Yeah I guess haggisman's question is the same as why I was seeking a bit of clarification.

I just don't get what our finances prove - we were entitled to that car end of story. No amount of poring over our finances will change that.

 

[Gaygle]

My sister had this exact thing a couple of years ago. She helped initially then had enough of all the crap they wanted from her so told them to speak to the insurer and that she would not be replying to any further correspondence. Seemed to do the trick even though the insurance companies are still fighting about it after over 2 years

 

[[TW]Fox]

Yeah I guess haggisman's question is the same as why I was seeking a bit of clarification.

I just don't get what our finances prove - we were entitled to that car end of story. No amount of poring over our finances will change that.

The entitlement is not in question. They presumably want to see whether expensive credit hire was the only option or whether you had the means to rent a car yourself and then submit the bill for reimbursement.

This is why it's always best to let the third party insurer handle things if it's a clear non fault.

When I has one the third party insurer hired me an E Class at a rate they were happy with and it was all smooth.

 

[Steampunk]

When we dealt with Albany (they were actually really good), we had to promise to be willing to go to court if necessary to support any claim. The fact is that all insurance companies pull these stunts now, so none deserve any sympathy.

It's worth noting that your own insurance company has a legal obligation to treat you fairly, but the other person's insurance does not (you are not their customer). Some of them will do and say anything to get a claim down, and I've had promises of this and that, and even threats when I've told them to deal with my insurance and not me directly.

I've even heard stories of the other person's insurance offering a hire car, and then trying to claim that because you accepted it, the hire car was the full and final settlement and you weren't entitled to the cost of your car repairs. Insurance companies are just awful, don't feel you have to be nice to them.

 

[fezster]

Yeah I guess haggisman's question is the same as why I was seeking a bit of clarification.

I just don't get what our finances prove - we were entitled to that car end of story. No amount of poring over our finances will change that.

See my post above! You're entitled to be put back into the same position had you not had the accident. The insurance company will do what they can to try and prove you have claimed more than you were entitled to. This is Albany's problem, but you have agreed to assist Albany in any way to help them win this case.

 

[Haggisman]

It has to do with impecuniosity. You have to mitigate costs where you can do so. If you have the funds to hire a car at 'spot' rates yourself, you have no need to enter an expensive credit hire agreement. Likewise, if your car is a total loss and you have the funds to buy a like for like replacement, you would reasonably be expected to do so to mitigate costs, and then claim the money back.

http://apps.abi.org.uk/tphire/

I still don't see why you should be made to put yourself at financial risk (regardless of whether you have the capability to do so), isn't that part of the service you pay the insurance company for in the first place?

Besides, in their "privileged" position, surely the insurance co should be better placed to get preferential rates for car hire? (oh no, wait, their referral fees and commission have to be paid somehow )

Bill who?

Well, logically it would be person who decided to drive into you, which I guess would be paid by their insurance co

 

[muon]

Well, logically it would be person who decided to drive into you, which I guess would be paid by their insurance co

So they should pay you, for you to sue them?

Build your own claim out of your own pocket. It is Albany asking your for all this information to build a case. Not the other insurer.

The other insurer would be more than happy for you to present a case with no evidence so they can continue to ignore it.

 

[kindai]

I've even heard stories of the other person's insurance offering a hire car, and then trying to claim that because you accepted it, the hire car was the full and final settlement and you weren't entitled to the cost of your car repairs. Insurance companies are just awful, don't feel you have to be nice to them.

What, they pay for the hire car... forever?

 

[Steampunk]

What, they pay for the hire car... forever?

No, the other insurer phones you, offers to provide a hire car for a couple of weeks, says it will be cheaper, it will help everyone in the industry to keep premiums down, you avoid any price gouging and any risk of having the car hire cost refused. You say "that makes sense" and accept. Then when you try to claim for the rest of your losses, the other insurer tells you that by accepting the hire car for a couple of weeks, you were accepting it as full and final settlement of your claim.

That sort of dirty trick is all too common in our poor, hard done by insurance industry. There's no legal requirement for the other party's insurers to treat you fairly. A lot of the time they are quite adversarial, because it's all about the money.

 

[fezster]

No, the other insurer phones you, offers to provide a hire car for a couple of weeks, says it will be cheaper, it will help everyone in the industry to keep premiums down, you avoid any price gouging and any risk of having the car hire cost refused. You say "that makes sense" and accept. Then when you try to claim for the rest of your losses, the other insurer tells you that by accepting the hire car for a couple of weeks, you were accepting it as full and final settlement of your claim.

That sort of dirty trick is all too common in our poor, hard done by insurance industry. There's no legal requirement for the other party's insurers to treat you fairly. A lot of the time they are quite adversarial, because it's all about the money.

This may well happen, but it would not stand up in court. The insurers are obliged to put you back into the position you were in before the accident. I bet the mere threat of court action (from your own insurer) would quickly have brought chancers like this into line.

 

[[TW]Fox]

No, the other insurer phones you, offers to provide a hire car for a couple of weeks, says it will be cheaper, it will help everyone in the industry to keep premiums down, you avoid any price gouging and any risk of having the car hire cost refused. You say "that makes sense" and accept. Then when you try to claim for the rest of your losses, the other insurer tells you that by accepting the hire car for a couple of weeks, you were accepting it as full and final settlement of your claim.

That sort of dirty trick is all too common in our poor, hard done by insurance industry. There's no legal requirement for the other party's insurers to treat you fairly. A lot of the time they are quite adversarial, because it's all about the money.

This is nothing more than an anecdote, no insurer would claim this as it's clearly nonsensical - unless the car is not drivable the hire doesn't start until it goes in for repair anyway and the repairs are authorised by the third party insurer in a case where they have agreed to sort it.

 

[Steampunk]

This is nothing more than an anecdote, no insurer would claim this as it's clearly nonsensical - unless the car is not drivable the hire doesn't start until it goes in for repair anyway and the repairs are authorised by the third party insurer in a case where they have agreed to sort it.

Yeah, if you're willing to take it to court. But I've been on the end of an opposing insurer's loss adjuster, and it was all sweetness and light until I refused to play ball and insisted they talk to my insurers, and then it was outright threats.

 

[Steampunk]

This may well happen, but it would not stand up in court. The insurers are obliged to put you back into the position you were in before the accident. I bet the mere threat of court action (from your own insurer) would quickly have brought chancers like this into line.

Assuming your insurers are willing to go to bat for you, instead of just accept a 50/50 to save themselves the court costs. They don't care because they'll just load your premium the next couple of years, and you'll be stuck with them because everyone else will want even more once you've had or made a claim.

 

[Kuros]

I've only had the one accident, caused by the other person (who immediately accepted responsibility)

Within a couple of hours, the other driver informed their insurance. They immediately called me, gave me a dedicated person to talk to with contact details. Asked me to take my car to a garage of my choosing to get a quotation and then arranged a hire car straight away. Quote came back 4 grand, they again immediately agreed with the quote I sent across, got me booked in and that was the last I heard of them. My car was put back perfectly and I didn't have a single problem for the entire time.

So no, not all insurers are there to make life difficult. (This was Chaucer insurance)

 

[MichaelAwkward]

^I think the difference here is that they used their own insurance, who passed it onto a third party claims management company.

Our own insurer put us in contact with a company who arranged a hire car for our use in the meantime.

Should have ignored your own insurer and gotten a hire car through the insurer of the person at fault.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I've only had the one accident, caused by the other person (who immediately accepted responsibility)

Within a couple of hours, the other driver informed their insurance. They immediately called me, gave me a dedicated person to talk to with contact details. Asked me to take my car to a garage of my choosing to get a quotation and then arranged a hire car straight away. Quote came back 4 grand, they again immediately agreed with the quote I sent across, got me booked in and that was the last I heard of them. My car was put back perfectly and I didn't have a single problem for the entire time.

So no, not all insurers are there to make life difficult. (This was Chaucer insurance)

This exactly mirrors my experience. They do this because if they are in charge, they can control the costs - by offering you what you need when you need it they stop you going to an accident management firm and everyone wins - you and the insurance company.