Luton airport...

I was travelling for work this week and fly from Luton when I can as its nice and close to me, and easyjet is an easy one to get past the expenses police. Thankfully, they don't fly from Luton to where I was going, so I went from Gatwick instead. I always use car park 2 - it would have been my car in there otherwise!
 
G-Man said:
So it seems the airport are now saying its "unlikely" any of the cars in the car park will be salvagable: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-67117301

Seemingly this includes ones nowhere the fire and completely unaffected. Think I'd be a little ragey if I was told my car is stuck in a car park and will be written off with nothing wrong with it.
Click to expand...
Oh aye lad. Let's get Paw Patrol to Chinook in and lift it out to save you a few pence on your insurance.
 
G-Man said:
So it seems the airport are now saying its "unlikely" any of the cars in the car park will be salvagable: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-67117301
Click to expand...

Salvaging any car is going to make the entire operation much more costly. You'd have to go to great lengths to ensure the structure is safe before sending people in, whereas if they're all written off then they can go ahead and start bulldozing and clearing the site.

Seemingly this includes ones nowhere the fire and completely unaffected. Think I'd be a little ragey if I was told my car is stuck in a car park and will be written off with nothing wrong with it.
Click to expand...

If it's a classic or something else that's rare and exceptional then, sure, I can see being upset about it. If it's some interchangeable big brand box, who cares? Just get the insurance, pick a new car, and move on.
 
JonRGV250 said:
Click to expand...

Yeah as expected.
You have to be a bit careful with his vids, hes clearly got the legal side nailed down but seems to lack knowledge in other areas at times.

The reason large claims, which generally most often are commercial and end up with multiple parties take so long is that normally they need something significant to be produced and "agreed". The agreement is the tricky part if say a report is un-conclusive. (say something like a Greenfell report may be needed)
Plus of course they can take a lot longer to establish true loss than a car for example.

He jumps to the group claim angle as I would expect a hand rubbing lawyer to do ;) but the reality is insurance companies are constantly working together and paying monies. (I used to sign off as part of a group of people one of the largest insurers daily payments, you wouldn't believe how many digits!)

Its certainly possible that this could end up nasty, but if its root cause is the car, and the car owner cannot point to any obvious external cause then I would expect it to actually be quite simple to establish blame.
As I said above the insurer will have probably a number of reinsurance* agreements in place, where they have effectively bought their own insurance for excess and significant loss.

*Simple example. They calculate their maximum acceptable loss in all motor claims is £10,000,000. When the actuaries models assess they are close to that point they will start buying reinsurance. So they may take a policy that means 50% of all motor claims above £10,000 individually are paid by another party.
Maybe another that covers them 100% between £10M and £15M loss on motor. They pay someone else in effect to accept part of the risk. Lloyds names are famous for this type of business, most of the time its money for nothing.
 
But a while back when the "Lloyds Names" found their money was actually at risk and now called for threw a wobbler, a very unsavoury spectacle, your mention of the Names brought this back.

I can't remember just when that unfolded, or how it was resolved but I recall the fact that finding it wasn't always money for nothing caused a good few to pull out of the market.
 
Last edited:
Chris Wilson said:
But a while back when the "Lloyds Names" found their money was actually at risk and now called for threw a wobbler, a very unsavoury spectacle, your mention of the Names brought this back.

I can't remember just when that unfolded, or how it was resolved but I recall the fact that finding it wasn't always money for nothing caused a good few to pull out of the market.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
It was free money and in effect many got heavily sucked in. The more free cash you wanted the more you "put up".
Put up being advising you had secured assets of £xM and could therefore stomach that level of loss.

Greed got the better of many of them and then when events actually happened and the reinsurers came knocking for their money...
 
storms/floods were what started the names issue I thought ... so part of the global warming toll -
we'll see where Kier wants to build his promised land, though.
 
ICDP said:
Or you could simply do a check on the reg which shows it to be a 3.0 diesel Sport. So no mention of a hybrid.

This CT nonsense needs to die.
Click to expand...
honestly i am getting really fed up with the clearly massive concerted effort to blame EVs for everything...... every day my news reel is swamped with FUD about EVs (and renewable energy in general) from the usual "news"papers and social media, and then see it leeching to the places where i am actually interested in posting in (like here).

I get that EVs are not the green saviour of the world and there is an honest debate to be had about their strengths, their weaknesses and where they can be better............ but the powers that be must be getting really scared of them hitting their bottom dollar such is the push back against them.

i am too young to remember it, but this must have been how the tobacco industry were back in the day.
 
must be just the beholders social media algorithms feeding ev disinformation - it's become a meme , though - and,
although google has become more odious to use, they don't know how to research anything and just take their spoonfed medicine
(tobacco is back in the room btw - currently nicotine pouches to put in your cheeks are outside legislation unlike vapes - for the bright young things)
 
OldKitMan said:
Imagine the phone call to the insurance company if your vehicle started that. Is it likely that the owners insurance will have to cough up for every car and the rebuild costs of the car park as well as flight disruption (can't see easyJet wanting to be out of pocket) and the emergency services amongst I am sure many more claimants.
Click to expand...

Surely the customer just reports that their car caught fire and got written off, they get paid out and that's that. It doesn't matter if the total loss was 100s or millions, the customer should have valid insurance and will be paid out market value for the written off car?
Also, in trying to get future insurance, can insurance companies legally penalise someone due to the cost of previous claims? This is totally out of their control obviously. Nobody means for their car to catch fire.
Somehow I expect the owner might get shafted though. Good old car insurance companies are always there for you aren't they.

In terms of costs overall though, would it not all be the insurance company of the original car that caught fire that should cover all costs to all cars and the building? You play the car insurance game and when things like this happen, you have to get your big boy pants on and pay out right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom