Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Zudecke
    • By Zudecke 29th Jan 17, 10:12 AM
    • 40Posts
    • 4Thanks
    Zudecke
    Hire car accident - what to do?
    • #1
    • 29th Jan 17, 10:12 AM
    Hire car accident - what to do? 29th Jan 17 at 10:12 AM
    Hi guys,

    My sister is using a hire car as her car is being repaired for a non-fault incident.

    Unfortunately she's had an at-fault accident (she's OK) while in the hire car.

    The damage isn't really significant.. Just one hairline crack to her the front of her (hire) car and the boot is lodged ajar and will not close flush. Minimal damage to the third party vehicle, where the rear bumper also has a hairline crack.

    There is a £500 exceed detailed in her agreement where the default policy is third party insurance cover.

    What might be the full financial liability to her and any associated insurance premium hikes?

    Will she need to pay the £500 + repairs out of pocket at whichever repairers the lessor chooses?

    Many thanks

    Z
Page 2
    • Crabman
    • By Crabman 17th Apr 17, 1:47 AM
    • 9,597 Posts
    • 6,996 Thanks
    Crabman
    Loss of business claim sounds odd for a business to be claiming from a consumer.

    Otherwise it would be routine for non-fault collision parties to claim the future 5 year costs of increased premiums from the at-fault party.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Savings & Investments, ISAs & Tax-free Savings, Public Transport & Cycling, Motoring and Parking Fines, Tickets & Parking Boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Board Guides are not moderators & don't read every post. If you spot a contentious or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com

    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 17th Apr 17, 10:41 AM
    • 33,291 Posts
    • 17,221 Thanks
    Quentin
    Loss of business claim sounds odd for a business to be claiming from a consumer.........
    Originally posted by Crabman
    No. It's the norm.

    Just as innocent third parties can claim any loss of earnings resulting from the actions of the "guilty" party.
    • Retrogamer
    • By Retrogamer 17th Apr 17, 1:34 PM
    • 3,787 Posts
    • 3,773 Thanks
    Retrogamer
    I wouldn't be paying loss of business, your liability in the event of an accident if £500... not £500plus misc expenses
    Originally posted by arcon5
    If it was fully comp i'd agree, but it's not.

    The £500 excess was on third party cover as i understand it.

    But the company lost money due to the driver's negligence so that can be claimed back.
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 17th Apr 17, 1:58 PM
    • 21,278 Posts
    • 10,213 Thanks
    lisyloo
    Hmm, so that the insurers can rip people for more money?
    Originally posted by Zudecke
    She has had 2 accidents in a short space of time.
    I don't think it's unreasonable to view her as a higher risk (whether her fault of not).
    • Crabman
    • By Crabman 19th Apr 17, 12:54 AM
    • 9,597 Posts
    • 6,996 Thanks
    Crabman
    No. It's the norm.

    Just as innocent third parties can claim any loss of earnings resulting from the actions of the "guilty" party.
    Originally posted by Quentin
    It's hardly "the norm" - I spoke with my company's contracted hire firm today and they wouldn't seek such costs from a customer.

    In any case, it would have to be proven that there was a further booking that could not be honoured (which would take the dispute into the mechanics of how many available vehicles could be used to honour the other booking) and the specific amount of the loss. It can't be speculative as that would place the hire firm in a better position as a result of the incident.

    In which case, why is it rare for claims to be made for raised future premiums as in my previous post? Shouldn't that be the norm too?
    I'm a Board Guide on the Savings & Investments, ISAs & Tax-free Savings, Public Transport & Cycling, Motoring and Parking Fines, Tickets & Parking Boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Board Guides are not moderators & don't read every post. If you spot a contentious or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com

    • Retrogamer
    • By Retrogamer 19th Apr 17, 2:20 AM
    • 3,787 Posts
    • 3,773 Thanks
    Retrogamer
    [QUOTE=Crabman;72421973]
    In any case, it would have to be proven that there was a further booking that could not be honoured (which would take the dispute into the mechanics of how many available vehicles could be used to honour the other booking) and the specific amount of the loss. It can't be speculative as that would place the hire firm in a better position as a result of the incident.

    Indeed it's of course possible, but what hire firm would risk committing fraud and ruining their business for a small amount of money.
    All they need to do is provide evidence that they lost regular revenue due to the car being out of commission.

    In which case, why is it rare for claims to be made for raised future premiums as in my previous post? Shouldn't that be the norm too?
    Originally posted by Crabman
    Not all insurance companies raise premiums for non fault claims.

    No one is able to accurately predict thier insurance premium in say, 4 years time let alone if they'll still be driving the same car, same area, or even driving at all.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 19th Apr 17, 7:54 AM
    • 33,291 Posts
    • 17,221 Thanks
    Quentin
    [QUOTE=Crabman;72421973]It's hardly "the norm" - I spoke with my company's contracted hire firm today and they wouldn't seek such costs from a customer.
    ....../QUOTE]

    Irrespective of this, (ie.one company's supposed policy), it is the norm for an "innocent' party to claim for loss of profits when a vehicle is off the road due to someone's liability. ( Not just hire cars! Eg taxi)

    (Just the same as an individual can claim for loss of earnings)

    These costs would be paid by the insurer rather than out of the customers pocket, which may be the confusion
    Last edited by Quentin; 19-04-2017 at 7:58 AM.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 19th Apr 17, 8:03 AM
    • 15,483 Posts
    • 13,800 Thanks
    AdrianC
    It's hardly "the norm" - I spoke with my company's contracted hire firm today and they wouldn't seek such costs from a customer.
    ......
    Originally posted by Crabman
    Irrespective of this, (ie.one company's supposed policy), it is the norm for an "innocent' party to claim for loss of profits when a vehicle is off the road due to someone's liability. ( Not just hire cars! Eg taxi)

    (Just the same as an individual can claim for loss of earnings)

    These costs would be paid by the insurer rather than out of the customers pocket, which may be the confusion
    Originally posted by Quentin
    No. You would have to show that any losses were absolutely cast-iron, not just "Well, we would have done these jobs and made this profit". You would also have to show that the losses could not have been mitigated - hiring a vehicle would not have made the jobs possible.
    • onomatopoeia99
    • By onomatopoeia99 19th Apr 17, 8:24 AM
    • 3,538 Posts
    • 7,769 Thanks
    onomatopoeia99
    Given the hire car companies insurance will be activated for the claim, what does her own car's insurer have to do with it?
    Originally posted by Zudecke
    Until a few years ago, when forming a contract of insurance there was a concept of "utmost good faith", which meant both parties were legally obliged to disclose information which may affect the risk without being specifically asked by the other party. This is different from all other contracts and goes back to a legal case 250 years ago (Carter vs Boehm if anyone wants to read about it)

    It still applies when businesses arrange insurance but the law was changed for consumer insurance contracts a few years ago so the insurer has to ask the question and not rely on the consumer being honest (sad day when the law acknowledged that the typical punter will lie, whether by omission or untruth, to get a "deal" on their insurance).

    Having a recent claim materially affects the risk of their being a further claim and there is actuarial data to back that up, so the insurers want to know as they may not accept the new level of risk and decline to quote, or impose a higher premium.
    INTP, nerd, libertarian and scifi geek.
    Home is where my books are.
    • Dr Crypto
    • By Dr Crypto 19th Apr 17, 1:27 PM
    • 136 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Dr Crypto
    Out of interest if one were to have a prang in a hire car overseas should it still be reported to one's own UK insurer? Say it was a low value scratch or the like?
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 19th Apr 17, 1:33 PM
    • 15,483 Posts
    • 13,800 Thanks
    AdrianC
    Out of interest if one were to have a prang in a hire car overseas should it still be reported to one's own UK insurer? Say it was a low value scratch or the like?
    Originally posted by Dr Crypto
    What is the question the insurance are asking? How do you answer it honestly?
    • Dr Crypto
    • By Dr Crypto 19th Apr 17, 1:51 PM
    • 136 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Dr Crypto
    Dunno. Hasn't happened to me - was a theoretical question.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 19th Apr 17, 2:06 PM
    • 15,483 Posts
    • 13,800 Thanks
    AdrianC
    Well, the question they ask is fairly standard...
    • Zudecke
    • By Zudecke 14th Oct 17, 7:35 AM
    • 40 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Zudecke
    So guys,

    The Hire company are now chasing her for the £600 "loss of business" which she has thus far not yet paid.

    In her view, she figured she was only liable for the excess as far as she knew and assumed that the loss of business would be recouped by their own insurer.

    What is the consensus on this? Should she ask them to prove the loss of business?

    Debt collectors are now involved and she's very scared.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

186Posts Today

1,927Users online

Martin's Twitter