car insurance rip off!

john_jb

At the end of June my car was written off by being rear ended at a roundabout. my Insurance company CIS on the 3rd August agreed to payout £3000 this was less than I expected so I complained giving them details of 11 comparable cars that were for sale, prices ranged from £5000-8000. they replied saying I could buy a similar car to mine for less than £3000 but as a gesture of good will they offered me £3100, not wanting it to go on for ever I accepted the offer.
During this period I have been supplied with a hire car the bill of which is as follows
65 days Saab 9-3 Sportwagon 1.9 TID Vector Price £14,994 yes thats right an absolutly outrageos fourteen thousand nine hundred and ninty four pounds to hire a car for 65 days that is £230.67 per Day
This charge will be made to the third party insurance along with the £3100 they pay me off for my car surely this is injust shouldn't I be the benificiary not the Hire company.

tinkerbell84

You want the 3rd party insurers to pay you the money for the hire car?

Why did your own insurers pay out for your car? You should have been haggling with the 3rd party's insurer.

tinkerbell84

You're also going to have to declare that your claim cost over £18,000 on future quotes, which will push future premiums up :eek:

I agree that the hire car cost is extortionate, but you're not paying for it!

raskazz

john_jb wrote: »

This charge will be made to the third party insurance along with the £3100 they pay me off for my car surely this is injust shouldn't I be the benificiary not the Hire company.

Whoever provided you with a hire car is entitled to recover that cost from the guilty party. Why on Earth should you be the beneficiary of the cost of providing you a hire car - you haven't had to pay for the hire car!

john_jb

My point is that that particular car can be hired for under £300 a month it is therefore unreasnobly generous of the insurance company to pay £230 a day whilst arguing to pay me out the absolute minimum for my car, if they were to apply the same logic to my payout they would take the market value and multiply it by 25 alternativley they should charge a more realistic hire charge.
Ultimatly this is one of the reasons insurance premiums are so high

raskazz

john_jb wrote: »

My point is that that particular car can be hired for under £300 a month it is therefore unreasnobly generous of the insurance company to pay £230 a day whilst arguing to pay me out the absolute minimum for my car

The two figures are unrelated. Your insurer will pay you the market value of your car as it has to under the terms of your policy, and will then look to recover that outlay from the insurer of the guilty third party. If you think your car was worth more than their valuation then it's up to you to prove it - insurers aren't charities.

Separately, the hire company is entitled to recover its costs in relation to providing you with the hire car from the insurer of the guilty third party. If the third party insurer feels that the figure is unreasonable then it won't pay it. Your insurer isn't paying the hire charges, these charges have no bearing whatsoever on the valuation of your vehicle.

john_jb wrote: »

if they were to apply the same logic to my payout they would take the market value and multiply it by 25 alternativley they should charge a more realistic hire charge.

What?

john_jb

The two figures are related in that they both are as a result of my accident and I feel indignant at the fact that I pay for insurance to cover my losses in such an event and the hire company sieze the opportunity to charge 25 times the real cost of a hire car. I think this exposes a real double standard and suspicions of the old boy network

raskazz

john_jb wrote: »

The two figures are related in that they both are as a result of my accident and I feel indignant at the fact that I pay for insurance to cover my losses in such an event and the hire company sieze the opportunity to charge 25 times the real cost of a hire car. I think this exposes a real double standard and suspicions of the old boy network

Like I said, the hire company will have to provide evidence as to their costs. If the third party insurer feels that the costs are exaggerated or otherwise invalid then they won't pay them, it's as simple as that. How is it a 'double standard' given that the hire charges are paid by the third party insurer whereas the settlement for your vehicle has been determined by your insurer? It has nothing whatsoever to do with an 'old boy network' either, claims handlers are paid to minimize claims costs, not inflate them.

tinkerbell84

john_jb wrote: »

The two figures are related in that they both are as a result of my accident and I feel indignant at the fact that I pay for insurance to cover my losses in such an event and the hire company sieze the opportunity to charge 25 times the real cost of a hire car. I think this exposes a real double standard and suspicions of the old boy network

Unfortunately, your feelings aren't insured

john_jb

Thank you for your input again guys, but you still haven't answered the main question which is how do they justify a bill of £14,994.00 for the hire of a car for 65 Days when anyone with a credit card, driving licence and a pulse could hire the same car for the same period for well under a £1000. I take your point that this is only the start figure in their negociations but it is still ludicrously inflated, and therefore by the same token if I amass say £4,000.00 to replace the car should I start looking at ones advertised for £100,000.00. The double standard is that they will accept and put forward the hire companies' bill whilst presenting the basic value of my car to show how reasonable they are. The old boys network I suggest is that they decide which hire company to supply the car.
Finally it is personal I was quite happy with my old car, untill they lady in the Lexus driving one way and looking the other tried to make it into an accordion

raskazz

john_jb wrote: »

The double standard is that they will accept and put forward the hire companies' bill whilst presenting the basic value of my car to show how reasonable they are.

No, your insurer won't be putting forward the hire company's bill - they have no reason to do so as they haven't incurred any costs as a result of the hire. The credit hire company will pursue the third party themselves, and again, if they cannot justify the charges then the third party insurer won't pay those charges.

john_jb wrote: »

The old boys network I suggest is that they decide which hire company to supply the car

Insurers are sometimes rewarded with a referral fee by the credit hire companies. This has nothing to do with an 'old boys network' and everything to do with obvious commercial considerations.