Car Insurance Claim

sarahg1969

lisyloo wrote: »

err....... yes, or another way to put it, they are trying to stop being scammed by vermin who want to charge outrageous car hire prices.

Spot on. They would rather put you in a courtesy car that costs them a few hundred quid, and get your car repaired as soon as possible, than you putting your car in storage, waiting months for them to agree the cost of repairs, pay up, and all the while you're racking up hire charges at £100 a day.

Quentin

The OP was talking about repairs and a courtesy/hire vehicle.

In car accidents, often all the problems don't materialise on the day of the incident.

The OP may discover more problems arise in the days subsequent from the day of the incident.

Lots of PI claims result from a delay between the incident and deciding who is handling the claim! But if the liable insurer manages to get in quick, then that might put off some from pursuing claims for all compensation and expenses to which they are entitled!

sarahg1969

Quentin wrote: »

In car accidents, often all the problems don't materialise on the day of the incident.

I am very aware of that. In fact, all too many problems materialise after people have been down the pub talking to their mates.

However, I was answering the OP's question about repairs and hire.

Atermis

Reffering to Accident management firms and CHO's
maybe they are vermin for forcing innocent parties to sign credit agreements, ive had claims were the 'innocent' party has had to pay thousands in unjustified hire claims.

Maybe they are vermin for forcing everyones premiums up via massive hire rates & massive labour rates (especially for vehicles most insurers can get alot cheaper when dealing direct).

I spend alot of my time arguing with idiots from CHO's, who dont know the ABI GTA from their elbow...

Quote

sarahg1969 wrote: »

...all too many problems materialise after people have been down the pub talking to their mates.

Or asking questions on internet forums...

lisyloo

Quentin wrote: »

Why do you call them "vermin"?

I am sure there are good and bad, as in every walk of life.

Firstly I was presenting an opposite view to the one your presented.

But what I have seen anecdotally are very excessive car hire charges.
This is not in the interests of us motorists as a whole because excessive claims will simply result in higher premiums.

I fully appreciate that people are entitled to what they would have had if the accident had not occured.
However some of the car hire charges I have seen have meant that it would have been cheaper to BUY and car i.e. tens of thousands of pounds.

Of course poeple are entitled to representation and getting back what they have lost, but I get the impression that this is also a "cash cow" for some firms.
Of course they should be paid for the time, but anecdotally I have seen some very excessive cases. I'm sure the insurers go to court over some but there are always going to be borderline cases which personal injury and accident claim companies are going to try to take advantage of.
I believe that some companies go to court in the name of the individual which can certainly cuase these individuals some stress when they get the paperwork.

Morally I think trying to swing the "system" to your advantage for greed purposes is morally wrong.
However I fully appreciate there are good and bad companies out there and I would never tar everyone with the same brush.

It was mainly presenting an alternative point of view to your (which may be your view but appeared to be deliberately provocative/emotive).

BTW - I passed my IAM test last week :-))))

Quentin

lisyloo wrote: »

your view appeared to be deliberately provocative/emotive).

Not my intention!

All I did was posted a possible alternative motive behind NU's intervention to the suggestion that there was something philanthropic behind NU getting in touch with the third party within hours of the incident taking place wanting to take over the repairs and maybe offer them physio as soon as they realised their insured was liable.

lisyloo

You are absolutely right.
They are a business and want to minimise costs.
Everyone needs to be cynical and look out for the catches, however it's not always at odds with the customers desires. Sometimes there are "win win" situations.

If there are no injuries, I don't see it at odds with a good outcome for the OP.
If they go through their own insuranace they have to pay an excess then try to get it back (difficulty will depend on whether they have legal cover).
In the meantime they may need to renew and may face increased premiums which they will also have to try to recover.

As I had a choice of garges and very nice hire car going direct, then I'd certianly be willing to do it again in a case where liability was clear and there were no injuries.

Quentin

If they offer physio to third parties, that would suggest there is some injury.

People would be well advised to have their own claim handler looking after their needs after an accident where the liability question is clear cut.

Accepting the third party insurer's offer to take care of everything (within hours of the incident), and before injury symptoms have materialised could mean that not all avenues for compensation are covered.

If they go through their own insuranace they have to pay an excess then try to get it back (difficulty will depend on whether they have legal cover).

But using a claim handler in cases where liability isn't disputed means you don't only have the alternative of going through your own insurance and having to reclaim your excess.

lisyloo

If they offer physio to third parties, that would suggest there is some injury.

Generally - yes.

I said I would be happy to go direct if there was no injury.
I didn't state it but to clarify I would not go direct if I had an injury (or had not allowed sufficicent time to see if one occurred) as I believe I would need representation in this area as it's very hard to both assess and value the extent of injuries.

But using a claim handler in cases where liability isn't disputed means you don't only have the alternative of going through your own insurance and having to reclaim your excess.

No, an alternative is having ridiculous car hire charges which the claims handler chooses to pursue through the small claims court in YOUR name.
This probably won't be crystal clear to most people so they will be shocked when they get the letters about a court case for thousands of pounds.

Personally I'd rather have the £25 per day sensible option from enterprise car hire.
We only wanted to get to work, not to have the hassle of a court claim.

I agree with you it may be sensible in some or even a lot of cases.
Just think people ought to be aware of the possible downsides.