help! non fault accident claims handling stonewall

66freya

14/11/08 I had a (minor) no fault accident; to which the TP/insurers readily agreed liability. But, in short, ‘my’ claims handling cowboys are proving obstructive! No sooner had they my 'business', I/my calls (and ideally quick resolution/settlement) was ignored. I kept being told the engineer hadn't made a decision on my car, but days before had sent his report to TP Insurers. When I asked for a copy of it, I was told 'no it's strictly confidential and you are not entitled to see it. [I own this vehicle a 'confidential' report relates to!]. I then learned they told TP insurers a settlement figure, without my knowledge, consultation, etc. As their client I questioned such unethically unprofessional action, and appeased it was only an 'interim' offer to be increased; since proved a wholly fatuous lie. As (ostensible) 'endorsement', I was promised being sent details of market researched eight Volvos at this paltry sum – such ‘proof’ never arrived (were there ever such?). Yet I sent photographic proof of a same Volvo for my claim to equal its £1425 (NOT taking into account time, money, wasted phone calls, research, etc I had expended). Also, further sums spent on the hire vehicle). I also fully market researched; that the only cheap Volvos breaking for parts. I wrote to the MD twice, by recorded delivery, without being afforded any courtesy of acknowledgement, let alone response. I also learned 24-7 were taken over by a globally tentancled company, so I wrote to WNS - ditto no response! Corporate take-overs are not my concern, nor should affect my claim. Likewise, TP Zurich's job-shedding. [I wrote to the Ministry of Justice, Claims Management Regulation – waiting a reply]. Good, even fair, businesses cope with such transactions with no adverse effect to client satisfaction. To all intents, Call 24-7's overall mal-attitude to me leaves a bad taste in the mouth; that I surmise their abject arrogance assumes "that's our offer (to TP only, never me!), take it or leave it". Fact: I was told to mitigate my losses, yet 24-7 continue racking up car daily hire charges of about £25 plus VAT; ongoing until when? Despite advertising spin says "like for like" they refused me a Volvo, expecting me to take a top of the range 2008 black JAGUAR Estate and dashboard crammed with poser gizmos! [I insisted going back to the hirer's depot for a more basic vehicle – they only had a 58 VW Passat; lesser gizmos/ no handbrake]. I STILL drive this while my own vehicle stands idle, potentially deteriorating, 3 months' wasted road tax, insurance, engine idleness-!!!-flat/dead battery, whatever. My vehicle is not some common-or-garden-only-fit-for-spare parts. It is exceptional for the year, clean (no rust) a good, reliable runner, regularly serviced, full FSH, 4 brand new tyres, new alternator and many other valuable attributes. Also a last model before catalytic converters, so a potential classic car. Also, Devon and Cornwall proper locals cherish their Volvos - many the age of mine on our roads. Why then in their 'infinite wisdom' (sic), 24-7 deemed blocking my using it on the road via "Category B". I insisted on this removal, so 24-7 (petulance) deemed it’s now ‘C’ whatever that is? In short, I rue the day I ever got entangled with this three-ring-circus. Rhetorically, are they regulated? [Would I have touched this joke crowd with a barge-pole had my own (former) insurers properly acknowledged a former no-fault accident, instead of colluding 50/50 with the TP insurers which jeopardised my no claims bonus? Again, a rhetorical question]. Urgent help required, please?

MaximumImpact

Sorry, I really can't read your post. Its all hunched up and very hard to read. Could you post it again with some paragraphs etc???

LadyIndecisive

A few points/questions.

Do you have a cheque for the total loss of your vehicle, be it interim payment or otherwise? If so, have you cashed it?

If so you should seriously consider returning the hire car. The costs of this (or part of) may end up being your liability - check your paperwork.

This link shows you what the ABI salvage categories are:

http://www.abi.org.uk/Public/Consumer/Codes/MotorVehicleSalvage.pdf

This link will allow you to check if the claims management company you used are regulated by the MoJ.

http://www.claimsregulation.gov.uk/search.aspx

dacouch

I agree with Ladyindecise, Zurich are very very against unjust Credit Hire Charges and frequently make a stand against indivdual cases.

Have you tried picking the phone up and speaking to Zurich Claims yourself, they are a very good company and you may be surprised how by speaking to them directly you can get the money for your car in no time.

You should be careful when speaking to Zurich about accepting any liability for the claim as it could prejudice the claims management companies stance which could have later repercussions for you.

The global company that took over your claim is no doubt Helphire...anyone could guess in the industry can guess that and what the effects on your claim would be...

66freya

robyn_field wrote: »

14/11/08 I had a (minor) no fault accident; to which the TP/insurers readily agreed liability. But, in short, ‘my’ claims handling cowboys are proving obstructive! No sooner had they my 'business', I/my calls (and ideally quick resolution/settlement) was ignored. I kept being told the engineer hadn't made a decision on my car, but days before had sent his report to TP Insurers. When I asked for a copy of it, I was told 'no it's strictly confidential and you are not entitled to see it. [I own this vehicle a 'confidential' report relates to!]. I then learned they told TP insurers a settlement figure, without my knowledge, consultation, etc. As their client I questioned such unethically unprofessional action, and appeased it was only an 'interim' offer to be increased; since proved a wholly fatuous lie. As (ostensible) 'endorsement', I was promised being sent details of market researched eight Volvos at this paltry sum – such ‘proof’ never arrived (were there ever such?). Yet I sent photographic proof of a same Volvo for my claim to equal its £1425 (NOT taking into account time, money, wasted phone calls, research, etc I had expended). Also, further sums spent on the hire vehicle). I also fully market researched; that the only cheap Volvos breaking for parts. I wrote to the MD twice, by recorded delivery, without being afforded any courtesy of acknowledgement, let alone response. I also learned 24-7 were taken over by a globally tentancled company, so I wrote to WNS - ditto no response! Corporate take-overs are not my concern, nor should affect my claim. Likewise, TP Zurich's job-shedding. [I wrote to the Ministry of Justice, Claims Management Regulation – waiting a reply]. Good, even fair, businesses cope with such transactions with no adverse effect to client satisfaction. To all intents, Call 24-7's overall mal-attitude to me leaves a bad taste in the mouth; that I surmise their abject arrogance assumes "that's our offer (to TP only, never me!), take it or leave it". Fact: I was told to mitigate my losses, yet 24-7 continue racking up car daily hire charges of about £25 plus VAT; ongoing until when? Despite advertising spin says "like for like" they refused me a Volvo, expecting me to take a top of the range 2008 black JAGUAR Estate and dashboard crammed with poser gizmos! [I insisted going back to the hirer's depot for a more basic vehicle – they only had a 58 VW Passat; lesser gizmos/ no handbrake]. I STILL drive this while my own vehicle stands idle, potentially deteriorating, 3 months' wasted road tax, insurance, engine idleness-!!!-flat/dead battery, whatever. My vehicle is not some common-or-garden-only-fit-for-spare parts. It is exceptional for the year, clean (no rust) a good, reliable runner, regularly serviced, full FSH, 4 brand new tyres, new alternator and many other valuable attributes. Also a last model before catalytic converters, so a potential classic car. Also, Devon and Cornwall proper locals cherish their Volvos - many the age of mine on our roads. Why then in their 'infinite wisdom' (sic), 24-7 deemed blocking my using it on the road via "Category B". I insisted on this removal, so 24-7 (petulance) deemed it’s now ‘C’ whatever that is? In short, I rue the day I ever got entangled with this three-ring-circus. Rhetorically, are they regulated? [Would I have touched this joke crowd with a barge-pole had my own (former) insurers properly acknowledged a former no-fault accident, instead of colluding 50/50 with the TP insurers which jeopardised my no claims bonus? Again, a rhetorical question]. Urgent help required, please?

I'm sorry my presentation wasn't good, but I am new to IT, via the library, which seems to take me ages and is very costly. I am not sure if I re-edit it, whether it will be accepted on the forum again, so I guess I will have to lose you as an ally by not doing so? Thank you anyway.

66freya

Thank you for your information. Because I have to use the library internet facility, I have copied the salvage info (to properly read later). And I had emailed the claims management regulation at MoJ. I did try to use their 'quick' form, but I think I am best writing a letter to them (Insur.Ombudsman only does your OWN insurers), as to all intents Call 24-7 (taken over by WNS) do NOT appear to be registered! [Loud scream!].

66freya

Thank you for your help. I will try and ring Zurich (despite while admitting liability they sent me a very threatening letter on the lines that if used a claims handling company they would contest the claim/costs). I understand Zurich has done some serious job shedding recently (which might delay claims?). But my bet is - the way I was parried around the call-centre staff, that call 24-7 are superbly inefficient. My worry is that WNS appears to be a global concern, thereby if call 24-7 aren't pulling their weight (making fat $) will they be chewed up and spat out; that my claim falls by the wayside? Not being in the 'industry', I take it Helphire isn't good news?

lisyloo

I take it Helphire isn't good news?

I've only seen anecdotal reports on them.
But basically they charge very high fees for car hire.
The individual is ultimately liable so in some cases people have been promised that the insurance will pay only to find they are liable for thousands of pounds worth of car hire.
Insurers sometimes reject the ludicrous bills.

There is a duty on people to mitigate costs, so car hire for hundred of pounds a day is not acceptable when a bus or train will do the job.
In some cases you could actually BUY a car for the amounts helphire charge.

Purely anecdotal, but in some cases people don't appear to have been made aware that they are ultimately liable.

dacouch

robyn_field wrote: »

Thank you for your help. I will try and ring Zurich (despite while admitting liability they sent me a very threatening letter on the lines that if used a claims handling company they would contest the claim/costs). I understand Zurich has done some serious job shedding recently (which might delay claims?). But my bet is - the way I was parried around the call-centre staff, that call 24-7 are superbly inefficient. My worry is that WNS appears to be a global concern, thereby if call 24-7 aren't pulling their weight (making fat $) will they be chewed up and spat out; that my claim falls by the wayside? Not being in the 'industry', I take it Helphire isn't good news?

Like I said Zurich do not like Claims Management Companies / Credit Hire Companies. However £25 a day is actually cheap for a credit hire vehicle, if you ring them and explain your situation, that you want your money and want to keep their costs down there is a good chance they will come to a quick settlement on your vehicle as it will save further hire costs.

Becareful what you agree with Zurich as the claims management will not want you affecting the chances of recovering the hire costs. (If it makes you feel any better zurich will make the credit hire company wait and wait and wait for their money).

dacouch

lisyloo wrote: »

I've only seen anecdotal reports on them.
But basically they charge very high fees for car hire.
The individual is ultimately liable so in some cases people have been promised that the insurance will pay only to find they are liable for thousands of pounds worth of car hire.
Insurers sometimes reject the ludicrous bills.

There is a duty on people to mitigate costs, so car hire for hundred of pounds a day is not acceptable when a bus or train will do the job.
In some cases you could actually BUY a car for the amounts helphire charge.

Purely anecdotal, but in some cases people don't appear to have been made aware that they are ultimately liable.

Did you ever see the email that was sent around most of the industry by ALLEGEDLY a disgruntled ex employee. I did, it was incredibly detailed and listed some very sharp practices that IF were true were astonishing!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/2795007/Helphire-hunts-for-emailer.html This is a report about it, you will not find it by googling it as I believe Helphire were suing Google over it, its worth hunting the email down as it was very interesting and named names...

My own experiences of them were not very good at all, if they are only claiming back a policy excess with no injury or credit hire they appear not interested

LadyIndecisive

I saw it, very interesting reading.