Drive Assist and Aviva ...Hire Car while your car is off the road...BEWARE

torbayman

You are fortunate DrScotsman ...most legal cover is for protection against an uninsured loss such as an injury and not for claims with 3rd parties such as hire car companies....

torbayman

Sylvergrunge wrote: »

Hi all, happened upon this thread completely by accident but so glad I did. We currently have a hire car from Drive Assist as my DH was hit by a council van along a one way system (council van going the wrong way!!!). We have had it for a few weeks already and are set to have it a few more as the repairs are taking forever. I am really worried now what Drive Assist will try when we give it back. So you suggest we go over the car with a fine tooth comb and photograph everything before they take it back? Anything else?

By the way, we are insured through Sheilas Wheels.

Thanks in advance.

Yes ...a thorough check before and after including any wheel marks which seems a popular scam ...I agree with DaCouch is for the novice to make sure all the marks are identified before you accept the car ...and dont sign for any marks at the end of the hire you think have been made up by DA....at the end of the day DA will huff and puff with threats but for the amounts they threaten you with they wont go to court ....

DrScotsman

torbayman wrote: »

You are fortunate DrScotsman ...most legal cover is for protection against an uninsured loss such as an injury and not for claims with 3rd parties such as hire car companies....

I don't understand, if your car is not drivable due to a third party's fault then the loss of use of your car is an uninsured loss. To compensate for this loss you should be given a hire car to be paid for by the third party, and if the third party refuse to pay it then the legal cover will sue them (provided >50% chance of success etc.), surely that's the point?

torbayman

DrScotsman wrote: »

I don't understand, if your car is not drivable due to a third party's fault then the loss of use of your car is an uninsured loss. To compensate for this loss you should be given a hire car to be paid for by the third party, and if the third party refuse to pay it then the legal cover will sue them (provided >50% chance of success etc.), surely that's the point?

Yes DrScotsman I dont doubt what you are saying...I am talking about you being in dispute with the hire car company as a result of the hire company alleging you have damaged their car whilst in your possession which is not normally covered by your Legal Insurance so I am sceptical of an insurance company suggesting that their legal cover also covers such a dispute...

DrScotsman

torbayman wrote: »

Yes DrScotsman I dont doubt what you are saying...I am talking about you being in dispute with the hire car company as a result of the hire company alleging you have damaged their car whilst in your possession which is not normally covered by your Legal Insurance so I am sceptical of an insurance company suggesting that their legal cover also covers such a dispute...

Right, I didn't mean that it covered Drive Assist alleging I have damaged their car. Sorry for not being clear, my choice of wording was quite poor in hindsight.

I meant that anything Drive Assist advised me to do would be deemed advice from Endsleigh, and hence if they advised me to hire a car and the 3rd party didn't pay up then the legal cover would go after the 3rd party for me. I mentioned this because there's a thread somewhere here about another insurer (Halifax?) who tell you go phone Drive Assist but then deny any responsibility for DA's actions including not suing the 3rd party if they don't pay for the hire car.

dacouch

I would not be surprised if Endsleigh are giving you the wrong end of the stick, their staff are not known for being knowledgable

DrScotsman

dacouch wrote: »

I would not be surprised if Endsleigh are giving you the wrong end of the stick, their staff are not known for being knowledgable

If you saw my letter and the reply they sent me then you'd probably be as confident as me - there was no vagueness, crystal clear questions and crystal clear answers. I don't work for an insurance company but I cannot imagine any employee could possibly be as wrong as you suggest but also so confident as to not check any of their answers with someone else.

Besides if it's wrong then it's extra ammo for the Ombudsman shotgun.

torbayman

dacouch wrote: »

I would not be surprised if Endsleigh are giving you the wrong end of the stick, their staff are not known for being knowledgable

Thank you for all your help DaCouch ...I feel I have made my point on DA and your assistance in enlightening me on what goes on behind the scenes has filled in the gaps for me...over 1000 folk are now aware of this scam and should be on their guard ...I will sign off now in the knowledge that I have helped if not stop such scams...

dacouch

Thanks for your input Torbayman, keep checking MSE as there are loads of other helpful topics you may find helpful or could contribute to. Your experience with DA could also help other people having problems