Insultingly low car insurance payout- NO FAULT ACCIDENT

kyusho

Yes, you are missing rather alot. Admiral are not doing me any favours, that is what they have valued my car at. And that is what they will send me a cheque for and recover from the 3rd party unless challenenged. Insurance companies will always try and help one another by paying out as little as possible. That is why first offers are always so laughable. They make ludicrous offers in the hope they go unchallenged.

scotsman4th wrote: »

Am I missing something? Admiral are paying you the 5k quickly to help you out as they are YOUR insurer.
You can cash the cheque, get the 5K in your pocket and argue the toss with the company that covers whoever you are making the claim against.
Why are you falling out with Admiral?

Compensation? What for? Is this additional to the value of the vehicle?

dacouch

Are you in a credit hire vehicle by any chance eg another BMW?

kyusho

Yes I am..

dacouch wrote: »

Are you in a credit hire vehicle by any chance eg another BMW?

kyusho

I have re-written the letter including quoted sections from the FOS motor valuation policy. Is this more effective? You cant see on here, but beneath each quoted section there is supporting evedence from parkers used car price guide etc;

I am writing to you in reference to your recent unrealistic offer of £5000 for my BMW 330 CI Sport, which was deemed uneconomical to repair following a NO FAULT accident for which the third party have accepted 100% liability.

It is clear there has been a mistake when calculating my vehicles market value. I wish to repudiate this offer on the grounds that an equivalent car cannot be purchased for anywhere close to £5000. I have enclosed detailed information of equivalent, similarly equipped cars of the same age and similar mileage and condition to my own. This clearly illustrates £5000 is substantially insufficient compensation.

Furthermore, I draw your attention to the financial Ombudsman motor insurance valuations policy (available from:http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html#2). Section 2 clearly states;

“we assess the market value as the retail price which the policyholder would have had to pay for a comparable vehicle at a reputable dealer, immediately before the date of the damage/theft.”

The valuation you have provided is significantly lower than any reputable dealer was charging for an equivalent vehicle immediately before the date of my accident. I have enclosed examples of how much reputable dealers were charging for an equivalent car, weeks after the accident.

In addition, section 5 clearly states the FOS will use price guides such as parkers used car guide to deem whether n insurance company’s valuation is fair and accurate.

“We use the editions published for the month in which the loss or damage occurred, because we are assessing the market value immediately before the incident. And we assume a vehicle in good condition, with average mileage, unless there is good evidence to the contrary.
Parker's Guide: We usually use the figure in column A1, corresponding with the retail price for a vehicle in good condition. There is a self-explanatory table for adjusting for higher/lower than average mileage. ”
Figure A1 of Parkers price guide clearly states the retail value for my vehicle is £7670-£7840 between the months of Jan 10-Feb 10. This clearly highlights an offer of £5000 is not only completely unacceptable but wildly inaccurate.






Lastly, section 8 clearly states that;

“If the policyholder only recently bought his car second-hand, we are likely to assume that the price paid was the market value, unless the insurer can provide sufficient evidence to the contrary.”

Having paid £8000 for my car in November 2009, only 3 months prior to the accident, I expect to receive an offer much closer to this figure.

My BMW was also in immaculate condition pre accident, and I searched for many months to find one in such good condition with an extensive specification, FSH and in the most desirable colour- Black. My car was fitted with a whole host of expensive optional extra’s from the factory which I have listed overleaf. My extensive research indicates in current market conditions, I would need £7750 to purchase an equivalent, similarly equipped car.

If I do not receive a substantially increased offer from you within seven days from the date of this letter, I want my case referred to your in house compliance department for review. In addition, I am also requesting interest payable on the final insurance payout figure. This will be calculated from the date your unrealistic offer was received (26-03-2010), to the date a more realistic offer is agreed.

If a satisfactory offer is still not received, I will not hesitate to refer my case to the FOS to recoup the compensation I am legally entitled to, and will clearly achieve.

I look forward to receiving a more accurate valuation within 7 days,

Mike Szumski

dacouch

It's not a bad letter, it would be best to change the refer to in house compliance to make this an "Official Complaint" and if this is not successful then proceed to the Ombudsman.

Are you aware of the potential problems credit hire vehicles can cause, they are relatively low risks but on a BMW if it goes wrong the costs to you could be high.

kyusho

Thanks I'll adjust that. The vehicle is a terrible Alfa Romeo Spider. What are the potential risks, I understand you are provided a free credit protection policy so if the costs are not recoverable then you cannot be charged..

dacouch wrote: »

It's not a bad letter, it would be best to change the refer to in house compliance to make this an "Official Complaint" and if this is not successful then proceed to the Ombudsman.

Are you aware of the potential problems credit hire vehicles can cause, they are relatively low risks but on a BMW if it goes wrong the costs to you could be high.

dacouch

kyusho wrote: »

Thanks I'll adjust that. The vehicle is a terrible Alfa Romeo Spider. What are the potential risks, I understand you are provided a free credit protection policy so if the costs are not recoverable then you cannot be charged..

If you have taken the protection you should be safe, without that you could potentially end up having to pay the very high costs yourself if they could not recover their costs.

kyusho

The protection comes as standard now, or atleast I didn't have to pay anything for it.

dacouch wrote: »

If you have taken the protection you should be safe, without that you could potentially end up having to pay the very high costs yourself if they could not recover their costs.

cogito

You can always pursue your claim directly against the third party if you don't like your own insurers' offer.

Sucker_for_sweeties

cogito wrote: »

You can always pursue your claim directly against the third party if you don't like your own insurers' offer.

Fairly cheap and straighforward to raise a small claims action against fault party yourself for your uninsured losses (sat nav etc...though isn't that removeable? not that I would know:o). The insurance company will most likely just stump up....easier than the hassle of defending I think.

Not sure how that will help you get a better valuation from your insurer though, but keep at it, and good luck.