Albany assistance and Scott Rees

ugdz

Hi just wondering if anyone has had a similar situation. In march 2007 I was involved in a car accident(a car turned right in front of me) I was second driver on my wife's insurance. The police attended, we were insured with Kwik Fit fully comp. We were given a hire car and Bott and Co handled the case. The case was resolved we bought a new car..all done.
That is until late last year when we received a letter from Scott Rees and Co acting on behalf of Albany Assistance asking my wife to sign forms so they could sue for the car hire charges from the man who caused the accident. We were a bit wary but signed as they seemed legitimate if a little hazy on the detail of the accident.
They have recently asked for details of our financial situation at the time of the crash?
Anyway to cut to the chase I found a posting on a forum telling people to contact their insurer if they were contacted by Scott Rees.
I then took the step of contacting Bott and Co and Kwik Fit. Bott and Co said the file was closed and all monies had been paid, and Kwik Fit told me I was insured with KFI Premier and gave me the policy number but couldn't provide a phone number or email. I've looked to see who KFI are with no luck.
Has anybody been in a situation like this? Any information or advice would be appreciated.

ugdz

Now I have more time I've just completed a search of the site and found this which explains what is going on
showthread.php?t=1914025&highlight=albany+assistance
:T

ugdz

I just received a letter telling us that my wife MUST appear in court. I thought you paid fully comp to avoid this stuff?

mummysaver1

In 2009 we our car was hit and albany povided car through help hire. About 6 months ago Scott Rees informed us 3rd party disputed costs of car etc and we had to prove our finacial circs at the time. We had to appear in court but received a call the day before saying they had settled. Legal assistance is paying for scott rees,. but in the event you need to be in court, you need to be there. Phone them and discuss in length what happened and your need for courtesy car at the time etc

lisyloo

I just received a letter telling us that my wife MUST appear in court. I thought you paid fully comp to avoid this stuff?

I can't follow your link so I'm speculating here.

Generally full comp only covers you for a courtesy car from a garage whilst repairs are done subject to availability.
You generally don't get a guarantee unless you have paid for a guaranteed courtesy car option.
It's also provided by the garage so you only get it whilst repairs are done and not (for exmaple) with a write-off as the garage would have no interest in that case.

It sounds like what has happened is that you signed up for a credit hire agreement.
Their charges can be high (hundreds a dy in some cases). In long running cases you coudl ahve BOUGHT a ar for what they charged.
You MAY have signed somewhere to say you were liable if the insurance didn't pay in the small print.
Chances are the other insurer has refused to play ball on the high charges, so the hire car company are now taking the other insurer to court in your wifes name (I believe it has to be done that way).
This is a way of forcing a decision when people are dragging their feet.

So no it's NOT what you pay fully comp cover for.
You should really make sure you are better informed about what you are covered for, who you are dealing with and what your liabilities are before you sign but I'm sure they were very professional and told you that you had nothing to worry about.

mattymoo

Thats about the size of it Lisyloo. If ugdz does not attend court to testify he will be in breach of his contract with Albany etc and they will pursue him for the debt.

There is a high profile case going through the Appeal Court at the moment involving the footballer, Darren Bent. Insurance press article here - http://www.broking.co.uk/insurance-age/news/2026433/darren-bent-force-drivers-shop-credit-hire but it is also being reported in mainstream media.

Ugdz - the other sides insurers will be alleging you did not need to hire a car for so long or that you could have simply hired a car for around 1/2 - 2/3 what Albany charged under the credit hire agreement. If you were in a position to fund that car hire then that is what you should have done under your common law duty to mitigate the loss. Albany and you will want to show that you could not afford a hire car so had to use the services of a credit hire firm, hence the need for info about your finances.

mummysaver1

Yes that is exactly right. You will have signed a contract stating that. We did but we were told as they were admitting liabilty we wouldnt have to worry. As when the car was took to the garage did they know it was an immediate write off? Possibly not, so therefore you are entitled to a courtesy car. As far as we were concerned they contacted us, offered us a car whilst ours was being repaired, which was written off. Im assuming you are in the same situation. We were informed on the friday (the day ours was declared total loss) the car would be collected on the following thursday, allowing time for cheque to be cleared.

lisyloo

We did but we were told as they were admitting liabilty we wouldnt have to worry.

The other side might have accepted liability, but they can dispute the charges if they feel they are totally unreasonable.
So for example they might feel £35 per day is quite reasonable but £300 per day is not.
Some of these credit hire companies are rip-off merchants and it's absolutely right for us as policyholders that insurers stand up to rip-off bills. I am not denying anoyones right to a car or to a credit facility for that, but some of these are blatant rip-offs which woudl ultimately be at policyholders expense.

You are not entitled to run up whatever bills you like.
You have a legal responsibility not to and it's called "mitigating losses".
Personally I'd be done with it all and get the train, but some people have other needs.

mummysaver1

lisyloo, what you quoted me on is what they said, kind of a ploy to make you sign it if you see what I mean. Some people like me trust what insurers say so take their word for it.

oscarward

lisyloo wrote: »

.
Chances are the other insurer has refused to play ball on the high charges, so the hire car company are now taking the other insurer to court in your wifes name (I believe it has to be done that way)..

I went through something similar with Sott Rees. Except you have to sue the other driver , not his insurers as it is his problem to deal with. He just passes to his insurers to deal with. Bizarre situation where the solicitor is instructed by another company in your name.

In my case I was justified in a like for like car as I had business use which involved a lot of customer site visits and I mitigated my costs as much as possible by buying a car as soon as a write off value was agreed , even before I received the cheque. But still very stressful when the other driver had admitted total laibility.

In the end the case was settled a week before the court hearing for a few hundred less than the claim value.

I found Scott Rees to be approachable and would talk on the phone and listen to my concerns, i.e. the court date was when I was in Spain! The communications whilst not copious were adequate to understand what was going on. In fact as they knew I was going on holiday they emailed me to inform me the case had been settled in advance of the official letter to set my mind at rest.