Non fault Claim Credit Hire

clearchalk

Was hit in the rear last Wednesday whilst stionary at traffic lights.

Rang the insurance company and they have put the claim into the hands on the accident management company.

The usual free hire car etc.

Got a car delivered on Wednesday. All the paper work come through Friday and the cost is £800 per week. I don't want to keep a vehicle that costs this much and going to ring the company Monday if they are open and ask for it to go back.

Do you think there will be any problems with this? Just doesn't seem right charging this amount.

Company also forget to advise me that I could use an accident repairer of my choice.

olly300

The money will come from the other sides insurer.

If you definitely don't need the car then yes demand they come and take it back. If they ignore you put it in writing and threaten to kick up a fuss.

lisyloo

The money will come from the other sides insurer.

That's the theory.
Most likely the other sides insurer will refuse to pay those exhorbitant charges.
Have you signed anything? If you did it most likely says you are liable if the other insurer won't pay.
You might find yourself being taken to court in 3 years time.
This isn't scaremongering, if you search you wil find people this has happened to.

Is there a cooling off period on your contract.
If so DEMAND they take it back. Drive it back yourself if you have to.

If you don't need a car then get the bus etc. and keep your receipts.
If you really need a car, then if you can't get one from your garage/insurer then hire one yourself for closer to £35 or consder taxis if less expensive.

adamc260

olly300 wrote: »

The money will come from the other sides insurer.

Doesn't mean the charges are reasonable though, this is why everyone's insurance goes up because of Credit Hire/Accident Management firms and Personal Injury claims...

Contact the fault parties insurer and ask them for a hire car, they'll be more than happy to do it probably... it'll save them a fortune!!

clearchalk

Rang the claims management company today and told them I don't want the car anymore. The rental company is going to call me tomorrow.

Told them that I need to migate costs and £110 per day is not really on (this is within the guidelines of the GFA for my vehicle type). Not that the assistance agreed with me, saying having use of the car without mine is migating costs.

alistair.long

There are a few things with credit hire. personaly I dont use them as the case can go either way, and it may take longer for the case to be settled as a result.

If there is a allegation that the car could have been used and should have been repaired as it was drivable.
Or worst case the other side accuse you of fraud or delay the case, the credit hire may start to harras you to make you pay. Firstly they are suppose to go back to your insurance, however if they do get you, then you can ask to pay what a reasonable price on a car comparison site of the same size car.

So anyways, the pricing structure is high so that the other party give them their offer of a reasonable price, and then they get paid less but still get paid a lot more then giving a low price and pushed lower. e.g starting price £70 a day, insurance will argue £35 a day. so why not say £100 a day and the insurance will argue £35 but will settle with £70 a day.

You are not supposed to be concerned about the amount however I have seen so many cases going to court just to fight over credit hire charges. The stupidest one was a transit van, the credit hire price was less then the offer given by the defendants. Why didnt they pay it?
I do not know, all I know is that they wasted a lot of time and an extra £3k in costs.

Mitigating costs have to be proved by the other party.

adamc260

alistair.long wrote: »

Mitigating costs have to be proved by the other party.

No, mitigating costs has to be proved by the claimant... You need to prove you needed the vehicle given (engine size, model, is it prestige etc? if its a van could you cope with a smaller car etc?) and that you were not able to cope by any other means (ie: second vehicle in the home, able to walk to work if it is just down the road etc). Also, if you have an offer of a similar service at a lower rate but you accept the higher rate you can expect costs to be disputed. Just because the ABI has set up rates and insurers subscribe, doesn't mean the costs are reasonable, just means they're more reasonable than if they didn't subscribe to the GTA.

alistair.long

adamc260 wrote: »

No, mitigating costs has to be proved by the claimant... You need to prove you needed the vehicle given (engine size, model, is it prestige etc? if its a van could you cope with a smaller car etc?) and that you were not able to cope by any other means (ie: second vehicle in the home, able to walk to work if it is just down the road etc). Also, if you have an offer of a similar service at a lower rate but you accept the higher rate you can expect costs to be disputed. Just because the ABI has set up rates and insurers subscribe, doesn't mean the costs are reasonable, just means they're more reasonable than if they didn't subscribe to the GTA.

adamc260 is right in saying that a individual cannot go mad and get something to big as that would be betterment and the betterment figure will be stripped in court.

Hire cars are a little tricky as there has been a ruling in the court of appeals about hire cars (some judges say this does not apply to credit hire)
The ruling is that a person can hire a replacement vehicle which of similar size from the nearest rental company and the claimant should not have to worry about the cost of hire as it was not his fault.

however the evidential burden is on the defendant to demonstrate a failure to mitigate.

lisyloo

and the claimant should not have to worry about the cost of hire as it was not his fault

I think you must misunderstand the meaning of mitigation.
It means making efforts to reduce or avoid costs.
That means that the claimaing DOES have to care and not run up unnecessary bills.

vaio

Yep, there is a general duty to mitigate but that doesn't extend to getting buses or walking rather than hiring a replacement car, it's about providing you with the same options you had before the accident but without incurring unnecessary costs.

The non fault driver getting a similar sized/standard car to the damaged one isn't unnecessary, neither is using credit hire to provide one if you can't fund the hire yourself

pvt

clearchalk wrote: »

All the paper work come through Friday and the cost is £800 per week.

So that'll be £400 a week for the hire company, and a £400 a week backhander to your insurer, who in turn will not fix the car very quickly.

That will, of course, be in addition to the backhanders, typically £100, that the insurer will get for "referring" your name to a bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers called "Sprained It, Ringem Up, and Wringem Dry" who will shortly be bombarding you with invitations to to blaim any ailments ranging from bad breath to ingrowing toenails on the accident. This service will of course be offered on a "Lawers win, Everyone else Loses" basis.

All credit to you Chalky for trying to break the cycle that is pushing premiums through the roof! :T

pvt