My rights - Like for Like car replacement

Phantom247

Ok, before we go any further, not sure if this has been asked but what is the exact make and model of the vehicle they are looking to provide you with?

You are allowed like for like vehicle as in putting you back to the position prior to the incident, however, there is an overall duty on all parties to mitigate their losses, you state that you need the vehicle for appearances, however I have yet to hear whether the vehicle they are looking to offer to you is a convertible and if it was the reason for rejecting the vehicle?

Also insurance companies are not charities, they are companies who have to make money to survive and Credit Hire has been a thorn for the insurance industry for sometime, although they basically have reaped what they sow when they ignored it and put their heads in the sand when Credit Hire first came out, the issue that a number of insurance companies have is the lack of control they have in the resolving of Third party claims, so you have the defendant insurer trying to reduce the costs because they are not reasonable or they do not accept that you have mitgated your losses, the hire company who lose money as soon as they put the lights on, as everything is based on the influx of money from the Credit Hire so they will do anything they can to extend the period or increase the rate they can charge if they think they can get away with it. Similarly, your insurer wants to make sure that the repairs are done to a suitable standard but they are not paying an arm and a leg for it and at the same time they are able to justify the repairs to the other insurer. It is a mess and the OFT is looking into the whole situation regarding Credit Hire, Credit Repair and repairer networks for insurers, although to be honest I am not sure what they are going to do in this case.

Phantom247

Trebor01 wrote: »

Bouncydog - I agree but it appears that the AI Claims position is very different, otherwise why ask the question in the first place. In essence they will try to use an reason not to provide a "like for like" as it may in some cases be expensive, so my point is why offer like for like in the first place. People who drive a Bentley don't need one, but they choose to drive one. Regardless of whether work or not, they could be wealthy and retired, they chose a Bentley and because the third party was careless they should still be able to drive a Bentley or equivalent if "like for like" is what it implies. Being extreme but taking this point to its limit, the insurers could just stick anyone in a really cheap new basic car (lets say £7000) indefinitely if the repair bill was allot higher (lets say a write of Phantom £150,000) and never actually pay for the repair bill at all. Make good business sense if the fact that like for like is being able to be abused as it clearly is at present.

Essentially, it is in regards to indemnity, so that an individual can be put back to the position prior to the incident, so people are allowed a like for like vehicle, it just comes down to what do two set of people consider a like for like vehicle as being?

Also, you have to take into consideration as AI Claims Solutions is a subscriber to ABI GTA it has to provide a mitigation statement to the other side showing that it is has looked into and mitgated the losses by explaining why a certain vehicle has been provided which is why if someone say for example has a top of the line Audi and is hit by a third party, unless you give a really good reason why you need a top of the line Audi and one AI Claims Solutions believes that the other side is going to accept they are going to try and provide a similar vehicle perhaps a slightly lower level of Audi to prevent arguments as if the other party insurer argues this point, it means their payment is delayed and thus they lose income, in any case most people would not know the difference between 2 different types of prestige Audi's I certainly don't.

Christopher7

OP
Let me provide some balance to recent comments.

You have an obligation to mitigate your losses. What this means is that you should not hire a vehicle at all if you a) are able to use another vehicle b) you can get by without one.

You should also accept a lower class of vehicle if you are able too.

However if you would lose out or suffer detriment by not having a like for like or any hire vehicle then it is your right to hire one and expect the at fault insurer to reimburse you in full.

It would be better for everyone else if you didn't hire a car as hire costs push up claim costs and we all end up paying more in premiums. But is it better for you?

If you need a hire car, the other sides insurer may be able to offer you one, ironically this maybe through a credit hire company but at 'direct' hire rates.

If you proceed with a credit hire through AI, then you should be protected by an additional insurance policy from having to pay any shortfall in hire charges. Make sure you check this out.

chanz4

Op im confused, you say your not working but you have 3 cars to sell? So you are working but as a trader. Have you told your insurance company you are unemployed?

Trebor01

chanz4 - I said I am trying to establish a business which is as yet not up and running, so at the moment I am not working, my insurance know all about this yes.

Trebor01

Phantom247 - This is what bothers me, it all comes down to semantics. To anyone with an ounce of a intelligence "like for like" means "the same as before". They have offered me an Audi A3 or equivalent, so just don't see how this is in any way like for like other than the fact that it has an Audi badge on the bonnet.....!!

Trebor01

And the Audi A3 they have offered is not a convertible either, so not even meeting me half way. They are just interested in watching their own costs, which quite frankly I don't care about, that is their problem not mine, and the time and effort they put into dealing with this issue will in itself cost a fortune because I will continue to pursue this. Simply using the fact that I am currently unemployed is nothing to do with them. I need a car for my own life a purposes, can't use the other cars as they are not insured for me to drive, as they are owned by others and I will be selling them on once established, which I am not at the moment.

adamc260

Lets be real here a second... do you put the roof down EVERY day and do you NEED a convertible for a few days whilst it is in for repairs?

The fact you are unemployed does concern them... if you were a high flying business man who couldn't turn up to meetings in a Ford Fiesta then fair enough but as far as they are concerned you will only be using the vehicle for SDP and having a £260+ per day Audi convertible just isn't necessary.

Trebor01

Adamc260 - I am not really interested if they deem it necessary, the repair could last weeks, and the fact that I own and pay for an expensive car but am not working is none of their business. I choose not to work and would like to continue to enjoy my time in an open top car that I paid for...!!! Yes I do put the roof down everyday as it happens, except when raining. High flying business man....? that all depends on assumptions, have I made allot of money yes, do I have to work, no, do I choose to work, yes because I can and want to, but just because I don't need or choose to wear a pin stripe suit and attend "business" meetings does not mean I am not "high flying" whatever that means. Why would a "business man" need a flash car to turn up to a meeting...?

Quentin

If they gave you what you wanted, there is the real chance the other side contest it in court. If you lost, you would have to pay the difference!

CAn you afford it? If so, are you happy to pay if directed to?