My rights - Like for Like car replacement

adamc260

Quentin wrote: »

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?

My point exactly. Credit hire companies excist to make money and want to earn as much as they can! If they felt it was a safe bet to put you in that car they would of done so in a heartbeat... the fact they aren't tells you something.

olly300

adamc260 wrote: »

My point exactly. Credit hire companies excist to make money and want to earn as much as they can! If they felt it was a safe bet to put you in that car they would of done so in a heartbeat... the fact they aren't tells you something.

If you ask nicely they will tell you the day rates for the hire car.

This is the amount it cost them to hire the car out and the amount they charge the other party.

Also one thing you don't realise with "like for like" they break cars into categories this means you are unlikely to get your exact car anyway unless you source it yourself.

You also have to have a damn good reason why you can't have a car in the lowest category as you have to migrate your loses.

This is the more important than giving you a car in your category.

If you are unhappy with car given to you there is nothing stopping you hiring your own car and pursuing the other side for the cost. However you need to have a very good pratical reason why you need that particular car as judges aren't born yesterday.

Christopher7

adamc260 wrote: »

My point exactly. Credit hire companies excist to make money and want to earn as much as they can!

Isn't that the idea of most businesses, including the insurance companies!

vaio

maybe I'm wrong on this but my understanding of the requirement to mitigate losses is that it doesn't extend to ending up worse than you were before, it just means that you must choose the cheapest way of achieving the position you would have been in had the accident not happened and "position" in this case means having a similar car to your normal one available for your use.

Thus.......

If the third party offer you an equivalent car but you insist on using credit hire then that's not mitigating
If you have the means to hire one on the open market but but use credit hire then that's not mitigating

Mitigation doesn't extend to being inconvenienced by being expected to use public transport or drive around in a corsa when you have chosen to own, pay for and normally use an S4.

OP, I'd be inclined to get on to the third party company, tell them you expect an equivalent car and give them the opportunity to provide one using their own suppliers. If they refuse then get it in writing, have a read of the case law and decide whether you want to push it either by hiring one yourself or by going to a different credit hire company if you can't fund the hire yourself.

adamc260

Christopher7 wrote: »

adamc260 wrote: »

My point exactly. Credit hire companies excist to make money and want to earn as much as they can!

Isn't that the idea of most businesses, including the insurance companies!

Aye but you get my drift.. if they could make money out of you they would! The fact they aren't pushing for like for like tells you something.

Trebor01

vaio, this is the best answer and understanding I have had on this subject, thank you as this was my own understanding. I don't expect anything more than my current car, in fact I would accept an A4 conv or similar not necessarily an S4, but do agree I do not expect to be put into a worse position that before, which is exactly what AI Claims Solutions etc are trying to achieve, all to save money. I expect them to source a conv equivalent to my own car, and I don't care if they can get it for free, but it seems credit hire companies are just trying to ensure they get their own costs and don't want to struggle if the claim costs are contested. It's always about money, but you summary is how I would have expected the situation to have worked out so I will now suggest that the third party insurance company are contacted directly and asked to pay, rather than using the middle man (another level of costs - AI Claims Solutions). Thanks.

vaio

I doubt the credit hire firm will be at all interested in approaching the third party insurer as you suggest as if they do and are sucsessful in getting TP provide a car then the credit hire firm won't make any money.

Similarly, your own insurance company probably won't be interested in doing it as it's an uninsured loss so not their responsibility.

When I was in a similar (ish) situation a few years ago I dealt with the TP direct and you might well end up doing the same.

Trebor01

I think this will go all the way to the ombudsman. AI Claims Solutions are now not going to provide me with a car at all because according to them I don't need one because I don't work. More than car insurance have been little to no help, and quite frankly incompetent in the way they are handling this situation, so have now resorted to an official complaint, (which I am sure will end up costing them more money than my entire claim) and will leave this with the ombudsman to resolve. I agree that I should be put back into a similar position t the one I was in before the accident and as such I expect this to be the case, typical of insurance and the joke service they offer, and totally inconsistent. Last time a third party hit me I was offered an SLK 350 which was fine, so why a difference now, it's not good enough.

vaio

The FOS won't be interested because your insurance company aren't responsible for providing an equivalent car (unless your policy says they are).

The people who are responsible are the third party company but, as you are not a policy holder with them the FOS have no jurisdiction.

Have you spoken to the TP company yet?

Bravehearted_2

adamc260 wrote: »

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.

This to me is utterly irrelevant. So is the OPs employment status in this instance.

It is not in their remit to judge what is/isn't necessary. And a high flying business man's needs shouldn't trump the OP's.

Like the OP, I believe the issue here are the principles. You shouldn't claim to offer like4like if you dont.

Many posters have said things like "it's just a car", "you dont need a convertible", "obligated to keep costs down", "people driving convertibles are in debt" etc... All of this is irrelevant and should never be justification to screw customers over.