Claimfast and solicitors

AlecEiffel

Hey all, I hope someone can assist.

I was driving my Mum's car last Oct as a named driver for a few weeks (we info'd her insurer the AA to check against fronting etc) when a third party hit me from behind after traffic ground to a halt.

The AA appointed Claimfast to handle the claim as it was clearly non-fault. The third party readily accepted liability and we have that in writing from Claimfast. Claimfast arranged for the car to be repaired and for a hire car for my Mum to use (and me if I wanted but I said no ta). Her car was repaired no probs. The hire car was provided by Enterprise and Claimfast advised that this would be billed to the third party. If there was any problems with this they would arrange an insurance for my Mum at no cost to her to cover the rental cost if the third party refused to pay.

A couple of weeks ago Claimfast advised that the third party had not paid for the car rental and would my Mum be willing if necessary to attend court. She agreed to this.

Last week Claimfast asked her to agree to the no-cost insurance that covers her retnal cost. She asked for it in writing as they wanted to do it over the phone.

The paperwork came through today. Additionally a solicitor has sent paperwork asking for her bank account details, savings, credit card information along with a request for a statement as to why she needed a car!

Why is this needed? The third party is liable and admitted so. The hire car was offered by Claimfast as part of the package of assistance to my Mum they offered. Yes she needed it as her car was off the road but why must she now be the one to justify it?

Where do I fit in as the driver at the time of the accident?

Will this go to court? Why??

Thanks everyone!

InsideInsurance

You evidently need to ask them what is in dispute, on the basis that liability was admitted it sounds like quantum (aka amount) is disputed.

As a claimant you are legally required to take reasonable steps to reduce the cost of your claim. So, for example, if you drive a Range Rover Sport but live in the city and just use it once a week to do the weekly grocery shopping then it would be reasonable to expect you to either take a much smaller car or potentially not take any car and just charge for a taxi for that one trip.

Accident Management companies are always torn, on the one side they want to give their customers as close to a like for like replacement as possible because the bigger the car the more profit they make. On the other hand they need to be able to justify why something bigger than a Group A car was given. Really they should have cleared up the "why do you need it" before providing the vehicle.

As the driver you dont really fit in to it. By the sounds of it it is quantum not liability that is disputed.

Will it go to court? Possibly, depends on how sure Claimfast are that they will win and how much money is involved. No point paying £1,500 of barrister fees to try and recover a dispute of £1,000 for example (in small track court cases legal fees arent normally recoverable).

AlecEiffel

Many thanks for your reply.

The car provided was a Fiesta so nothing too snazzy, just a nice normal small car. It was what was offered for use, it wasn't specifically requested and as my Mum has a Micra, albeit an old one, it would probably be a reasonable loan car. It was only taken for the duration of the car repairs.

The main issue we have is the fact that they want bank details, savings details, credit card details etc. The hire car was offered as a service to my Mum. Are they arguing that she should/could have paid that herself then claimed it back as an uninsured loss? If so why offer it in the first place? It seems an unreasonable invasion of privacy to someone who has only accepted the service offered by the company appointed to manage the claim.

InsideInsurance

Ultimately everything is just speculation as only Claimsfast have all the actual details of whats going on and they really should be explaining the whys as well as the whats

Christopher7

These cases are often resolved without the need to attend court. Claimfast (part of the AA btw) have not managed to reclaim the hire costs from the other sides insurer, so have sent the file to a firm of solicitors to begin proceedings.

The solicitor will be targeted/measured by the provider (claimfast) to resolve your case as quickly as possible. So without properly reviewing your claim they immediately ask for all documents just in case they are needed later down the line.

The only reason they need to see your bank statements etc would be if the other sides insurer argues that you were wealthy (pecunious) enough to hire your own car at spot hire rates e.g. from National Car Rental or Europcar.

However as you only hired a Ford Fiesta then the difference between spot hire rates and credit hire rates would be negligible and it would certainly not be economical for the other sides insurer to argue this through the courts.

AlecEiffel

Many thanks for that info.

I've had a full read of the docs sent through and it is very much "we're asking you cos we'll be asked". The questions are more vague than at first thought so I'm not worried about it now.

As you said it will most probably not even get to court, especially looking at the figures on the paperwork.

Thanks again.

adamc260

Christopher7 wrote: »

Claimfast (part of the AA btw) .

Since when?

Phantom247

claimfast was created by Acromas Holdings which owns both Saga and AA

adamc260

Ah so they are, they don't have their own fleet they just hire cars when they need them etc.

Hopefully Saga and AA don't moan about 'credit hire companies' then being that they own their own.

Phantom247

They normally use Enterprise to provide them with vehicles.

wadste

I am having exactly the same problem with this company and the facts of the original post seem identical. In June 2011 another car reversed into mine while it was parked. My wife was with the car at the time. The third party admitted full responsibility. I called my Insurance company (Saga) who immediately passed me on to Claimsfast. They informed me that as my insurance covered a like for like hire car they would provide one of the same class through Enterprise. My car is a BMW. When I spoke to Enterprise my only stipulation was that the vehicle had to be an automatic as my wife cannot drive a manual car. They did not tell me what car they were going to deliver but when they arrived at the house they had a Land Rover Freelander. This was over a year ago. Since then I have been continualy hastled by Claimsfast and their lawyers as the 3rd parties insurers have refused to pay the cost of the hire car. Their insurers are now saying they want to commence legal proceedings against the 3rd party, but rather that Claimsfast being the plaintif they are naming me. I am absolutley fed up with this and am furious with Saga. Insurance is supposed to ease the stress of having a minor accident. In this instance this is most definately not the case.