Hit in the rear, other side admit liability but I'm the loser??

chanz4

Even as your dad was the driver who had the crash, you still need to declair a claim under your policy

Quentin

chanz4 wrote: »

Even as your dad was the driver who had the crash, you still need to declair a claim under your policy

Not if he remains a name driver (when the claim shoild be declared inder his driving history, not the OP's)

Only if Dad is no longer to be covered does the OP have to include the claim in her history.

NurseMoneySaver1122

Quentin wrote: »

You have already spoken to your insurer who has confirmed what enterprise told you. (That your "friend" has misinformed you about this).

If you want a definitive answer, the one you get from your legal team will be the only one you can rely on, as they will have to stand the consequences if they give you bad advice.

Anecdotal advice is no use to you!

(If you want a like for like car, you do need to be able to justify it, under the "duty to minimise your losses" rule).

One way round your issue would be to cancel your claim, (if you can now), and use a claim handler to deal with it - which will inclide getting you the best car they can get away with charging the third party for!

I am going to call when they open tomorrow. You said "If you want a like for like car, you do need to be able to justify it, under the "duty to minimise your losses" rule". I can definately justify that for work purposes, among others so I'm not too concerned there.

But quick question on that; surely the justification lies solely in the fact that it's a non fault claim. Therefore, as my legal team keep telling me, I should not in any way be negatively affected by the accident, financially or otherwise. Is this not the case?

Quentin

NurseMoneySaver1122 wrote: »

But quick question on that; surely the justification lies solely in the fact that it's a non fault claim. Therefore, as my legal team keep telling me, I should not in any way be negatively affected by the accident, financially or otherwise. Is this not the case?

A non fault claim means you are not costing your own insurer anything. (ie nothing to do with being blameless)

Getting a third party to agree to accept liability doesn't mean they also have to pay you whatever amount you spend on getting matters put right.

Get your legal team to explain the difference between agreeing liability and agreeing quantum.

NurseMoneySaver1122

Quentin wrote: »

A non fault claim means you are not costing your own insurer anything. (ie nothing to do with being blameless)

Getting a third party to agree to accept liability doesn't mean they also have to pay you whatever amount you spend on getting matters put right.

Get your legal team to explain the difference between agreeing liability and agreeing quantum.

Wow, so my original thread heading was preety accurate then... "Hit in the rear, other side admit liability but I'm the loser".
How on earth are we expected to protect ourselves from others hitting us?
What a state our insurances are!

InsideInsurance

There are two legal principles in play....

First is one of indemnity, the TP (or their insurers) are legally required to ensure that you are in the same financial position that you were in prior to the accident

Second one is mitigation, as the innocent party you are required to do what you reasonably can to ensure the claim against the TP is as small as possible - though the key word is reasonably.

You don't say what your car is but if we assume it is a Ford Focus type of car, despite the TP having to provide indemnity you cannot go out and hire a Rolls Royce Phantom whilst yours is in for repair. If a Ford Ka is reasonable for what you need to use the car for then thats what you should get, if you have a baby and so the pram wouldnt fit in a Ka then a 5 door Fiesta would be fine.

Likewise if you were self employed and needed a car to drive and carry samples etc. You couldnt claim 3 weeks of loss of earnings at £800 a day on the grounds of not having a suitable replacement car when you could of hired a Focus for £70 a day and continued working.

NurseMoneySaver1122

InsideInsurance wrote: »

There are two legal principles in play....

First is one of indemnity, the TP (or their insurers) are legally required to ensure that you are in the same financial position that you were in prior to the accident

Second one is mitigation, as the innocent party you are required to do what you reasonably can to ensure the claim against the TP is as small as possible - though the key word is reasonably.

You don't say what your car is but if we assume it is a Ford Focus type of car, despite the TP having to provide indemnity you cannot go out and hire a Rolls Royce Phantom whilst yours is in for repair. If a Ford Ka is reasonable for what you need to use the car for then thats what you should get, if you have a baby and so the pram wouldnt fit in a Ka then a 5 door Fiesta would be fine.

Likewise if you were self employed and needed a car to drive and carry samples etc. You couldnt claim 3 weeks of loss of earnings at £800 a day on the grounds of not having a suitable replacement car when you could of hired a Focus for £70 a day and continued working.

That's really helpful to know, so Thank you!!!

I definately don't want to take the biscuit with what I can claim. I only have a Renault Clio, but Enterprise advised me my courtesy car WILL be smaller than this...gosh can you really get any smaller?? I struggle to do what i need with a Clio but am kind of stuck with it (financially), so I genuinely will struggle with anything smaller.

If I did not have guaranteed courtesy car as part of my policy, am I right in thinkng I could have personally hired a like-for-like car, and claimed that back through my legal team, without anyone blinking an eye (asking for a Clio is not like asking for a Lambougini after all)?? And yet, because I have guaranteed car hire, I am going to be stuck with a non like-for-like. Or is this completely incorrect?

Thanks again for your helpful post above!

Quentin

NurseMoneySaver1122 wrote: »

If I did not have guaranteed courtesy car as part of my policy, am I right in thinkng I could have personally hired a like-for-like car, and claimed that back through my legal team, without anyone blinking an eye (asking for a Clio is not like asking for a Lambougini after all)?? And yet, because I have guaranteed car hire, I am going to be stuck with a non like-for-like. Or is this completely incorrect?

As previously posted:

One way round your issue would be to cancel your claim, (if you can now), and use a claim handler (instead of your legal team)to deal with it directly with the third party - which will include getting you the best car they can get away with charging the third party for!

NurseMoneySaver1122

Quentin wrote: »

As previously posted:

One way round your issue would be to cancel your claim, (if you can now), and use a claim handler (instead of your legal team)to deal with it directly with the thord party - which will include getting you the best car they can get away with charging the third party for!

It is too late to do this. Unfortunately, legal paperwork states once they have started a claim, if I decide to go elsewhere etc, they will retain moneys due. That's why I'm still asking

NurseMoneySaver1122

Quentin wrote: »

As previously posted:

One way round your issue would be to cancel your claim, (if you can now), and use a claim handler (instead of your legal team)to deal with it directly with the thord party - which will include getting you the best car they can get away with charging the third party for!

Also, I don't really want to get the best car they can get away with charging for...I just want the same car, and to be in the same situation I would have been had this accident not happened.