why should I be out of pocket

heybridge

A car went into the back of my car..driver admitted liability so car went to be repaired and I was given a replacement hire car by their insurance company. All ok except that zero excess was not included.
In order to ensure that my own excess is not drawn on due to a scratch or other small incident I have had to pay over £80 for optional zero excess which their company refuses to cover.
Other insurance companies appear to cover this so why not LV?
Why should I be out of pocket for something that is not of my making?
Is there anything I can do?
Why do LV not include zero excess for third party no fault claims?

Quentin

Add this on to your out of pocket claim off the third party insurer.

InsideInsurance

Do you have an excess on your own car insurance policy?

Normal practice is to put you in the same position you were before so if your own car has a £200 excess and the hire car has a £500 excess then you pay the £200 and the TPI pays the £300.

If you choose to pay to reduce the excess to £0 then this is betterment and therefore not claimable from the TPI

Quentin

How is this charge "betterment"?

It's an out of pocket cost the op has had to pay out.

InsideInsurance

Quentin wrote: »

How is this charge "betterment"?

It's an out of pocket cost the op has had to pay out.

They have chosen to pay a fee to waive the excess. If they have an excess on their normal car then they are in a better position than they normally are because they'd normally have an excess to pay hence betterment as

If they normally pay extra to have no excess on their normal car then it isnt betterment and is recoverable

Quentin

And what if the innocent third party has third party cover only?

When you have to get a hire car as a result of a third party crashing your car you normally would add the total cost of the hire and insurance onto your out of pocket claim and be paid.

JimmyTheWig

InsideInsurance wrote: »

They have chosen to pay a fee to waive the excess. If they have an excess on their normal car then they are in a better position than they normally are because they'd normally have an excess to pay hence betterment as

If they normally pay extra to have no excess on their normal car then it isnt betterment and is recoverable

I think the point is that if the OP had a "scratch or other small incident" in their own car then they wouldn't do anything about it. In the hire car they would have to do something about it.
So if they had their own car they wouldn't have to have zero excess but still wouldn't have to pay out.
Technically it is betterment as in their own car they would have had to suffer the scratch.
But not paying it puts them at a risk they wouldn't have been in in their own car and paying it themselves puts them down on the deal.

Don't know what the answer is.
Maybe for the insurance company to pay for the zero excess and if the OP has a minor incident then cause the same damage to his own car??

InsideInsurance

Quentin wrote: »

And what if the innocent third party has third party cover only?

When you have to get a hire car as a result of a third party crashing your car you normally would add the total cost of the hire and insurance onto your out of pocket claim and be paid.

As long as there isnt betterment, if you were to hire a better car than your own then likewise you wouldnt receive a full reimbursement.

As to TPO cover, the reality is you are not going to find a hire car company offering their cars in the UK with TPO insurance. Whilst technically it is betterment it is not an "optional" thing like the CDW is

To the fact that the OP would ignore the damage of a minor prang in their own car, that may be the case but the value of the vehicle would be reduced by it and so it may not be an immediate out of pocket cost but does ultimately impact the OP all the same.

In my claims days I never once paid a CDW claim but was never litigated against for the courts to judge if my position was appropriate or not.

Quentin

InsideInsurance wrote: »

As long as there isnt betterment, if you were to hire a better car than your own then likewise you wouldnt receive a full reimbursement.

As to TPO cover, the reality is you are not going to find a hire car company offering their cars in the UK with TPO insurance. Whilst technically it is betterment it is not an "optional" thing like the CDW is

To the fact that the OP would ignore the damage of a minor prang in their own car, that may be the case but the value of the vehicle would be reduced by it and so it may not be an immediate out of pocket cost but does ultimately impact the OP all the same.

In my claims days I never once paid a CDW claim but was never litigated against for the courts to judge if my position was appropriate or not.

Yes hirers will insist on comp cover.

You are missing the point. Which was what if the ITP had third party only cover.

You may not personally have paid out ITPs extra insurance costs over hire car/courtesy car excesses but that is anecdotal.

InsideInsurance

Quentin wrote: »

Yes hirers will insist on comp cover.

You are missing the point. Which was what if the ITP had third party only cover.

Not missing the point at all.... with a TP that has TPO on their own vehicle then a hire car is still appropriate and any CDW is still inappropriate as a claim.

The fact it is near on impossible to hire a car without comp cover is not the TP's fault and whilst technically it is betterment still there has to be some pragmatism and an acknowledgement that they cannot physically hire a like for like.

Getting a car without comp cover is almost certainly going to be a niche market player and as such may well be significantly more expensive than a standard hire car with comp cover.

We are in the OPs case however not talking about a compulsory purchase but an optional extra they have chosen to take and pay for. One that improves their situation beyond what they would normally be in and as such they may struggle to get it reimbursed.

Quentin

Hire car and courtesy car excesses are generally higher than normal policy excesses.

You usually cannot choose what level of excess to pay

All you can do is take cdw.

Anecdotally I have always been reimbursed it when an ITP. That proves nothing.

But my suggesion to the op's question does offer him "something to do".

Better than telling him to swallow it.