Car hit from behind, other driver admitted fault but my car deemed to old for repair?

Captain_Flack.

Belinea2010 wrote: »

I expected a hire car for the duration it took to settle my claim, from the moment my car was hit until a financial settlement is agreed.

That's what I'm paying my insurance for...

You seem to forget, it's not my fault my car was hit.

But you aren't claiming via your insurance are you?

The procedure would be the same if you were uninsured,

Lum

AdrianC wrote: »

If the OP genuinely has injuries, then they should be doing that anyway.

If they don't, then what you're suggesting is fraud. Yes, it is that simple.

The OP has already stated that they have injuries so your insinuations about fraud are irrelevant.

There are plenty of people who get legit injuries but decide that they don't want to participate in the whole claims culture thing. This is a perfectly fine moral position to take, however I was advising the OP not to do so as they are getting screwed on every other aspect of the claim and this is the only way they can really even it out a bit.

(With my partner's one, we still ended up with a shortfall of about a grand even with the injury claim, and not taking into account the increase in premiums for having a non-fault claim on her record)

Belinea2010_2

AdrianC wrote: »

The reason is irrelevant.

The reason is completely relevant.

If the car breaks down and is not available to use because I neglected to keep it serviced then that is my fault and any consequences of this are for me to sort out

But

This situation is NOT my fault and I can not believe you seem to be favouring the at fault party in your posts.

What part of she hit me and admitted fault are you finding difficulty in understanding?

This why we all pay car insurance in the first place. If I hit her then my insurer pays, if she hits me then her insurers pays, this is a basic principle of motor insurance.

AdrianC wrote: »

The way it usually works is that your insurer deals with your side of it, then liases with the other insurer to repay the final bill.

Completely agree but this is not what seems to be happening.

As I said in my original post....

Up until the moment my insurers engineer reported my car was uneconomical to repair they were claiming my costs from the other party but now it's been declared uneconomic they stopped the car hire and have seem to be going through a "write off" procedure on MY policy.

They have said they want their agent to collect my car and I should transfer the ownership of my car to them.

This is what I do not understand, I do not want to claim on my policy, it should be claimed on the at fault persons policy.

AdrianC wrote: »

Who did you first ring when you were hit? Whose claim form did you fill in? Who's providing your hire car? Your insurer? Their insurer? A third party accident management company?

As soon as I returned home I rang my insurers to report the incident and tell them that the other party admits full responsibility.
My insurer then went through a process over the phone filling in a form to claim from the other party.
My insurer arranged a hire car but said the cost would be claimed from the other party.
My insurer then handed my claim to a third party claims company who would handle the claim against the other party.
Now the car has been deemed uneconomic to repair, the third party company has handed it back to my insurer who has now asked me to transfer ownership to them.

Hence my original post in this forum

Belinea2010_2

Captain_Flack. wrote: »

But you aren't claiming via your insurance are you?

The procedure would be the same if you were uninsured,

You are confusing me here...

Captain_Flack.

Belinea2010 wrote: »

You are confusing me here...

Doesn't take much then.

AdrianC

Belinea2010 wrote: »

If the car breaks down and is not available to use because I neglected to keep it serviced then that is my fault and any consequences of this are for me to sort out

How about if it just breaks down? It's a sub-grand car. They do that. And that's not always down to maintenance, or even predictable, either.

I can not believe you seem to be favouring the at fault party in your posts.

Nor should you believe it, because that's not what I'm saying. Not one bit. I'm not "favouring" anybody, nor have I once mentioned the other driver.

What part of she hit me and admitted fault are you finding difficulty in understanding?

I'd be grateful if you'd be so kind as to point me to where I've commented on the collision?

As soon as I returned home I rang my insurers to report the incident and tell them that the other party admits full responsibility.
My insurer then went through a process over the phone filling in a form to claim from the other party.

There y'go, then. You started the ball off by claiming from YOUR insurance... What do your policy's Ts & Cs say about hire car provision in the event of a total loss claim?

My insurer then handed my claim to a third party claims company who would handle the claim against the other party.

...who have passed it to a third party acting on their behalf.

The one company you AREN'T dealing with is the other driver's insurance company.

AdrianC

Lum wrote: »

The OP has already stated that they have injuries

They've said their neck & shoulder are sore.

so your insinuations about fraud are irrelevant.

Take both of the sentences in that post together, and it might be a bit more obvious what I was saying.

Belinea2010_2

Captain_Flack. wrote: »

Doesn't take much then.

There is no need to be rude.

If you are not going to offer something constructive and don't have the intelligence or knowledge to contribute then kindly stop trolling and trying to wind people up for your own smug pleasure.

Your replies have been ill informed, antagonistic and show that if you did read my original post (which clearly explains everything) you have chosen to ignore it and just make snide remarks.

I for one, will no longer reply to any posts you make.

Belinea2010_2

Do all threads on this site go round and round in circles with trolls hijacking for their own smug satisfaction?

What about actually helping people with plain and honest advice based on YOU actually having the appropriate experience that qualifys your posts.

dacouch

Belinea2010 wrote: »

Well they have and they have not.

As I explained in my original post.......

They provided a hire car while my car was being assessed by my insurers engineer but as soon as the engineer declared my car uneconomical to repair they cancelled the hire car.

What you said in your first post was

Belinea2010 wrote: »

Hi

Hire is limited to a specific length and after that I would have to pay.

A week later I get a call from the hire car company saying my insurer is stopping payment for my hire car and I should return it by 6pm. I rang the company appointed by my insurers to handle the claim and they said that garage had inspected my car and reports that it is not economical to repair although it is drivable .

There is a key difference, you car was drivable and you have a duty to mitigate your losses. This is why the credit hire company with drew the car.

The claim itself is probably not being dealt with by your own Insurers who I'm guessing are Admiral, they have probably farmed it out to a claims management company (Albany) whose MO is to drag claims out