Admiral and Albany Assistance Complaints Nightmare

dacouch

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Unfortunately both of those organisations have a significant conflict of interest. The longer you are in hire the more money Albany will attempt to recover from the TPI (or you in worst case) and the garage gets kick backs from Albany and so has no interest in getting the job done within the absolute minimum time possible.

albanyassistance wrote: »

We would like to factually correct the above statement.

Our contracted repairers are paid only for legitimate vehicle repairs approved by independent engineers - this is not a ‘kick back’. Any changes to the agreed repair must be approved by ourselves and the engineers in advance. A repairer artificially extending a repair would not be paid any more than the agreed charge. Third party insurers closely monitor repair duration and cost, they would not pay for repairs that they deemed excessive or unsubstantiated.

Kind Regards,

Albany Assistance Online Team

Correction Correction...

The garage do get a kick back from Albany for referring a Credit Hire customer to AA, you pay them circa £400.

The garage do not get a kick back for repairing the car, no it's actually Albany who get a kick back from the garage. They deduct circa 5% from the garage's invoice when they pay it leaving AA with about 5% of the garage's bill.

hollie.weimeraner

dacouch wrote: »

Correction Correction...

The garage do get a kick back from Albany for referring a Credit Hire customer to AA, you pay them circa £400.

The garage do not get a kick back for repairing the car, no it's actually Albany who get a kick back from the garage. They deduct circa 5% from the garage's invoice when they pay it leaving AA with about 5% of the garage's bill.

Don't forget the totally outrageous hire fees they charge by supplying cars that are clearly far superior to the replacement.

I used to work for solicitors and have taken statements to mitigate the hirers credit hire agreements where the car hire costs far outweigh the actual value of the vehicle being repaired. If these had been factored into the original repair estimates the car would have been written off.

Quite rightly the insurance company were trying to negate the need for top of the range hire cars at inflated rates.

It has caused misery and financial hardship for some hirers simply because they didn't understand the credit hire agreement as they thought they were getting a courtesy car which is totally different.

OnanTheBarbarian

hollie.weimeraner wrote: »

Don't forget the totally outrageous hire fees they charge by supplying cars that are clearly far superior to the replacement.

I used to work for solicitors and have taken statements to mitigate the hirers credit hire agreements where the car hire costs far outweigh the actual value of the vehicle being repaired. If these had been factored into the original repair estimates the car would have been written off.

If the car supplied is a superior group to the damaged car, they will only recover the charges for the group the damaged car was in.

The charges incurred being higher than the repair costs is irrelevant and the situation often is aggravated by the defendant's insurer being less than pro-active in actually authorising repairs or settling the total loss claim. They are well aware hire is taking place as the CHO will have sent them notice they are hiring in line with the GTA

Don't get me wrong, there are some scally outfits within the credit hire world who pull every stunt to drag out the period of hire etc, but the insurers don't bathe themselves in glory as their performance at dealing with claims is typically poor and often prolongs the period of hire and most people who find themselves in a credit hire car come from arrangements made by an actual insurance company. So the insurance industry feed the monster they then complain about.

Scudgie

NEVER USE ALBANY ASSISTANCE

On 17 April I collected my car - that's close to a month after when the repairer took my car for something that I believed was just light damage to my rear bumper.

When collecting it I noticed how filthy it was inside and out and I could see straight away that there was a bulge in the sill of my car (apparently where the car had been jacked up in the wrong place) Rather tense exchange with the Repairer followed who replied that the car arrived like that and he wasn't responsible.

Seething, I drove off. When I got home I inspected the car further and noticed real issues with the quality of the job (Overspray on doors and windows / failure to flatten and polish the resprayed areas / paint not cut in correctly – large grey lines / failure to remove rubber seals before spraying / huge glue marks on the door (which I still haven't been able to remove). Consequently, that evening I rang Albany to complain and this was logged with their ‘rectifications’ team.

They passed the case to an independent assessor who, with the repairer present, inspected the car. The Assessor said it was their preference to have the car go back to the Repairer to rectify – given that he had made a complete mess of my car I refused. Consequently I was advised to obtain a quote from elsewhere. I took it to a reputable local Repair Agent who pointed out all of the problems with the work done – saying basically it would have to start again and would cost £1,600 !!

The Assessor said that the issue regarding the damage to the sill was one of my word against the repairer’s. I provided pictures of the car I took when the original accident occurred.

Mid-May Albany replied that the Repairer would rectify the repair as a matter of goodwill. They said that my photographs were inconclusive and for this reason would not authorise the repair of the sill. They reiterated their Goodwill gesture for the car to go back to the repairer. I complained further at which point they said my original call to the rectifications team hadn’t been treated as a complaint – therefore it would take them 8 weeks to carry out a full investigation and provide a response !!

Today I got their response – entitled ‘Final Response’. Livid doesn't come close to describing how I feel. They have washed their hands of it all together and refuse to offer anything. They say my only recourse is to take the matter to the financial ombudsman.



This is an absolute sham !

Quentin

Scudgie wrote: »

Today I got their response – entitled ‘Final Response’. Livid doesn't come close to describing how I feel. They have washed their hands of it all together and refuse to offer anything. They say my only recourse is to take the matter to the financial ombudsman.



This is an absolute sham !

They have mislead you by saying your only recourse is the FOS as you also can go for direct legal action now.

But the FOS may be worth a try as what ever the outcome there is no cost to you.

They have a rep who tries damage limitation on here whenever the Albany name is mentioned but as you have their final answer to your complaint you really need to escalate to the FOS (or court)

Scudgie

Thank you. I will be seeking the Financial Ombudsman's help. Absolutely disgusted with the attitude of Albany Assistance.

Scudgie

By way of an update, and to provide further warning to people whose insurance broker suggest the services of Albany Assistance, I subsequently wrote to the Financial Ombudsman only to be told that the aspect with which I hold a complaint (the repair) does not fall withing the regulated activities governed by the FCA and therefore cannot be considered by the FO.

'Albany Assistance is not your Insurance Company, it is a claims management company and I believe you were passed on to it by your Insurance Broker when reporting the incident. Therefore, unfortunately, your claim was not made under your own motor insurance policy which would have constitutes a regulated activity'

'The service provided to you by Albany Assistance was to repair your car and provide you with a hire car during the duration of the repair, neither of these activities are regulated in their own right by the FCA. You did however enter into a credit agreement with Albany Assistance for the repairs and whilst some of these services can be regulated for the purpose of our Service, unfortunately yours is exempt'

Is anything ever straight forward? :mad::mad::mad:

magpiecottage

Frustrating as that may be, it is useful to know.

However, I wonder if getting the car repaired constitutes a claims management activity. If it is, the Legal Ombudsman may be able to assist.

I do not know if that is the case but, like FOS, it will only allow six months after the final response to complain. Since that was issued in May and we are almost into November, if you want to try, I suggest cracking on with it.

Legal_Ombudsman

Scudgie wrote: »

By way of an update, and to provide further warning to people whose insurance broker suggest the services of Albany Assistance, I subsequently wrote to the Financial Ombudsman only to be told that the aspect with which I hold a complaint (the repair) does not fall withing the regulated activities governed by the FCA and therefore cannot be considered by the FO.

Hello Scudgie,

We’re sorry to hear that you are unhappy with the service you have received from Albany Assistance. As a claims management company (CMC), they do fall within our scheme and it sounds like we may be able to help you.

We see that magpiecottage has mentioned us in their response and says that we only allow complaints that are within six months of a final response. This is correct if the CMC’s final response tells you about us. If not, then different time limits apply, which can be found on our website: www.legalombudsman.org.uk/cmc along with information and guidance in relation to complaints about CMCs.

We recommend that you contact us as soon as possible. You can telephone us on 0300 555 0333 or email your contact details to [EMAIL="cmc@legalombudsman.org.uk"]cmc@legalombudsman.org.uk[/EMAIL] and we’ll call you back.

Quentin

Legal_Ombudsman wrote: »

This is correct if the CMC’s final response tells you about us. .

It seems that Albany (deliberately?) did tell the OP that he could take the matter higher - but mislead him by telling him the higher authority was the Financial Ombudsman who have told the OP they are exempt from their service.


Isn't the misinformation from Albany itself grounds for allowing a late appeal?


And can Albany be put straight by yourselves over this (to stop them getting away with this as most of their "victims" won't have the benefit of going public as Scudgie has done, and just accept their "fate" at the hands of Albany after discovering too late they have been mislead )?