Accident in borrowed vehicle

Parking_Trouble

rs65 wrote: »

A brief read of LV MLE suggests they should help. Some MLE only cover whilst driving the insured car so maybe LV staff need a bit of training.

ps I hope it does cover this

Thanks.So do I. It will make life so much easier all round.

Under definition of "Your vehicle" it does say

The insured vehicle shown on your schedule
including when you drive another vehicle
which isn’t yours.

Nothing surprises me when it come to get out clauses so fingers crossed.

MLE document is here

http://www.lv.com/assets/gi/pdfs/car/mle/fs21334146-lv-motor-legal-expenses-leaflet-a.pdf

Parking_Trouble

So grey car driver got me to talk to the MLE solicitor and he made the point that it is the owner of the vehicle that has incurred the loss not the driver.

So need to look at whether he has MLE as an option but in the meantime he recommends the owner writes to DL and start playing hardball. Which is what I would be doing.

OnanTheBarbarian

Post #14

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

The owner of the Focus needs to really bring the claim for the vehicle as it is their property.

Any claim for the damaged car needs to be presented in the name of the vehicle owner, along with any other losses they are needing to claim for.

I know you are doing your best to assist here and that the workmate of your wife who was driving the Focus probably feels guilty and compelled to help as the damage happened on their watch, but they are not liable for the damages and it is not their property that is damaged.

It is 5 days on from the collision and the claim has not actually got out of the starting blocks really. Trust me, a stern letter to DL is just going to be met with "we deny liability" or "we are making enquiries" and that position will quite possibly remain for several weeks+ until they come to their senses. In the meantime, the owner of the damaged focus presumably remains without a working car?

I repeat the contents of post #39

Parking_Trouble

LV= case handler is now looking into. They have spoken to her witness and asking for the photo's.

Well done LV= my faith in their customer service has been restored (at least for the time being)

No cover = No claim ?

Maybe good customer service will prevail over process and small print.

I will keep you informed.

This journey might have greater twists in it than white car driver's right turn.

magpiecottage

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

@Magpiecottage I have looked at the LV= policy document. I cannot see where it explains the gotcha where they wash their hands of you for a non-fault claim.

How about the bit in the certificate of insurance that says:

Driving other cars:
Then cover is restricted to liability for third party damage and third party injury.

It is about half way down on the right hand side of the one I just checked.

Also, if you look at the "Key Facts" document, provided at outset, the "Significant Exclusions section says very clearly "Cover for “driving other cars” is third party only. Loss or damage to the vehicle you are driving is not covered if you are
driving under this extension".

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

No cover = No claim ?

Maybe good customer service will prevail over process and small print.

But if LV spend time (and thus money) helping somebody about something for which they are not insured, the cost of doing so must come from somewhere. That will, in the end, be other policyholders.

That could be seen as a breach of FCA Principle 8.

It is also not small print - it is very clear.

Parking_Trouble

The point I have been trying to make perhaps not clearly, is that most consumers would expect some sort of service from their own insurer.

I know it is not possible to claim for damage to the borrowed vehicle but it was caused by the negligence of the other driver.

Just an initial review of the case to establish fault between the insurers to get DL to wake up and do the right thing.

This is about being fair to customers.

It is also not small print - it is very clear.

Errm, no it's not clear actually. Maybe to you after a day of searching for evidence to support your view, but not Joe Public.

As Lord Denning once said "No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions"

magpiecottage

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

The point I have been trying to make perhaps not clearly, is that most consumers would expect some sort of service from their own insurer.

You are demanding a service you have not paid for.

I know it is not possible to claim for damage to the borrowed vehicle but it was caused by the negligence of the other driver.

So your quarrel is with the other driver, not the insurer who would meet any claim against you.

Just an initial review of the case to establish fault between the insurers to get DL to wake up and do the right thing.

but it is, quite literally, none of LV's business.

This is about being fair to customers.

If you think you have not been treated fairly, put in a complaint - but I do not think you have much chance of success. To be honest, I suspect an Ombudsman would use FCA rule DISP 3.3.4 R (3) to dismiss such a complaint without considering its merits.

Parking_Trouble

I run a consultancy to help Independent Financial Advisers to comply with their rules and resolve complaints.

Ahh! That explains it all.

Nothing to do with Customer Service just the T&C's

LV= have started dealing with it anyway, perhaps common sense might prevail.
Or the mad driver in the white car has started a claim and LV= have to react.

I promise to let you know.

magpiecottage

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Ahh! That explains it all.

It does indeed.

I know that businesses are required to treat customers fairly - but I know too that they are required to manage conflicts of interest between it customers fairly.

If LV wastes time, and money, dealing with a "claim" over something for which you are not covered then it will have to pass that cost on to its other customers. That is not fair on them.

And I know that if you take a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service then it can dimiss a complaint without considering its merits if there is no realistic prospect of success.

Given that the Key Facts document and the insurance certificate clearly say there is no cover for damage to the vehicle being driven, I think that this is a rule that the Ombudsman would almost certainly use.

In the end, though, it seems that, despite LV clearly saying that there is no cover relating to damage to the vehicle being driven unless it is the one specified in the policy, you have assumed a benefit which never existed.

I cannot see how that is LV's fault.

If you disagree, you can complain - but I can see where it will (or perhaps I should say won't) go.

Parking_Trouble

No intent to raise a complaint.

The problem is primarily with DL.

Their customer is liable and yet it seems they don't lift a finger because their dishonest customer denies it was their fault. Everyone sits back and does nothing, leaving the victim high and dry.

The point about LV= is that (in my opinion) they should provide some assistance to establish who is at fault. They could be liable and surely want to know? At least

If it's not white car drivers fault why wouldn't they claim off our friend? That should surely make DL suspicious.

Amazed that both insurers point people at CMC's
Seems they have become a necessary and expensive evil.