Are Write-Offs (Total Loss Vehicles) Appropriated Lawfully

dacouch

You should go into politics

stator

I love a good conspiracy theory _party_

rudekid48

Would pompous bell end be overly harsh?

rs65

Fun Boy Three

antrobus

I look forward to reading the judgement in the case of paddyjoe26 vs ABC Insurance plc.

Kamanzi

Following the thread of conversation, I have been inundated with calls from Claimsonline and another such company, claiming that since my car was written off (other driver's fault, I am actually entitled to some compensation. Does anyone know what kind of compensation they are talking about?
Somebody briefly explained that the fault driver's insurers would have paid compensation to my insurer, is this true? Can I make a claim for this directly? Thank you.

forgotmyname

Kamanzi wrote: »

Following the thread of conversation, I have been inundated with calls from Claimsonline and another such company, claiming that since my car was written off (other driver's fault, I am actually entitled to some compensation. Does anyone know what kind of compensation they are talking about?
Somebody briefly explained that the fault driver's insurers would have paid compensation to my insurer, is this true? Can I make a claim for this directly? Thank you.

No there is no compensation set aside for you. If there was they would have paid it.
They want you to lie and say you were injured. If they phone say i will fetch him.her and leave the phone on the side until they take the hint and hang up.

Aretnap

Kamanzi wrote: »

Somebody briefly explained that the fault driver's insurers would have paid compensation to my insurer, is this true? Can I make a claim for this directly? Thank you.

What "somebody" means is that your insurer paid for the damage to your car, they will then have reclaimed the money from the at fault driver's insurer. So it's ultimately the other guy's insurer who ends up paying for your car. If you wanted to you could have claimed directly from the other guy's insurers instead of your own, but it would have made little difference to you in the long run - either way you end up with the money for a new car. What you cannot do is claim the money for two new cars - one from your own insurer and one from the other insurer.

What the scammers who are phoning you are trying to do is persuade you to pretend that ou were injured in the accident and make a fraudulent claim for personal injury compensation. Obviously this is illegal and if it went wrong you could end up in prison but they don't care - they get paid either way. They'll tell you every lie under the sun about how there is a pot of money set aside for you, about how legally the insurer has to pay you etc. none of it is true. Just hang up on them as you would any other cold calling scam artist.

InsideInsurance

Kamanzi wrote: »

Somebody briefly explained that the fault driver's insurers would have paid compensation to my insurer, is this true? Can I make a claim for this directly? Thank you.

No, no compensation is paid to your insurers. The third party insurer will simply have paid back the insurers expenses and only their allocated so their unallocated expenses (their in house claim staff, the cost of the building they work in etc) are a cost your insurer continue having to carry.

As others have said, these are just cold calling marketeers trying to get you to agree to make an injury claim and assuming you do agree they make commission selling your details to solicitors to represent you.

dacouch

paddyjoe26 wrote: »

Nearlyold
“I guess by extrapolating the OP’s logic if the insurance company paid out on a theft claim and the car eventually found the OP would expect the car back and still keep the insurance pay out.”
This conclusion is reductio ad absurdum.
Check your premises, and follow the dictum of street wisdom; “When all else fails read the label.” An extrapolation of a falsehood inevitably conceives another. Is it unfair to suggest that logical thinking is not your forte; but on your wish list?
One; the contract accepts liability for theft.
Two; if the vehicle is found and returned before the cash settlement has been agreed and accepted by the policyholder, the vehicle still belongs to the registered owner. If the vehicle has been damaged the contractual liability for damage is enforced; not liability for theft.
Three; if the cash settlement has been agreed and accepted by the registered owner, and the vehicle is subsequently found, the stolen vehicle belongs to the insurer. The transfer of ownership would have been completed by the acceptance of the price offered. Clearly, the cash settlement on offer in the event of theft is for the vehicle, and the acceptance is on this clear understanding, in accordance with the contract. On the other had the settlement for damage, whether or not it is called an indemnity or a debt, cannot legally be transposed to include the vehicle. The vehicle per se is not contractually insured other than for loss or theft. Therefore, the agreed settlement accepted by the policyholder for damage, does not include the vehicle. A contractual term ending with; “the vehicle then belongs to us” is void, by transgressing the Sale of Goods Act.

#Parklife




.
.