Are Write-Offs (Total Loss Vehicles) Appropriated Lawfully

paddyjoe26

"Whilst we are unable to give legal advise, we note that it appears open to insurers to argue that the transfer of the vehicle is a contractual condition of the insurer paying market value, not compensation for not carrying out repair work." (Director of General Insurance and Protection: FCA)

This is ludicrous and illogical. The contracts generally express these terms in plain, intelligible english which should not cause this confusion.

The occurrence of damage and not a transfer of the vehicle, is the obvious contractual condition and requirement for the insurers to pay out a sum of money. If the damage is perceived to be economical to repair, the repairer is paid for the costs of repair. If the damage costs more than the market value, it is considered uneconomical to repair, As the total loss damage is not repaired, the money is paid direct to the policyholder. How much should be paid? This is clearly expressed by the contracts.

The actual cost of the damage? No, the contract expressly caps the amount to be paid out at the market value of the vehicle. For the FCA to suggest that the insurer is paying market value for the vehicle is a feeble attempt to justify the appropriation of total loss vehicles.

It is in my view a dereliction of duty for the FCA to choose to regurgitate insurance spin instead of applying its resources in analyzing the contract terms. Like reading them without holding onto a preconceived and unreliable premise that the policyholder is returned to the same financial position post accident by the cash settlement.

As discussed in a previous post, we know that the policyholder is most unlikely to be returned to their original financial position.

paddyjoe26

rs65 wrote: »

If you want to change the law, maybe start with your MP?

Nothing will change, unless the millions of total loss victims and potential victims put pressure on their MP's to fight for a statutory change to the remit. There is no need to change the existing general laws. We only need them to be recognized and implemented, by policyholders putting pressure on the government to make the relevant changes to the devious FCA remit. This is a matter for the legislature but the status quo will obstinately remain intact without intense pressure from the policyholders to make the changes.

The total loss narrative is dominated by the insurance industry with the tacit agreement of the regulator (FCA), through its statutory remit. In order to change the status quo of appropriations, the change has to be politically motivated and driven.

General law with all of the consequences cannot, as a matter of good faith, be denied as a factor in the assessment of fairness of a contract term. It is only the dodgy FCA remit which prevents this actual, logical, and lawful process from being implemented. Fairness and good faith cannot be cleaved apart; without good faith there is no fairness and without fairness there cannot be good faith. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR's) recognizes this fact by making provision for general laws to be considered under Regulation 6(1) in the final stages of assessing a contract term for fairness.

David_InsDef

'Millions of total loss victims'?

Qualify that.

molerat

David_InsDef wrote: »

'Millions of total loss victims'?

Qualify that.

Paddyjoe was happily talking to himself and you had to come along and feed him

Thrugelmir

molerat wrote: »

Paddyjoe was happily talking to himself and you had to come along and feed him

Sounds like one half of a divorcing couple that's merely substantiating their own viewpoint rather than keeping an open mind.

paddyjoe26

What can a total loss victim do now to achieve the best outcome in the present circumstances? Admittedly, the options are not easy as the necessity to get mobile again as soon as possible puts pressure on one to accept the settlement terms. The following suggestions, however, may be useful:

1: Ask the insurer to find you a replacement vehicle for your total loss. This is usually a contractual condition, but the insurer normally reserves the right for it to choose between a replacement, or a cash settlement. Try it anyway.

2: Check the cost of a replacement vehicle before negotiating a settlement payout. Refuse to accept any amount less than this replacement cost. The replacement value should be at the epicentre of the argument that the total loss claimant should be fully reimbursed by the cash settlement. In other words keep the cost of the replacement vehicle as the focal point of your argument for the cash settlement, and not the perceived market value of the total loss. Obtain robust evidence to support your claim.

The principle of returning the policyholder to the same financial position post accident is pivotal to the insurers own argument for appropriating the total loss vehicle. The ABI, the FCA, the FOS and the UTCCR's (Regulation 5(1)) accept this principle so insist on it for yourself.

3: Negotiate for a transfer of the remaining period of the insurance policy to your replacement vehicle, using the same argument for returning you to your pre-accident financial position. It is suggested that regulation 5(1) of the UTCCR's will support you in claiming the balance of your premium, either as a pro-rata refund or as a transfer to the new policy.

4: If you want to retain your total loss vehicle, you could use the evidence the industry provided to the CMA inquiry, as quoted in my posting dated 22nd August 2015. Contradicting the evidence given to the CMA inquiry would be serious breach of good faith by the insurer.

5: If your comprehensive policy includes car hire as a normal benefit covered by your premium, you should insist on receiving what you have paid for, regardless of a term in the contract excluding this benefit. It can be argued that you had no opportunity or power to change the term in a non negotiated contract, but you have paid for the benefit anyway. Again, Regulation 5(1) of the UTCCR's comes into play.

6: All policyholders owning a car with a market value of less than £3000 are potential total loss victims. It's in your hands to change the FCA remit by contacting your MP to argue for the necessary changes. Your total loss accident will be too late.