Car accident, not our fault - why should we pay for 'courtesy car'?

harryajh

The other driver admitted full responsibilty, all repairs done and car returned but we had (what we were told) by our insurance company a courtesy car.

Now our insurance company is trying to make us pay for (what they call now, a hire car) - we were never told we'd have to pay at all and never signed anything accepting any payment

The company is OneCall (which I've since read look very, very dodgy!), they keep asking me to answer financial questions about our ability to pay, I think this is some sort of marketing scam but not sure

anybody heard of this before?, can they force us to pay for the "rental"?

thanks in advance

chris_m

Check you insurance policy to make certain whether or not a hire car should have been provided. If it should, refer them to the policy.
If not, then you may have to claim the cost from the third party's insurance company.

This is what I see on their website;

Motor Legal Service and Hire Car

One Call car insurance policies include legal assistance FREE. We will provide you with a hire car in the event of a non-fault claim while your car is being repaired.*
We offer you the option to upgrade to Guaranteed Hire Car which includes the use of a hire car for up to 14 days.
We offer the option to upgrade to Guaranteed Hire Car Plus which includes unlimited use of a hire car. We know you need to insure your car, so we give you the best cover possible!
*Please see terms and conditions for further details.

However, the devil will be in the detail.

harryajh

thanks for such a quick reply Chris, in the 4 pdf documents they sent me, I can't find "terms and conditions"

As I'm Full Comprehensive, surely it's up to onecall to claim any costs back? - seems to me like they're trying it on

Marktheshark

Turn it round on them, ask them to provide some proof of claim.
They will know what it means.
A contractual clause stating it is a chargeable, provide means make provision in legal speak, also start the official complaints procedure now IN WRITING WITH CERTIFIED POST to save time with the next level of appeal.

TSx

Generally in these types of situations you have been provided with a credit hire vehicle. This is charged at a higher daily rate than a normal hire on the basis that you couldn't afford normal hire rates.

Usually you will not need to pay any hire charges, the third party will but you will need to co operate with them (providing financial details will show you had no other way to mitigate your loss). If lack of cooperation means they can't recover the charges then you become liable

To be clear you might just want to ask them to confirm the terms and conditions of the hire.

Aretnap

harryajh wrote: »

The company is OneCall (which I've since read look very, very dodgy!), they keep asking me to answer financial questions about our ability to pay, I think this is some sort of marketing scam but not sure

It's not a scam. It's important because your finances affect the amount your insurer can claim from the at fault party's insurer for providing the hire car.

Essentially if you are denied the use of your car by someone crashing into it then you have the right to a get a replacement car and have them pay the costs of it. However you also have a duty to take reasonable steps to keep those costs as low as possible - you can't just push the boat out and spend like there"s no tomorrow because someone else is paying.

That means that if you have plenty of money and can afford it you'd be expected to go down to your local branch of Enterpirse, hire a car with your own money and then send the bill to the third party to reimburse you - because that's the cheapest way of hiring a car. If you're skint you won't be able to afford to do that so you can use a credit hire company, who charge higher rates, but don't demand payment up front.

In practice your insurer will generally provide the hire car without demanding payment up front and then bill the third party on your behalf - but your finances are still important because they affect what your insurer can bill the other insurer for. If you're skint they can claim the full credit hire rates - if you're loaded they can only claim the amount that Enterprise would have charged you.

You will have agreed to assist your insurer with the process of claiming costs on your behalf, either when you took out the policy or when you accepted the hire car, so you must answer the questions about your circumstances as they're part of that process.

harryajh

many thanks for all the answers guys, sort of makes sense now and sounds like it's normal practice.

speaking to them next so when I'm happy it is as above, I'll see what happens, will post back on here when resolved which might help others

stator

It's common practice but it's also very dodgey. They do not make it clear to the insured what they are doing. In my opinion if all contact was recorded and complaints were made they would be in a lot of trouble. In my opinion deals like this are worse than PPI mis-selling

keith1950

The trouble is that people have an accident and say they need a replacement vehicle the same or next day. This invariably means it will be a credit hire vehicle.
If they don't have cover for this on their policy then it is provided on the basis that it will be at no cost to them as long as their insurer can recover the costs from the third party .

magpiecottage

It is reasonable for an insurer to seek to recover what costs it can from a third party.

If the matter were to go to court, then the court would look at what resources the claimant (i.e. the person whose car was hit) to mitigate the loss.

If, for example, my insurance policy said I could have a courtesy car, myinsurance company would provide it in accordance with the terms of the policy. On the other hand, if I cycled to work and did not really need it, I could not claim for a hire car - though I might be entitled to claim for taxis when I did need to go out if public transport was not available at the time (there is one bus a week here!)

If the cost of the taxi fares was less than the cost of the car hire, that is all I could claim for.

So it sounds to me like the OP's insurer is simply trying to establish what they can legitimately claim from the other side.

Although they will look at what a court would actually award you, it is most unlikely that it will get that far.

harryajh

Just wanted to quickly report the end result of this, the advice was spot on - this is normal industry practice and the claim has now been settled without any cost to us for hire/courtesy car - thanks once again!