Help needed arguing Esure's valuation

maddogb

On boxing day i was unlucky enough to get my car "swamped out" by an oncoming vehicle whilst driving thru some flood water.
Esure my insurance company decided to write it off over the phone and collected the vehicle a week later.
Whilst i was out dealing with the collection a chap from esure left a message on my answering machine with. an offer of settlement.
To cut a long story short two weeks later i get the offer increased by approx %5 (original offer £2850, upped to £3000)
Now this offer would normally be reasonable but...
The nearest i have found always are priced so much higher its going to leave me out of pocket by £1000 plus, not the £250 excess i was expecting to pay. have put in a claim with the ombudsman but after speaking to a adjudicator i am not hopeful here as they use the same standardised system as Esure claim to, checking 3 guide books and averaging but discount one value if it differs from the other two by a considerable margin.

Questions are

1. I have no recollection of ever seeing agreement to this standardised system of valuation in my policy etc, how can they insist on using that to preform a valuation of my claim for losses?

2. The system itself is flawed on two counts, can it be argued for ignoring it?
a. Two of the guides appear to use the same data (CAP and Parkers) so there is less chance of them differing by much and an equal chance
of flawed data affecting their value vs the 3rd guide.
( Glass's guide gave a higher value but)they have ignored that because the other two align.
b. The guides contain historical data, in this situation what a car sold for pre-flood era is irrelevent to what they can be sold for now

3. Is there any other method of obtaining a higher valuation, I have collected loads of adverts demonstrating my point but they simply refuse to consider them.

As I cannot obtain a like for like replacement I have found a very similar car, a year older but has slightly lower mileage.but it is £3995. I know if I don't sort this out soon that car will be gone..!

straighttalker

Did you agree to an agreed valuation of your car prior to starting the policy? If not, you're going to be in difficulty.

maddogb

Are agreed value policies even available on standard cars? never seen or been offered one but I can see the difficulty already hence the post.
To be fair my policy states market value and it is partly the ombudsman's offices fault they have allowed insurers to redefine the English term "market value" to suit themselves, it now means people rarely replacement value.

s_b

I guess because they cant claim off the other party they are trying to mitigate their losses if they refuse to acknowledge you cant get like for like, so i guess the devil is in the terms you agreed to.

maddogb

Sorry not sure what you mean there by "refuse to acknowledge"?

It's so infuriating the wall of obstacles they build to try and shaft the customers, you know when it comes down to it they will claim mistakes and confusion but there should be a punitive measure available to customers as a deterrent.

motorguy

maddogb wrote: »

Now this offer would normally be reasonable but...
The nearest i have found always are priced so much higher its going to leave me out of pocket by £1000 plus,

When you say "would normally be reasonable but", why the normally but?

Is that a reasonable offer for your car normally, however there are differences to your car over the normal one?

What car is it? Make, model, year, miles?

dacouch

maddogb wrote: »

Questions are

1. I have no recollection of ever seeing agreement to this standardised system of valuation in my policy etc, how can they insist on using that to preform a valuation of my claim for losses?

2. The system itself is flawed on two counts, can it be argued for ignoring it?
a. Two of the guides appear to use the same data (CAP and Parkers) so there is less chance of them differing by much and an equal chance
of flawed data affecting their value vs the 3rd guide.
( Glass's guide gave a higher value but)they have ignored that because the other two align.
b. The guides contain historical data, in this situation what a car sold for pre-flood era is irrelevent to what they can be sold for now

3. Is there any other method of obtaining a higher valuation, I have collected loads of adverts demonstrating my point but they simply refuse to consider them.

As I cannot obtain a like for like replacement I have found a very similar car, a year older but has slightly lower mileage.but it is £3995. I know if I don't sort this out soon that car will be gone..!

1) What do you propose as an alternative system that allows an industry wide standardised system that is deemed to be a fair system by an independent adjudicator?

2 a) I'm not aware of any connection

2 b) Your Insurance claim is settled on the pre flood value of the vehicle, not the current value.

maddogb

motorguy wrote: »

When you say "would normally be reasonable but", why the normally but?

Is that a reasonable offer for your car normally, however there are differences to your car over the normal one?

What car is it? Make, model, year, miles?

I have deliberately left out details as I don't want trolls trawling thru auto trader to point out cars hundreds of miles away " described " as comparable to my car at the valuation esure have offered.

What I mean by "but" is, according to esure, I should be able to source a comparable replacement in the retail market "but" I cannot with 6 weeks of trying.

maddogb

dacouch wrote: »

1) What do you propose as an alternative system that allows an industry wide standardised system that is deemed to be a fair system by an independent adjudicator?

2 a) I'm not aware of any connection

2 b) Your Insurance claim is settled on the pre flood value of the vehicle, not the current value.

Go on then, for one post I will go off topic
1. Why do you think there is any need for such a system from a consumers perspective, do you think we can trust people who are paid by the motor trade including insurers to produce these "guides"
2.check out the cap website for companies they work with.
3. If talking days it matters not but to be fair if you pay a bill late you pay interest, allowed in all areas of finance and law.

dacouch

maddogb wrote: »

Go on then, for one post I will go off topic
1. Why do you think there is any need for such a system from a consumers perspective, do you think we can trust people who are paid by the motor trade including insurers to produce these "guides"
2.check out the cap website for companies they work with.
3. If talking days it matters not but to be fair if you pay a bill late you pay interest, allowed in all areas of finance and law.

1. Are you seriously suggesting the trade value publishers are colluding with Insurers to keep prices low while I assume you are accusing the motor traders of pressurising them to keep the prices high.

3. Assuming the delays are the Insurers mistake they may well agree to also pay you compensation and / or increase their valuation. Equally if the delays are your fault then the Insurer is not obliged

bigjl

dacouch wrote: »

1. Are you seriously suggesting the trade value publishers are colluding with Insurers to keep prices low while I assume you are accusing the motor traders of pressurising them to keep the prices high.

3. Assuming the delays are the Insurers mistake they may well agree to also pay you compensation and / or increase their valuation. Equally if the delays are your fault then the Insurer is not obliged

Of course he is.

Dark Matter lives again.