Help needed arguing Esure's valuation

AdrianC

motorguy wrote: »

There is a recommended, repeatable procedure, which they have followed.

The ombudsman agrees with that.

This really is the key here.

maddoggb - Your insurer have followed what's in the terms and conditions of the policy you bought (whether you read and understood them or not), as interpreted via the guidelines of the industry. The ombudsman, the industry's regulator, has agreed with the way they've done that.

If you want to get any further with persuading not just eSure, but the entire motor insurance industry, to see things your way, you are going to have to take eSure to court for what you believe to be the difference in value - and you are going to have to have a very compelling case as to why the industry regulator's guidelines are wrong if you're not going to be throwing good money after bad.

motorguy

maddogb wrote: »

so that exact wording is in every single policy from every single company?

Probably.

maddogb wrote: »

you are making the incorrect assumption that this method of valuing a car is 100% accurate and fair in 100% of cases, I and CAP, Parker and Glass believe it may not be, hence why these are called prices guides not price lists.

Its an agreed process followed by insurance companies. And supported by the ombudsman.

You might have got a bit less, some people might get a bit more. Its not laser precision accurate but its an agreed process.

maddogb wrote: »

you seem to be forgetting that I have not received one reply that actually answers the question asked and that I have gone to great pains to stop people wasting their and my time posting answers to questions that I didn't ask.

You've had it proven that a fair process was followed and confirmed by the ombudsman.

Doesnt really matter now what you think of the valuation. You're stuffed. Move on.

maddogb wrote: »

no it wasn't an A3, I am not interested in whether or not other people think it is fair, I really don't think fair enters into it, it is simply a rare case where you cannot be fair to both parties and Esure should be the one taking the hit on "unfairness" as they were being paid to do so.

Of course you can be fair to both parties. Thats what its all about. However just because you feel its unfair to you, doesnt mean it is.

You seem to think esure have personally singled you out to give a smaller payout to to boost their profits. They didnt. They just followed a process, came up with a valuation and that has been ratified by the ombudsman

motorguy

There we go, your questions answered, which you said nobody did for you.

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?

Its in E Sures terms and conditions, freely available online.

2. The system itself is flawed on two counts, can it be argued for ignoring it?

No, unless you feel you can change the entire insurance industry.


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.

No. You're stuffed. Move on.

rs65

maddogb wrote: »

so that exact wording is in every single policy from every single company?




.

It's in your policy.

rudekid48

Can only assume that this is the case in hand as there are no other Ombudsman decisions that resemble this case since October 2015.


http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=104553


Quite comprehensive and explains how they decide what is reasonable and also why adverts are unreliable. Also makes mention to the valuation being at the time of loss....


EDIT: Can't be this one as the values differ to much from the OP, still a good indication of how the Ombudsman works though

maddogb

loskie wrote: »

Above from esures ts and Cs.
There is a term of "betterment" ie you are only entitled to be put back in the position you were in no better.
If you disagree with the valuation all you can do is provide ads for similar cars selling at the time of your accident..

Interesting never once have they mentioned this to me

loskie wrote: »

One big mistake that folks make is over valuing their car.

Yeah we are on a different page here, I am not valuing my car at all, I do not pay to insure my car as such, I pay insurance to cover any losses I suffer in the event of an accident, that may include repair to my car, the insurers insist on having the easy way out of a payment.


Lovely to see all you stalwarts of consumer rights here, good to see someone is looking after Esures assets of approx. £1Bn

dacouch

maddogb wrote: »

Yeah we are on a different page here, I am not valuing my car at all, I do not pay to insure my car as such, I pay insurance to cover any losses I suffer in the event of an accident, that may include repair to my car, the insurers insist on having the easy way out of a payment.

You're paying Esure to cover the value of the car at the time immediately prior to the accident eg 2.5 months ago. The cost of how much it will cost you to replace the car now is irrelevant.

What is the easy way out of payment that eSure have taken in your situation. They've valued the car and made you an offer even the Ombudsman have agreed that their value is correct.

Do you have an alternative to the standardised system the Ombudsman has put into place to value cars than the alternative system?

loskie

you really do have issues Mad Gob. I wish you well. With your attitude you will need it.

AdrianC

maddogb wrote: »

Yeah we are on a different page here, I am not valuing my car at all, I do not pay to insure my car as such, I pay insurance to cover any losses I suffer in the event of an accident, that may include repair to my car, the insurers insist on having the easy way out of a payment.

Lovely to see all you stalwarts of consumer rights here, good to see someone is looking after Esures assets of approx. £1Bn

Let us know how the court case goes, please.

dlm

It is quite normal for them to get an average price for your vehicle - usually trade price plus a little extra.

If you CANNOT find a like for like for that price, then you will need to plead your case with evidence to show that cars in your area, same model/age/mileage and condition as not available at that price. If you can prove that - then you have a leg to stand on with negotiating. It is with this evidence, that you approach the ombudsman, whom will look more favourable on you stating you are unable to find a replacement, rather than not being happy with price and taking your word.

Evidence is what they go by - without it, just a few averages from books - give them evidence and you should be OK. I know it DOES work as i recall repairing a vehicle that really should have been written off as there was not much left. Insurer gave go-ahead to repair it due to owner proving the same model was rare and difficult to replace.