Help needed arguing Esure's valuation

motorguy

maddogb wrote: »

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

No, we're telling you how it is.

Theres a process that has been followed to arrive at a valuation for your car, and the ombudsman has agreed that that process has been followed and a correct evaluation produced.

You dont seem to be able to grasp that - people here have been more than nice and tried to give objective advice, and also alternative suggestions yet at every opportunity we get aggression and snide comments thrown back at us.

If you've behaved with the insurance company and the ombudsman like you've behaved on here, its little wonder you've ended up with an entrenched situation with noone willing to do anything to help you.

dacouch

dlm wrote: »

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.

The OP has already been to the Ombudsman and they've ruled in the Insurers favour

dacouch

AdrianC wrote: »

Let us know how the court case goes, please.

I'm guessing something along the lines of this case.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2006/1120.html

It's a very long summary but well worth a read as it's an interesting case and an excellent judge

AdrianC

dacouch wrote: »

I'm guessing something along the lines of this case.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2006/1120.html

It's a very long summary but well worth a read as it's an interesting case and an excellent judge

Hoe. Lee. Carp.

Most entertaining, but I'm not sure it's terribly relevant - the OP's case appears to be FAR simpler, and obviously would just be a small claim - and there's no accusation of the level of michael-extraction that the claimant in that case appears to have tried. Just a simple disagreement about a value for a simple used car.

maddogb

Jeus guys ya cudda just said "sorry I have no experience of this at all" if ya just had to post

motorguy

maddogb wrote: »

Jeus guys ya cudda just said "sorry I have no experience of this at all" if ya just had to post

And maybe you could be thankful and greatful to those people who took the time to post as opposed to being a !!!!! about it?

Just because we havent given you the answers you wanted to hear, doesnt mean we're wrong.

I've 25 years experience in or around the motor trade, have had to deal with insurance companies on various occasions relating to accidents i've had or my family has had and also had to deal with a couple of write off situations. Also, have friends and colleagues both in and not in the motor trade who have had dealings with insurance companies for situations like this, and i repeat - again - the insurance company followed the published process to reach a valuation on your car and the ombudsman has agreed with that.

Now if you want to keep having a tantrum and stamping your little feet about it thats fine, but its not going to change that outcome - unless of course your proposing taking on the entire insurance industry and ombudsman in court and have their entire system overturned because YOU have deemed its unfair because theres not an equivalent car for sale down the road from you?

As i said also, given your attitude on here, i can fully understand how you've managed to get an entrenched situation where neither the insurance company or ombudsman are willing to engage further with you.

Nobbie1967

dacouch wrote: »

I'm guessing something along the lines of this case.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2006/1120.html

It's a very long summary but well worth a read as it's an interesting case and an excellent judge

That was a really interesting read, I'm just surprised that the claimant really thought they had a case - clearly deluded. I wonder how much they ended up paying in costs?

Quite relevant to the OP here though. They've had answers to all their questions in the opening post and are still unhappy. The obvious way ahead is to go to court to get the established scheme for ascertaining value ruled unfair, and then take this through to the Supreme Court for a final ruling as you can bet that the industry will want their scheme overturned without a fight. From the evidence in this thread, I don't rate their chances. The ombudsman is just their to give a low cost route for resolving disputes, it that fails then you start paying lawyers...

maddogb

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

Quite relevant to the OP here though. They've had answers to all their questions in the opening post and are still unhappy. The obvious way ahead is to go to court to get the established scheme for ascertaining value ruled unfair, and then take this through to the Supreme Court for a final ruling as you can bet that the industry will want their scheme overturned without a fight. From the evidence in this thread, I don't rate their chances. The ombudsman is just their to give a low cost route for resolving disputes, it that fails then you start paying lawyers...

your trolling is too obvious, the opening post is my questions.
No where in this thread have the questions been answered, people have simply given their opinion on them, mostly consisting of "resistance is futile" but hey I like a challenge.


As the thread has now become very muddled and I can appreciate newcomers not wanting to read through it all I will ask again.


Has anyone ever had any success with arguing against this system of valuation using only trade guides.

Nobbie1967

maddogb wrote: »

your trolling is too obvious

Pot, kettle, black, good luck with the dispute. :rotfl:

motorguy

maddogb wrote: »

Has anyone ever had any success with arguing against this system of valuation using only trade guides.

Yes! :beer:

Heres the process we followed:-

1. Present them with evidence to the contrary
2. Insist its reviewed
3. Await revised offer
4. If the revised offer is to your satisfaction, relax and enjoy buying your new car. If the revised offer is not to your satisfaction, escalate to the Ombudsman for an independent review.
5. Await review
6. If review is successful, go to Step 3.
7. Have you amassed a small fortune to take on insurance industry through international courts if necessary? If YES then see a solicitor and hand over the first of many large suitcases of money. Otherwise go to Step 8
8. You're Stuffed. Move on