Help needed arguing Esure's valuation

Ozzuk

As above, and as I didn't read anywhere that you did this. Standard practice on insurance offers is if the first is too low then it's up to you to find examples (usually 3) of cars of the value you are hoping to achieve.

Did you do this?

dacouch

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

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?

It's a great case, enhanced by the deluded customer and finished off by a judge on the top of his game.

The judgement summary is long but well worth a read.

It has a passing relevance to the OP's situation in that it references the relevant court cases that the value of the policyholder's claim is only assessed at the moment immediately prior to the claim. Althoug this can be waived in relatively exceptional situations

bigjl

maddogb wrote: »

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.

To your last question I suspect the answer is No.

maddogb

motorguy wrote: »

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

If you had posted that 4 pages ago we might have had some constructive discussion, I would even ignore the ill perceived "attitude" as it does make a good point at step 2 even though it failed at step one which is down to the ombudsman being too soft IMHO.

Ozzuk wrote: »

As above, and as I didn't read anywhere that you did this. Standard practice on insurance offers is if the first is too low then it's up to you to find examples (usually 3) of cars of the value you are hoping to achieve.

Did you do this?

So far I have not been given opportunity to do so, had I been more aware I might have been more forceful prior to this, having no experience of writeoff situations I trusted Esure to guide me, they have failed miserably to do so.

maddogb

dacouch wrote: »

It's a great case, enhanced by the deluded customer and finished off by a judge on the top of his game.

The judgement summary is long but well worth a read.

It has a passing relevance to the OP's situation in that it references the relevant court cases that the value of the policyholder's claim is only assessed at the moment immediately prior to the claim. Althoug this can be waived in relatively exceptional situations

I think you are being too generous to the claimant, to me it appeared he was trying it on bigtime.
Couldn't really find anything helpful there for me though at 56,000 words I have read shorter novels so may have dozed through some of it.

AdrianC

maddogb wrote: »

If you had posted that 4 pages ago we might have had some constructive discussion

Small problem - you're currently at stage 7, where you were when the thread started. Stage 7 and 8 are just what the entire thread has been telling you, but you wouldn't listen. Stage 7 is a bit over-egged, you'd only be claiming about a grand or so plus any costs you've incurred, so there'd be no need for anything more than a small claim.

I would even ignore the ill perceived "attitude" as it does make a good point at step 2 even though it failed at step one which is down to the ombudsman being too soft IMHO.

Whether the ombudsman is too soft, or you're too unrealistic, is just a matter of perception - and it's not even a particularly relevant one. The only person whose perception matters, if you want to take this forward, is a judge when he reviews your small claim for the difference between the insurer's valuation (as agreed by the ombudsman) and your valuation.

Here's the link to get you started :- https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome

Good luck with that claim. Let us know how it goes.

maddogb

AdrianC wrote: »

Small problem - you're currently at stage 7, where you were when the thread started. Stage 7 and 8 are just what the entire thread has been telling you, but you wouldn't listen. Stage 7 is a bit over-egged, you'd only be claiming about a grand or so plus any costs you've incurred, so there'd be no need for anything more than a small claim.

Whether the ombudsman is too soft, or you're too unrealistic, is just a matter of perception - and it's not even a particularly relevant one. The only person whose perception matters, if you want to take this forward, is a judge when he reviews your small claim for the difference between the insurer's valuation (as agreed by the ombudsman) and your valuation.

Here's the link to get you started :- https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome

Good luck with that claim. Let us know how it goes.

You only get one chance in court, to make it count do not go in half prepared, I know, been there several times and never lost.
Not at stage 7 at all, there is a stage 7b and possibly a stage 7c as well and who is too say you can't go back to stage 2 first?
Interesting that Esure have presented only one item of evidence to the ombudsman, the item they admit to ignoring.
If necessary to and if I can gather the resources and will power to go to that stage I will gladly let people know, unfortunately from seeing it happen in the past it is far too easy for manipulators to have this removed.

AdrianC

So what are stages 7b and 7c?
Given that you've completed stage 6, why would you not be at stage 7?
You can stage 2 all you like, but you won't be going back to stage 3, that's for sure.
You might, if hell is looking like it has a particularly heavy frost, get agreement to back to stage 5 - but why would the outcome be any different?

If you want to keep trying, stage 7 is your only remaining hope, unless and until you gradually come to accept stage 8 is inevitable.

maddogb

AdrianC wrote: »

So what are stages 7b and 7c?
Given that you've completed stage 6, why would you not be at stage 7?
You can stage 2 all you like, but you won't be going back to stage 3, that's for sure.
You might, if hell is looking like it has a particularly heavy frost, get agreement to back to stage 5 - but why would the outcome be any different?

If you want to keep trying, stage 7 is your only remaining hope, unless and until you gradually come to accept stage 8 is inevitable.

you see how we are both getting distracted with irrelevant non existent stages? this is the same tactic Esure have used.


For anyones info
After the ombudsmans adjudicator has given their decision you can ask for a reconsideration and final decision(lets call that stage 7b)
After that you can also make a complaint with the ombudsman, i'm gonna call that stage 3 as I don't really call "waiting" a stage

maddogb

OK so far I have come up with these arguments against the system of valuation.


1. Using guides as price lists.
This allows insurers to make decisions based on maths alone contravening industry guidelines.


2. Using "historical data"
All the guides use historical data and compile it from sales past contradicting insurers own statement that the value of pay-out is fixed at time of loss.


3. Reliability
The price guides are vulnerable in nature, compiling and amalgamating so much data presents many areas of risk from human input error to digital errors. quick calculations suggest that each guide may contain as many as 2500 errors. (research suggests that common data input errors can average 0.5% I found one published figure quoting a price guide as containing prices for 5600 Cars, have allowed for 10 years(so x10) and 5 model variant's (x5)


4. Selective use of Guides.
The FOS allows selective use to combat the possibility of error with two of the three companies utilising data sharing, propagation of an error increases the risk of the insurers exploiting any error.
This is published on their website.


5. Selective use of Data
The ombudsman adjudicators appear to allow this, very dangerous as increases the likelihood of errors being over looked, I can produce evidence of this in my own personal circumstance, being the only write off claim I have made in 30 years of motoring I must assume its common place.


6. Despite trying very hard I cannot think of a single benefit to the consumer from using these guides over and above calling a local reputable dealer.


You guys got any more?