Car Insurance - Without Drive Assist!

Sunday_Morning

Another thought just occured to me.

If I ran into another car, there's no way on earth my insurance company would just accept at face value the third party's assessment of the damage caused and the cost incurred as a result.

So what legal right have DRIVE ASSIST got to do that to me?

rabialiones

i have also not as yet had a reply to email i sent them.
can they just take payment from the credit card details they first took?

Mrs_pbradley936

I am assuming that you do not have legal cover and that is why you are getting involved with all of this yourself. Drive Assist were appointed to provide me with a courtesy car at one time (another time it was Enterprise) but I was never asked to give them any money. When they came I had to be there while they inspected the car and had to agree with them on the condition of it and they gave me a copy of the paperwork. It did have alloy wheels and I had to agree to give them £200 if they were damaged but no money up front. When I gave the car back I had the copy of the original form to hand and had the driver sign that the car was in the same condition it was delivered in just 400 odd miles more on the clock.

Lots of people use them because they are such a big firm but if I were you I would make sure to get legal cover then you could just report it all to the solicitor handling the case.

PasturesNew

I had somebody open a door onto my wing a few years back.
I was working 50 miles from home at the time.
On trying to claim, I thought the process was: tell insurance, get quotes, they would ascertain whose fault it was, if all OK to go ahead at no cost to me get the work done.

But Drive Assist got involved. They wanted me to take the car to a garage 20 miles from my house, 35 from where I work. To be fixed.

But I wanted to know first that the driver whose details I had DID exist and he DID have insurance and he wasn't denying it before I had any work done. Couldn't get these assurances.

And so with the geographical complexities I never bothered to pursue it. Just lived with the dent.

I had ideas that if I'd taken it to the garage, had it fixed, then there'd be some "Problem" and I'd end up paying for it. Probably something ridiculous like £500-600. When I'd rather have the dent in the wing than in my wallet.

Mrs_pbradley936

Sunday_Morning wrote: »

And which Insurance Companies out there do fully comp the way it really ought to be done? I understand why and don't mind other companies are used. But I want my insurers to deal with the other companies leaving me to deal with the company I signed a contract with. For example, for the type of "no fault" accident we were involved with, I can't see why it shouldn't be my insurance company paying out in full and reclaiming from heir appointed company instead of me.

I do know the answer to this one! Ever since the internet became popular and you could check the cheapest car insurance with sites like confused, they have made what used to be included as standard add ons. So if like me you have always had a policy which included courtesy car, legal cover, get you home or pay hotel bill etc. Now you will find that those extras are taken out so that their quote is favourable when compared to others. Then if you want legal it is an extra £25. Want a courtesy car? That will be an extra £35. Take your care to Europe on holiday or for a booze run? That will be £60 for up to 90 days per annum.

If like me and other half you are over 25 have a garage/drive and live in a reasonable post code you insurance will only differ by about £50 between companies and you will not tend to shop around. If you are young and/or park in the street in what they think is a bad area you quotes will differ by £100s.

rabialiones

Sunday_Morning wrote: »

I've had no acknowledgement of the email I sent them so far.

Their letter stated that if they did not hear from me within 14 days they would process the debit.

What's the legal perspective on this? I can't see how it gives them any legal rights to state this, but if they go ahead and process the debit anyway despite my email, and I refuse to pay because I think they have no right to the money, do they end up with the "power" of getting me a bad name on credit history?

hi, just wondered if you have had any luck?
i have not received any reply yet to my email!

Sunday_Morning

Well, a month after my email, without any interim acknowledgement on their part of receiving my email and just when I thought the matter had been forgotten about, , I got a letter from Drive Assist advising that they are continue to pursue the claim and will debit the card for which they have the details this coming friday, 2nd November. The basis of their argument appears to be the signatures on the before and after dockets. But the signatures were made on a hand held device and presented as being no more than to acknowledge the receipt and return of the car. their dockets are an electonic representation of something which we were never shown, nor verbally informed about. This surely represents "mis- selling" at its worst.

Here's what I have sent, in letter and email form, in return....

October 27, 2007
Drive Assist UK Ltd
Tamworth House,
Ventura Park,
Tamworth,
Staffordshire,
B78 3LY

Attn Leigh Dicks

Dear Sirs

Your Ref: xxxx
Our Ref: xxxxx
Vehicle Reg: xxx

We write further to your correspondence dated 26th October 2007 on the above matter.

You will be fully aware, from our email correspondence of 25th September, 2007, that we dispute your allegation that the vehicle in question was damaged while in our care.

To insinuate that our signature, made on a handheld electronic device upon the return of the car, was anything but a signature to confirm its return, is nonsense in our opinion. You have provided no proof whatsoever that the alleged damage exists, the extent of it, or that it occurred while the vehicle was in our possession. We would draw your attention to the following;-

- Nothing was said or done to bring our attention to such damage when the car was picked up, nor was it shown on the device upon which we were asked to provide our signature;

- Your letter of 2nd July 2007, enclosing before and after "signed" documentation, did not specifically relate to any differences or charges that would be levied as a result, nor did it invite us to dispute any changes that were highlighted. The first time you alleged that damaged had taken place for which you would charge us was over two months later, in your letter dated 14th September 2007, which was the first occasion we were invited to dispute the allegation;-


- You have provided no evidence that the said damage was documented in any subsequent hire of the car;

- You have provided no receipts that account for the cost of repairing the said damage;


Therefore, further to your stated intent therein to deduct £160 from the card details you hold, we advise that we would consider such action to be in breach of any contract signed and will take action accordingly.

We are extremely disappointed in your performance as a company in all of this, so much so that we will inform our insurance company, Zurich UK, that we will not renew our car insurance with them unless they guarantee that you will not be involved in any aspect of it. We have become aware, since this matter, of just how many people have been equally disappointed with you, both through personal research and, of course, the article that appeared in the Guardian just three months or so ago. Should you proceed with your threat to debit £160 from us, we are quite prepared to take this matter further and, in particular, will take it up with the FSA.

Finally, we would request that you acknowledge receipt of this letter which will have also been sent to you in the form of email. Furthermore we ask that you do this in a timely fashion. We note that your letter of 14th September set us a fourteen day deadline to respond with any queries, and your letter of 25th October declares your intention to debit us within a week. Nevertheless it took you over two months to advise us that there was damage to the car for which you intended to charge us, and over a month to acknowledge and respond to our email of 25th September. If you set yourselves the same standards which you demand from your customers, you obviously fail to live up to them.


Sincerely,

xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
The Insured Named driver / Signature on Drive Assist Documents

By the way....my policy with Zurich is fully comp one with a £150 excess. If Drive Assist did debit £160 from us, hypothetically speaking, would we be able to claim £10 back from Zurich?

Sunday_Morning

Well well well!

Today I received a letter through the post dated 6th November...

"We confirm that having investigated our files further we will no longer be pursuing payment of the above invoice and have therefore closed our files.

Please accept our sincere apologies for any inconvenience caused"

That's good news. But it does make me wonder. Why did it take two letters from me to make them investigate their files "Further". Before looking to deduct money from someone who's credit card details they happened to have on their files, shouldn't they have done a thorough investigation in the first place?

This smacks to me like they charge at their convenience, to try it on. What would have been fascinating to see is the receipt that the next person using the same car signed. I wonder if it included the scratch at all, or if it seemed to mysteriously appear when they returned it as well.

With companies like this, we have no way of knowing how many times that can claim for a one bit of "damage". It could be quite a lucrative business for them. And I can quite imagine that many people would just pay up quietly to avoid the hassle. We certainly thought about doing that at times.

I'm glad they are no longer pursuing their claim with us. Of course I wonder if that had been the case had we not gone to the lengths of cancelling the credit card for which they had the details. But these companies should be subject to extensive audits by whoever licences them and the insurance companies that use them.

My opinion of the firm certainly hasn't changed. I don't want them anywhere near the renewal of my insurance. And my opinion of them reflects on Zurich UK, my insurers, who appointed them to the task of handling the hire car. They outsourced both the hiring of the car and the recovery of my excess. Fine, I don't mind them doing that, but I didn't appoint them and don't feel that I should have been dealing with them. (I'm not sure whether the company dealing with my excess, DAS, are linked with Drive Assist, but they kept making a mess of things sending letters off to the wrong people, wrong insurance companies using the wrong registration...at one point telling us that the other party had denied they were in an accident with us)

Furthermore I want an insurance company that will pay out the loss and then reclaim the amount in full from whoever is liable. That means if its my fault, they get the excess from me, if it's patently not, they at least try and get it from the party at fault. And I want an insurance company that deals with a hire company on my behalf, not one that shunts me off to deal with a company like DRIVE ASSIST.

It's clear to me that Zurich UK is not the company for me next time. I'd be grateful for any suggestions for insurance companies that actually do what they say they do on the tin all by themselves!

diesel9181

i had problems with drive assist in 2000. due to my age they were the only ones that would provide me with the courtesy car. they were slow in collecting it once i had my own car back and about 1 year later started to persue me for the bill. they eventually backed down (i may have got a solicitor involved tho i cant remember) but i still have all the paperwork 7 years later incase it all kicks off again.

rabialiones

i also received letter from drive assist stating they would collect money on the 2nd of november, at such a short notice , i had no option but to cancel my card of which they had details. i did not reply to their letter , but i expect they will be sending me one demanding the money.