Being sued for car hire after fault car accident

jamescl

I'm looking for some advice, I know a lot of people here have experience about things like this.

I had an accident last summer where a woman suddenly stamped on the brakes approaching a slip road roundabout as I was looking to the right checking things were clear. There was absolutely nothing coming but for whatever reason she thought a car that was a long way away was worth slamming the brakes on for.

I accept I'm at fault and the insurance paid out and it was all forgotten about for 9 months until suddenly out of the blue she wants £800 for car hire which my insurance company says is excessive and is unwilling to pay.

When I received the solicitors letter my insurance company asked me to scan and send, now I've received the court documents and scanned and sent to my insurance company too.

I'll await what they say, but in my email to them I said I was willing to back them up and defend the case as long as they supply the reasoning for why they shouldn't pay the £800 and exactly why it is excessive etc.

What do you think will happen next? is £800 excessive? Could I just defend the claim or even counterclaim on the grounds that although I was 80% responsible, really she contributed to the accident by her slamming brakes on with no reason.

What amounts are reasonable for car hire and any advice for this situation?

takman

Nobody will be able to say if £800 for car hire is reasonable or not without knowing how long it is for.

forgotmyname

Reasonable = £40 a day to hire a car?
or
Reasonable = £200 a day for a like for like car that gets delivered to your home before you get there after the non fault accident?

Aretnap

What's reasonable friends in her own income as well. If she's loaded she (or rather the car hire firm) should only be able to claim standard car hire rates or the amount she's have paid if she'd gone to Hertz, paid with her own cars then asked your insurer to pay her back. However if she's skint she wouldn't have been able to do that so she could claim for a car on credit hire which avoid the need for an upfront payment but it's significantly more expensive.

Ultimately your insurer will decide whether to contest the claim (is them who will be paying, not you) and if they defend it on your behalf you'll probably have very little input - your not an expert on what a reasonable hire car cost is so if that's the only thing in Susie the is nothing useful you could say in court, so you probably wouldn't be required to attend even if it got as far as an actual hearing.

In a rear end shunt it's very difficult to prove even partial fault on the party of the driver in front and you'd need more evidence than your own day so to prove that she breathed unreasonably hard or early. In any event if you (or your insurers on your behalf) have already admitted full liability it's a bit late to start protesting that it was partly her fault now - the only thing left for the court to decide is how much she can claim. And If it did somehow end up as 80℅ your fault the only practical effect it would have on you is that you would get 20℅ of your excess back - in terms of ncd and future premiums a partial fault claim is the same as a fault one.

Ultimately you pay your insurers good money so that when things like this happen it's their problem not yours - so let them worry about it for you.

Quentin

Your insurer will deal with this on your behalf. Just pass on all correspondence to your insurer (including any from court) unanswered that you get

Should the other side decide to take the issue to court then your insurer will decide whether the amount claimed is reasonable and if so will pay. If they see it as unreasonable then they will defend the claim in court

(As you and your insurer look to have already accepted liability then you cannot now hope for a 20% liability from the other side!)

jamescl

They have decided to take it to court, I have the court paperwork.

The car hire is £578.50 for 1 week's car hire, £30 incidental expenses + court fee.

I think that amount for 1 week's car hire is taking the P, the car she had wasn't a posh car, so she must have hired a very expensive car for the week.

I'll wait to see what the insurance company says as I need guidance from them on what to reply on the court forms.

rs65

jamescl wrote: »

I'll wait to see what the insurance company says as I need guidance from them on what to reply on the court forms.

Let your insurers deal with it. Don't do it yourself.

FutureGirl

That hire charge is high for a week, so it's likely to be credit hire.

Your insurers will reply to the court forms, leave it to them to do that is why they have asked you to send it to them (which you need to do ASAP as there will be a time limit on this).

It's likely your insurers have been disputing the costs with her solicitor, and now they have issue proceedings (though usually the insurer would nominate someone to accept proceedings so it seems the solicitor hasn't taken notice of this).

You have admitted liability, you can't now change that. Also, you would never get a split liability in this case, it's 100% your fault. The reason she braked is irrelevant. You should have been keeping a safe distance and watching what was happening directly in front of you, rather than what was happening to your right.

jamescl

I'll leave it to them then, but I don't want to end up with default judgement, you only have 14 days to reply.

I didn't necessarily admit liability, the insurance company did. I accept the braking distance thing, but why slam brakes on at a roundabout when you'd already intended to enter it and when people behind are going to be checking it is clear (which it was, even I'd have gone, any cars were miles away).

20 years of no accident driving for me and then she said she'd had many, I'm not surprised if she just brakes randomly for no reason. I learned a lesson obviously, but this price for 1 week's car hire is steep.

I'll do as people suggest here, just a shame I can't help argue it is excessive or do anything else to help contest it since it is in my name.

FutureGirl

Your insurers would have already been arguing that it is excessive, and would have offered a lower amount, this is why they have issued proceedings.

Your insurers will either settle the matter if the figures aren't too far apart, or offer a higher sum than they already did for the hire (but still less than their cost). Or they will let it proceed to court and let a judge decide.

Crazy_Jamie

jamescl wrote: »

I'll do as people suggest here, just a shame I can't help argue it is excessive or do anything else to help contest it since it is in my name.

You can't help because you don't have the expertise. Whether or not hire is warranted or excessive depends on a number of issues such as need, period and rate. All of these things are subject to case law and depend on the application of legal principles. For example, you can't just state that the rate is excessive and leave it at that. The court first needs to consider whether or not the Claimant is impecunious. If the Claimant was not, the court will then consider whether an equivalent vehicle could have been hired on a non credit basis, and that requires evidence from your insurance company in the form of a spot rate report.

In order to help contest a credit hire claim you need to actually have knowledge and experience of credit hire claims. You don't, but your insurance company will have. Leave it to them.