Credit Hire Court Summons - Experiences?

RLH123

Hi folks. This is my first post on here so please bear with me!

I had a car accident two years ago, whereby I was stationary and driven into by an HGV.

Having never been involved in an accident before, I naively assumed that following my insurer's advice would be the easiet way of getting things sorted. I stupidly, therefore, accepted their offer of credit hire.

Two years later, the other party's insurer is refusing to pay the hire car fee and I've been summoned to court.

I've searched the forums and see lots of people have been in this position, but can't find any updates regarding what happened in court.

Are they likely to back down before it gets that far? And has anyone here actually had to attend court? If so, what was the outcome and what should I expect on the day?

I wish I'd known then what I know now about these so-called 'accident management' companies, but you live and learn...

Herzlos

I'd phone your insurers first to see what legal support they can provide you.

Presumably the other parties insurer is going to try to make it look like you did nothing to minimise your costs, but if you used your insurers approved company you should be fine. Especially if the other party didn't offer you a hire car either.

gzoom

RLH123 wrote: »

Hi folks. This is my first post on here so please bear with me!

I had a car accident two years ago, whereby I was stationary and driven into by an HGV.

Having never been involved in an accident before, I naively assumed that following my insurer's advice would be the easiet way of getting things sorted. I stupidly, therefore, accepted their offer of credit hire.

Two years later, the other party's insurer is refusing to pay the hire car fee and I've been summoned to court.

I've just been through this, and current still in a credit hire car via an accident management company (AMC).

The most important thing is to establish how the claim was settled, DONT assume the HGV driver admitted liability, or their insurance company has put it down as a 100% fault for their insured.

IF the third party has 100% admitted liability than the law is reasonably clear:

- You (the injured party) is entitled to be back on the road in the same car/condition as you were before the accident.
- You are allowed a loan car is you need a car to work, and cannot afford to find a replacement car your self whilst your car is been repaired/replaced (This is a bit of joke, as I suspect most people don't have money sitting in the bank ready to splurge on a replacement car just in case their own car is damaged).
- You can have access to a loan car till your car is repaired/replaced, as long as the loan car is of the same value/type of your own.

You have a responsibility to minimise you claim, but at the same time your also entitled to be mobile on the road in the same type of car as before the accident till a settlement is reached - providing your not 100% NOT at fault.

My current situation means I wouldn't be back in my own car till September due to repair/replacement times, my accident was in June so we are looking at 120days+ of hire car costs. I've been in a credit hire car since the accident, and had almost daily contact with the AMC regarding the claim/hire car status.

Because of the length of my claim and complex nature I actually have a written statement from the director of the AMC that they will not pursue me for hire car costs if they cannot get the costs back from the third party. But actually the third party insurance company know they have to pay up regardless, they have sent me a couple of letters to try and intimidate me but it's all rubbish and have no legal basis.

The AMC is now offering the third party insurance company a 'reduced hire rate' to try and minimise the cost of the claim, if the third party insurance company don't accept they will have no legal ground to refuse the hire car costs as they were given a chance to 'minimise' the cost of the claim but turned it down.

Good luck with your case, but the first thing to do is call your own insurance company and see how the case was settled.......and hope it was deemed a NON FAULT claim on your part!!.....Just because you were stationery don't assume your were deemed at non fault, I was rammed from behind and spun 180 degrees into on coming traffic and yet initially the third party insurance company tried to blame me for the accident!!

RLH123

Thanks guys. They did admit liability - the issue is solely with the ridiculous hire car charges (£3000 for two weeks!).

If I'd known at the time the credit hire thing was a big insurance scam I'd have steered clear. That said, I don't think I deserve to be out of pocket, regardless.

I'm interested to know how often these things go to court... or are settled outside of court before things get that far.

gzoom

RLH123 wrote: »

Thanks guys. They did admit liability - the issue is solely with the ridiculous hire car charges (£3000 for two weeks!).

If I'd known at the time the credit hire thing was a big insurance scam I'd have steered clear. That said, I don't think I deserve to be out of pocket, regardless.

I'm interested to know how often these things go to court... or are settled outside of court before things get that far.

If the third party was at fault and the replacement car of similar value/type to yours than you have nothing to worry about.

Who is actually taking you to court, the company that hired the car to you??

DoaM

Who arranged the credit hire? Your insurance company? The AMC appointed/recommended by your insurance company?

If it was your insurance company then any liability should fall on them.

£3k for 2 weeks hire does sound ridiculous though. Are you sure that's all the £3k is for?

RLH123

The hire company are taking the 3rd party insurer to court - but I have to attend on behalf of the hire company to explain why I needed the car.

I'm a little concerned, as I was driving a 60 plate A3 at the time and was provided with a 14 plate TT. I requested 'a small car as the roads around my house are narrow'.

I'm KICKING myself, as when I received the car I emailed the company (and my insurer) saying I wanted it noted I'd requested an A-to-B car, not a prestige car! However, I sent the email from work and am no longer in that job, so I have no evidence of it and I suspect it may have 'disappeared' from the file.

This may be a very expensive life lesson. I'm pretty angry as I think it's disgusting that the insurers and AMCs work together to do this to people.

RLH123

DoaM: the MCA recommended by my insurer.

And yes, I think it was closer to £2k but they're increasing the fee the longer it's outstanding.

RLH123

*AMC - won't let me edit

DoaM

Ah ... you're only a witness. In that case nothing to worry about ... your insurance policy will have a term that obliges you to attend a court hearing if your insurer requires it.

Herzlos

RLH123 wrote: »

DoaM: the MCA recommended by my insurer.

And yes, I think it was closer to £2k but they're increasing the fee the longer it's outstanding.

You should be fine, you didn't ask for a prestige car, just a small one, and you presumably didn't have any choice there anyway.

Then it was the approved hire company, so again you're fine.

The fact the cost has escalated since the other parties insurance have left it outstanding so long is not your problem anyway - that's their fault for not trying to minimize costs (by not paying the bill right away and then contesting).

To be honest, I've no idea why insurance companies don't just provide the hire cars themselves, it'd save them a fortune.