Scratching my head

GazNicki

Agree fully with AdrianC on this one. The fact that you have no car now, is the direct result of the lease agreement being terminated. That means you are no longer contributing to this lease, and therefore have nothing to show for it.

You are not out of pocket.

Your issue is that you cannot get another lease via the NHS. I suggest you review your other options, such as HP, PCP, Personal Lease or buying outright.

almillar

But you knew that when you took out the contract.

Helpful stuff there.

I think OP is confused about the insurance. They have compensated the owner of the car. That's the leasing company, not OP, as it would be if they owned the car.
You were leasing a car. It was destroyed. You're no longer leasing it.

For other, completely separate reasons, you don't have the benefit of taking another car via salary sacrifice - this has got nothing to do with 'your' car being written off, and you are free to buy or lease another car from anywhere else. If you were paying, say, £250 a month for your car, you can now go and pay £250 a month for a different (perhaps lesser) car.

unholyangel

AdrianC wrote: »

What other losses has the OP suffered?


Nope, doesn't work like that.

The insurance contract to pay out the pre-collision value of the car. No more, no less. If that had left the OP in negative equity on finance, then that's what a separate gap policy is for. The insurer do not have to replace it - if there's no equivalent available, that's impossible. The fact that the OP is no longer eligible for the deal on which that car was obtained is not the insurer's problem, bluntly.

Yes, it does work like that - the law is the authority on the matter (not insurance companies) and the same principles have been expressly stated throughout hundreds if not thousands of negligence claims. The heads of damages are many.

You're conflating issues - in the scenarios you mention with value versus outstanding finance, that would be a betterment as had the accident not happened, they would have paid (for example) £15000 for a £12000 asset so that is not a loss caused by the negligent act of the other party - they were always going to pay that money. In comparison, if OP has to pay £1000 more over the course of an agreement, that is a loss caused by the other party being negligent and therefore may be recoverable.

In lagden v o'connor (albeit relating to the use of an expensive credit hire company while his own car was in for repair rather than complete loss but I'm only referencing it for the statements made about losses in negligence given special rules are not created when the claim involves a negligent driver, its the same rules that are applied in general to claims in tort) it was said:

The right against the wrongdoer is for a restitutio in integrum, and this restitution he is bound to make without calling upon the party injured to assist him in any way whatsoever. If the settlement of the indemnification be attended with any difficulty (and in those cases difficulties must and will frequently occur), the party in fault must bear the inconvenience. He has no right to fix this inconvenience upon the injured party; and if that party derives incidentally a greater benefit than mere indemnification, it arises only from the impossibility of otherwise effecting such indemnification without exposing him to some loss or burden, which the law will not place upon him."

The principle which emerges from this passage is that it is not open to the wrongdoer to require the injured party to bear any part of the cost of obtaining such indemnification for his loss as will place him in the same position as he was before the accident.

It has to be shown that the claimant had a choice, and that he would have been able to mitigate his loss at less cost. The wrongdoer is not entitled to demand of the injured party that he incur a loss, bear a burden or make unreasonable sacrifices in the mitigation of his damages.

Lord Collins in Clippens Oil Co v Edinburgh and District Water Trustees [1907] AC 291, 303 that the wrongdoer must take his victim talem qualem (as he finds him), adding that:

"if the position of the latter is aggravated because he is without the means of mitigating it, so much the worse for the wrongdoer, who has got to be answerable for the consequences flowing from his tortious act."

Sprinkly

Will any of this affect further insurance I apply for is another question.

Warwick_Hunt

Sprinkly wrote: »

Will any of this affect further insurance I apply for is another question.

Potentially yes, you'll be declaring it for the next five years.

Sprinkly

flashg67 wrote: »

'lost out on salary sacrifice' - haven't you gained (paid less tax) or are you referring to the fact you can't now have this facility?

Referring to the fact I can't now have this facility

Sprinkly

almillar wrote: »

Helpful stuff there.

I think OP is confused about the insurance. They have compensated the owner of the car. That's the leasing company, not OP, as it would be if they owned the car.
You were leasing a car. It was destroyed. You're no longer leasing it.

For other, completely separate reasons, you don't have the benefit of taking another car via salary sacrifice - this has got nothing to do with 'your' car being written off, and you are free to buy or lease another car from anywhere else. If you were paying, say, £250 a month for your car, you can now go and pay £250 a month for a different (perhaps lesser) car.

The amount I paid on NHS lease was all inclusive £189 included all tax insurance breakdown cover MOTs everything was included in that price including reduced tax and NI. Ok yes go to another dealer which would cost me £189 or more plus the now hoiked insurance etc etc no reduced tax and NI simples ..:wall:

sheramber

You would have a benefit in kind charge included in your tax , dependent on the car you had. There should be a deduction in your tax coding for this. As a result you would pay tax on the value of the benefit in addition to the tax on your salary.

You will no longer be due to pay that extra tax once your contact ceases

So, while you will have more tax deducted because you no longer have salary sacrifice you will have less tax deducted due to no longer having the lease car.

Sprinkly

Update: I challenged NHS fleet with not treating a customer fairly, ending my contract unfairly and not providing clear and concise information surrounding their write off contract. I then challenged my own trust about the unfairness of it all and all have agreed to replace the car but I've had to apply under another contract due to all the financial rises in cars and tax after April 2017. At the end of the day I will have another car in 10 days and my salary sacrifice reinstated and I don't have to go through another insurance declaring the accident for the next 3 years at least. And it's still a better deal than going to an outside dealer particularly for me.