Noticed some changes? You can read all about the improvements we've made on the Forum in our latest announcement. We also have a new set of Forum rules so please take the time to give them a read and familiarise yourself.

The unethical & deplorable actions of 2 companies

edited 19 March 2018 at 9:53PM in Insurance & Life Assurance
8 replies 1.4K views
jmward85jmward85 Forumite
11 Posts
Third Anniversary 10 Posts
edited 19 March 2018 at 9:53PM in Insurance & Life Assurance
Hello everyone,

This is my story, I am sharing this because it took me 2 months to beat the hire company and the insurers. Lies upon lies were told, the companies didn't know what was going on and the drivers refused to co-operate - this led me to sending the below message - on a Sunday night to 19 MPs/Newsreporters and influential bloggers. The email was copied into the CEO of the insurance company, the CEO of the hire company and the claims department of the hire company.

I received a reply to this email on Monday morning, and by Monday pm, liability was admitted and my car was booked into the garage for repairs, at no cost to me. The insurers also went into damage control mode as the MPs sought responses to what was going on.

I am sending this because no-one should have to go through what I have been through. What I've learnt from this - get everything in writing, including details of the accident and have it signed by all parties!

My email - to be clear XX is the name of the Hire Company and YY is the name of the insurers. Both are large, national organisations.

Dear Name of influential person,

Hire Company: XXXXX

Hire Company's Insurers Reference: XXXXX

Hire Company Registration: XX67 XXX

Hire Company's Hirers: Full name, address and contact details provided.

On 23rd December 2017, I was involved in a car accident, caused by the driver of a XX hire van, the full details surrounding the accident are superfluous, however, the driver, whilst exiting a roundabout failed to control their vehicle, crossed over lanes and struck my car, causing damage from the front, to around half way along my vehicle.

The van stopped and details were exchanged, via XX's “agreed statement of facts on motor vehicle accident” – a document used by them to capture accident details, which was signed by both parties. Liability was admitted at the time & indeed signed by the other party confirming the same. Both vehicles left, with me thinking that the matter had been dealt with. This is however, where the unethical actions of XX started.

To understand, my version of events from the 23rd have not changed once, XX’s version of events changes every time someone speaks with them.

With regards to the driver of the vehicle, for which now, I am no longer sure who it was, was originally noted as a Driver 1. On 2nd January, XX finally submitted to their insurance company (YY) details of the accident, noting the driver as Driver 2. At this stage, XX disputed liability noting their reasons as:

“I was driving off the roundabout in the outside when the other car tried to go in front and undercut, without indication. I tried to swerve away but they still crashed into me”

The driver of the hire van, originally wrote “Other car was passing on the left and we was half way on lane (drifted over lane)”. These two differing stories (noting that the latter was written and signed as true) become pertinent later on, that said, this is the first lie from XX and initiates their committing of perjury.

On 2nd January a person from YY confirmed they would contact XX and would come back to me once they had heard from XX (to date, this has never happened). On 5th January another person from YY confirmed they would check the erroneous details of the driver and come back to me once they heard from XX (to date, this has never happened).

Both of these occurrences show that 1) XX are either ignoring their insurers or 2) YY are ignoring me or indeed 3) both 1 and 2 together. It also started the process of YY facilitating the fraud being committed by XX.

XX noted that the completion of the “agreed statement of facts on motor vehicle accident” was a ‘waste of time’ and not admissible under any circumstances, despite it being them whom asked for it to be completed and handed to them. YY initially sided with XX because “the client had 2 independent witnesses”. It later transpired that the witnesses were the 2 passengers in the van (one being Driver 2 and another a co-worker of both Driver 2 & Driver 1) and XX made reference that the driver and passengers did not know each other, and the driver was merely providing a lift to the passenger back to XX – this was another lie, and was confirmed as such on 16th January when XX confirmed that both Driver 1 & Driver 2 were on the hire policy. A brief exchange of messages with Driver 2 confirmed that he had made no such witness statement and believed matters had been dealt with when the paperwork was completed after the accident. This shows that XX are fabricating stories to avoid liability.

Having been ignored by both XX and YY, I reached out to CEO of YY and on 22nd January, a Third Person became involved. Third Person confirmed that the XX branch had failed to provide the insurance company with the statement of facts, despite this document being pertinent to the whole claim process. She further confirmed that the contents clearly differed between the XX report and the statement of facts, to the extent that she believed liability should be admitted by XX. The last correspondence from Third Person was on 23rd January when she was awaiting information back from XX.

Latest developments on this, albeit this information is from XX, appear to be that the driver (whom is still unknown), was not using an insurance policy from XX, albeit they initially submitted the claim to their own insurance company. XX appear to “know” who the insurance company are, but won’t provide that information – despite it being a requirement following an accident.

The web of lies spun by XX have become so complex that it is now hard to understand what is and is not factual. Has anything said by YY or XX been true, or just further perjury being committed?

The admission of YY that liability should be accepted, followed by the radio silence leads me to believe that something untoward is going on – are they happy to facilitate the fraud being committed by XX?

I raise the question – under oath – would XX stand up and state everything that has been said from the outset has been true? Or would they admit liability given the actual facts of the case are not the same as what they claim them to be, allowing this matter to be drawn to a conclusion?

The only thing I am looking for is me being placed back into the position I was in before the accident occurred. Large organisations such as YY and XX need to be held to account and understand what is right and what is wrong when it comes to the consumer. Should we continue to allow these unethical practises to go on, or should action be taken to protect the consumer?

Signed off by me.

Replies

  • ValiantSonValiantSon
    2.6K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    When you say "MPs", I assume that you mean only one, i.e. your MP. No other MP would have anything to do with this because of parliamentary rules which prohibit them from dealing with someone else's constituents.
  • bigisibigisi
    925 Posts
    ✭✭✭
    jmward85 wrote: »
    TL;DR

    Problem has been resolved.

    Think that covers it.
  • jmward85jmward85 Forumite
    11 Posts
    Third Anniversary 10 Posts
    I mean my local MP and my MSPs, if you search for you local members of parliament, you'll find multiple, from all parties.
  • jmward85 wrote: »
    I mean my local MP and my MSPs, if you search for you local members of parliament, you'll find multiple, from all parties.
    No, I will not. I have one MP. That is rather the point of elections round my way, many people put themselves forward to be MP, one wins.
  • ValiantSonValiantSon
    2.6K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    jmward85 wrote: »
    I mean my local MP and my MSPs, if you search for you local members of parliament, you'll find multiple, from all parties.

    You have one MP. You may also have an MSP, but you only have one MP.
  • AretnapAretnap Forumite
    4.2K Posts
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    One MP but several MSPs. The Scottish parliament is ejected on a hybrid system where each constituency elects an MSP but additional members are ejected on a regional list system. So everyone will have multiple MSPs - one for their constituency and several for their region.
  • edited 3 April 2018 at 3:29PM
    ValiantSonValiantSon
    2.6K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 3 April 2018 at 3:29PM
    Aretnap wrote: »
    One MP but several MSPs. The Scottish parliament is ejected on a hybrid system where each constituency elects an MSP but additional members are ejected on a regional list system. So everyone will have multiple MSPs - one for their constituency and several for their region.

    Thank you. That is quite correct (apart from the bit about "ejecting" the Scottish parliament, although I like the idea and wonder if we could adopt it for Westminster too ;) ).
  • rudekid48rudekid48 Forumite
    2.4K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Aretnap wrote: »
    One MP but several MSPs. The Scottish parliament is ejected on a hybrid system where each constituency elects an MSP but additional members are ejected on a regional list system. So everyone will have multiple MSPs - one for their constituency and several for their region.

    The Scots get everything easy - no tuition fees, prescriptions AND they can "eject" their MP's :rotfl:
    All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.
This discussion has been closed.