Advice Request - Victim of Non-Fault Accident

AdrianC

CardinalWolsey wrote: »

You're just not looking at the right websites...

Aunttrader?

bigisi wrote: »

So "traditionalist" is the new word for "racist"?

Every day's a school day!

Taxi driver.

SampleX

Herzlos wrote: »

Sure the charge a kings ransom for them, because it's a bit of a niche. The idea is to hire one and have the other party foot the cost, it's what their insurance is for. It presumably costs less than twiddling your thumbs until you get back on the road.



How much would it cost to repair the damage? Is it structural or cosmetic? Would you have any additional hoops to go through to get it back in use under license?


What was it worth before the accident?


If you were 2 years from having to replace it, what was your plan regarding replacement?


Can you buy another car that's already licensed?

It costs 7k to buy another car of the same age and spec in a variety of mileages.

It costs £4k to buy one of a lesser model with dents in the doors.

My “plan regarding replacement” was to replace it having had my value out of it. Similarly if licensed airport transfer driving all ended tomorrow my plan would be to move on and do something else.

I always thought that having a plan for changing your own circumstances was very different to someone having the right to drive dangerously, collide with you, facilitate the destruction of your property, and change your world entirely at your own expense.

It’s my first write off. I’d no idea what an inbred scam motor insurance actually is.

As for “hiring one” and having the “other party foot the cost”... forgive my cynicism but we’re discussing how the other party has created a situation courtesy of my nearly useless accident management representatives, where a vehicle that would cost me £7k to replace like for like to “restore me to condition prior to the accident” has been devalued to £3k - being entitled to a replacement vehicle which took three weeks to arrive, and to claim loss of earnings which it turns out no one can actually quantify to the “other party’s” satisfaction, I think if I took on the hire of another vehicle I’d be paying it myself and getting nothing back.

The damage is apparently cosmetic and could be repaired easily. But my licensing authority will not allow write off’s on the system, unlike many licensing authorities.

And no, there are no suitable vehicles already licensed to buy.

Thanks anyway.

Herzlos

SampleX wrote: »

It costs 7k to buy another car of the same age and spec in a variety of mileages.

Then submit that evidence to the insurance company and press for them to give you a decent settlement figure, or ask them to provide an equivalent car in an equivalent condition.


If it was purely cosmetic, then you should be pushing them to do the repair and avoid it being written off. They might be more inclined to do that if you can get them to agree the value is higher, but you'll need to be proactive about it.



How much is the rental cost on a licensed car? I genuinely don't know.
It's not a case of paying it and not getting it back - you should be able to get it back. What have you been doing whilst waiting to get a useable car back? Is your courtesy car appropriately licensed?

stator

Ultimately you can take it to court instead if you wish.

The small claims court limit is £10,000, so you won't even have to hire a solicitor.
The court will decide what the value of your car is.
The insurance company might settle before it gets to court.


If you do, you need to do some research on pre-court procedures, sending a letter before action and all that sort of thing.



But before you do so, I suggest you calm down a bit. Making allegations about scams and ranting on about such things won't get you anywhere.

EdGasketTheSecond

As i said in post 4, claim whatever you think is justified directly from the third-party and see how it goes. You will likely get a better outcome than with your present course.

AdrianC

SampleX wrote: »

I always thought that having a plan for changing your own circumstances was very different to someone having the right to drive dangerously, collide with you, facilitate the destruction of your property, and change your world entirely at your own expense.

They don't "have that right". That's why their insurance is paying out for the property they damaged.

It’s my first write off. I’d no idea what an inbred scam motor insurance actually is.

It isn't. You get what your policy states you get.

...where a vehicle that would cost me £7k to replace like for like to “restore me to condition prior to the accident” has been devalued to £3k

If it's REALLY worth £7k, then you'll get £7k. You just need to demonstrate to the financial ombudsman that it WAS worth £7k, and you are actually comparing like with like.

being entitled to a replacement vehicle which took three weeks to arrive

That's entirely down to your insurer's hire car supplier being useless.

and to claim loss of earnings which it turns out no one can actually quantify to the “other party’s” satisfaction

There's only one person who can even remotely attempt to quantify how much income you've lost. And that's you.

The damage is apparently cosmetic and could be repaired easily. But my licensing authority will not allow write off’s on the system, unlike many licensing authorities.

So there y'go. Nobody to blame there but your licencing authority for not doing the same as others.

AdrianC

stator wrote: »

Ultimately you can take it to court instead if you wish.

The small claims court limit is £10,000, so you won't even have to hire a solicitor.
The court will decide what the value of your car is.
The insurance company might settle before it gets to court.

If you do, you need to do some research on pre-court procedures, sending a letter before action and all that sort of thing.

...and if the established arbitration procedures (the financial ombudsman) haven't been exhausted, the court will not view it kindly. If they have been, and you're still arguing, then the court will really not view it kindly.

SampleX

unholyangel wrote: »

I am not talking about what the council would accept. I am talking about decades experience of the industry making me fully aware that cars can fail much sooner than 9 years (18 months is the shortest I've known for mechanical issues.....6 days for an accident!) and often do. That same experience tells me that most seasoned drivers tend to be well aware of this and plan for it in advance or lease cars from new/nearly new (there are some that are just bad with money).

Your vehicle could have failed its next "hackney" or broken down needing major repairs and where would you be? In the exact same position as now (having to rent/lease or otherwise find £13000 for a replacement) but without the prospect of any settlement offer or recovering losses.

As for determining what should be paid for your loss...you haven't lost a newer replacement vehicle. To give you something of greater value that you never owned instead of the value of what you did own would be betterment and be penal in nature against the wrongdoer. Criminal law is penal, but the purpose of civil law is not to punish the wrongdoer but restitution of the injured party (or as near as money can achieve it).

I understand why you think I'm being snarky but thats not the way its intended. If you rely so heavily on your income (as most drivers do) then you can't afford to be off the road. I was just trying to highlight how important that is for drivers to consider.

Understood.

Here’s what my decades in the industry taught me.

- Never buy a new or nearly new car for airport transfers. The depreciation between year 1 and year 4 can never be offset against any of the miles you do no matter how much you charge.

- Pick your cars well and for purpose and then look after them and invest in them. Drive them like most private hire licensees who just rent or lease one and don’t give a toss until they wear out or break and then they change them, and your customers will know. Drive them like you own them and like you respect what they mean to your business and they’ll pay you back.

So... I’ve never had a car ‘fail on me’ but I know many less careful PH licensees who have. Most within 3 years of age. There is no innate time bomb in a car. It will respond to maintenance, repair and a decent driver and last as long as you want it to keep going. That’s why I don’t work to imaginary presumptions of a failed car, and work instead to making it my responsibility to keep the car good for as long as it can reasonably serve me.

My district doesn’t relicense cars over ten years old. Other districts have cars that are twenty. Some that are in shocking cosmetic condition. Look after the car, keep it in good order and your only pertinent threat is some moron who shouldn’t be on the road.

They may be extreme analogies, but “being prepared” with a life insurance plan does not make it OK for someone to violate you and prematurely end your life. Taking control and choice away from someone else by force and leaving them in detriment is not the same thing as them befalling a natural event which they weren’t ready for.

The idiot who drove into me will have her car repaired at daddy’s expense and daddy will pay her modest hike in insurance. I was told that at the scene while I was being aggressively coerced and bullied into just driving away and not reporting the accident. I understand that I’m destined to suffer the most cost of her idiocy. But I don’t believe it’s right. If I’d have been a cyclist or motorcyclist we’d be discussing a death.

If my car had “failed it’s next....LICENSING” (it’s not a hackney and neither am I) it would have been repaired. If it had broken down, it would have been repaired. Don’t know about you but when my cars break down I fix them, I don’t assume that I need to be ready to raise £13k for a replacement.

I’m not talking about replacements because of what I can or can’t do as a motorist. I’m not looking for betterment. I’m looking to be restored to where I was before her actions. If that means I get a like for like replacement, brilliant. But I’ve been deprived of those options by the laws I’m bound by. I don’t have a choice. She took that away and the insurance compounded it. I might be one unusual case in a thousand, but why should I be placed at any kind of disadvantage by someone else’s illegal driving? I understand that this is what’s happening... I’m just saying, it’s not right. As one in a thousand cases, my best interests are being overlooked for the sake of a commercially self-serving calculation which may cater well to 999 others, but in my case doesn’t come even a fraction of the way to repairing the impact of the event.

You’re right. I haven’t lost a “newer replacement vehicle.” The problem is that not only is the basing of the reparative offer undervalued by half, the undervaluation is effectively doubled because the repairment provides an inadequate replacement - putting me in a position of disadvantage compared to where I was before the accident - that I cannot take a replacement and continue on with life as it was before the accident, through someone else’s fault. It may not be a scenario which fits the “one size fits all” philosophy of motor insurance, but it should sure as hell make a case for an individualised assessment of the appropriateness of the “one size” solution. That’s what insurance is supposed to be about... situational assessment, not a set of check boxes and formulas which become a standard entitlement in all cases.

No, the other driver can’t be punished through an insurance claim, as is her protective right. But where’s my protective right to be restored appropriately in the individual context of my loss and need of restoration, rather than the insurance industry’s desire to minimise costs with general formulas?

If she’d hit a hearse the insurance would have to base their values on the replacement cost of a hearse. If she’d hit an ambulance it would be on the replacement cost of an equivalent ambulance.

She hit a fully licensed private hire airport transfer MPV. Why should the replacement value of that be calculated to provide a similar vehicle that can’t be licensed or used for airport transfer? That’s not restoration. It’s puttig me at a disadvantage and a loss.

They’re welcome to negotiate with my licencing authority to see if they can make an exception and licence an equivalent condition, criteria-meeting identical replacement, and once licensed I’ll accept it and go back to work.

But why should I be happy to accept less than what I had before she ran into me? Would they replace a hearse with a black estate car of th same age? Or an ambulance with a transit van that’s done as many miles?

Again... why does this come down to what preparations I have for the natural course of my own plans, and judgement against me, somehow, for not just swallowing the loss and moving on... what happened to the justice of making something right and correcting a wrong?

SampleX

Herzlos wrote: »

Then submit that evidence to the insurance company and press for them to give you a decent settlement figure, or ask them to provide an equivalent car in an equivalent condition.


If it was purely cosmetic, then you should be pushing them to do the repair and avoid it being written off. They might be more inclined to do that if you can get them to agree the value is higher, but you'll need to be proactive about it.



How much is the rental cost on a licensed car? I genuinely don't know.
It's not a case of paying it and not getting it back - you should be able to get it back. What have you been doing whilst waiting to get a useable car back? Is your courtesy car appropriately licensed?

Cheers.

I’ve now formally disputed the offer and, indeed, their handling of the claim from outset. I’ve also spoken to Ombudsman and am now waiting out the statutory periods for reply. They will also be under pressure from the OP’s insurer because the replacement licensed vehicle costs a bomb and they’ll want to sign off on a settlement and get it sent back to where it belongs ASAP. It’s almost the most ridiculous part of the claim. I’ll be shocked if they get change from £500 a week.

And yes, it is licensed. That’s the point.

The insurance policy is sold as “restoring you to work ASAP”, offering the courtesy car that you can work in, and ensuring you suffer no losses in the event of a non-fault.

I’ve raised all of these points with the insurers. They point back at the accident management firm. And the accident management firm point at their “like for like” replacement valuation and then twiddle their thumbs.

So yes, I’m mobile and working. In a dead month.

But I missed out on mid-December, Christmas and Boxing and had to refer my bookings away. Might not have been so bad if I’d have been a drinker.

Herzlos

£500/week doesn't seem outrageous for a licensed 7 seater vehicle. I'm getting quotes of £300/week for an unlicensed Zafira (5+2) or £550 for a 9 seater.


The lost time is down to the time taken for the replacement - does your insurance contract have some small print of fulfillment time? Did they breach that? if so you've got a claim there for lost work due to their negligence. The onus on you would be to mitigate costs by hiring your own and claiming it back instead of waiting 3 weeks for a car to be provided.