Auxillis court case for hire car

Lucyloo22

Hi just wondering if anyone can offer any advice please. My husbands car was written off last year after a taxi driver drove head on in to him and admitted full liability. His insurance (co-op) put him in touch with auxillis for a hire car. Having never had a car written off before he just presumed this was a courtesy car and went along with the advice he was given by his insurer. He had the car for 3 weeks (same model and spec only much newer) as he needs a car for commuting to and from work and I need my car for my job while he waited for his cheque to arrive and as soon as it cleared he bought a new car and gave the hire car straight back. They are now claiming almost £4000 which the other party insurance are refusing to pay so he’s advised he may have to attend court. It wasn’t clear at the time of the accident who the other party’s insurance was with, he was a taxi driver working for a local firm, but the car was hired from a separate firm so it was all a bit confusing who we were claiming off, the driver, the taxi company or the car owner. Principa law are now asking for 3 months bank and credit card statement and wage slips. I have no problem providing this however we have a joint savings account with some money in that my uncle left to me personally in his will but I put it in the joint account as it was open at the time and I never got round to moving it. If he doesn’t disclose this account will that throw a spanner in the works? Can they find out he has this joint savings account? Or if I move the money out now would it make it look suspicious? I feel like we’re being shafted here to be honest when none of this was his fault and he’s just followed the advice of his insurers. 

AdrianC

Ah, the joys of credit-hire cars...

One of the first principles of any claim is that you mitigate your losses. The insurer will be claiming that if you could have afforded to hire a car yourselves, then it would have been a LOT cheaper than a credit-hire car.

If the taxi insurance continue refusing to pay, then it will go to court. If their insurer wins at court, then if your OH reads the paperwork he signed, he will almost certainly have agreed to pay for it himself.

£4k for 21 days hire... £200/day? No wonder they're being reluctant to pay...
This mess has been going on for years - 2016 article: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/mar/28/car-insurance-and-credit-hire-agencies

KimJongUn88

Why did you husband think that this was just a courtesy car?  Did he not read the CREDIT HIRE AGREEMENT when he signed it?  If you had the money on your bank to afford to hire a car yourself and claim it back, you should have done that to mitigate your losses.  If you don't disclose all evidence asked for by your hire company, they may deem that you have not assisted them properly and seek recovery of the hire invoice from you.  Remember ultimately, you are responsible for the hire invoice and you have to do all you can to assist the hire company or their legal representatives to recover it from the other side.  That includes attending any Court hearing to explain why you needed to hire a car on credit hire. 

Lucyloo22

KimJongUn88 said:

Why did you husband think that this was just a courtesy car?  Did he not read the CREDIT HIRE AGREEMENT when he signed it?  If you had the money on your bank to afford to hire a car yourself and claim it back, you should have done that to mitigate your losses.  If you don't disclose all evidence asked for by your hire company, they may deem that you have not assisted them properly and seek recovery of the hire invoice from you.  Remember ultimately, you are responsible for the hire invoice and you have to do all you can to assist the hire company or their legal representatives to recover it from the other side.  That includes attending any Court hearing to explain why you needed to hire a car on credit hire. 

Alright love calm yourself down, he was actually in hospital when they contacted him, he had just been in a head on collision through no fault of his own and he was scared, confused, in pain and was trusting in his insurance company looking after him. The money in the joint account in mine (left to me in a will) not his so no he couldn’t afford to pay for the hire himself. I’m asking if he doesn’t disclose that account but discloses all his other accounts can they find out, or would they accept that the money is mine and not his if it’s in a joint account. 

AdrianC

Lucyloo22 said:
he was actually in hospital when they contacted him

That certainly won't help his claim - if he was in hospital and unfit to read the paperwork, then he definitely wasn't fit to be driving, so didn't need the £200/day car...

By the time he was fit to be driving, he was fit to understand what he was signing.

The money in the joint account in mine (left to me in a will) not his so no he couldn’t afford to pay for the hire himself. I’m asking if he doesn’t disclose that account but discloses all his other accounts can they find out, or would they accept that the money is mine and not his if it’s in a joint account. 

If it's in a joint account, then it's as much his as it is yours - and that's before we get near whether assets of spouses within a marriage are truly separate... Besides, money for the hire car would be a short-term expenditure to be repaid by the other driver's insurance, so it's not as if you'd never have seen it again.

And, no, he definitely does not want to be lying to a court about bank accounts...

Lucyloo22

AdrianC said:

Lucyloo22 said:
he was actually in hospital when they contacted him

That certainly won't help his claim - if he was in hospital and unfit to read the paperwork, then he definitely wasn't fit to be driving, so didn't need the £200/day car...

By the time he was fit to be driving, he was fit to understand what he was signing.

The money in the joint account in mine (left to me in a will) not his so no he couldn’t afford to pay for the hire himself. I’m asking if he doesn’t disclose that account but discloses all his other accounts can they find out, or would they accept that the money is mine and not his if it’s in a joint account. 

If it's in a joint account, then it's as much his as it is yours - and that's before we get near whether assets of spouses within a marriage are truly separate... Besides, money for the hire car would be a short-term expenditure to be repaid by the other driver's insurance, so it's not as if you'd never have seen it again.

And, no, he definitely does not want to be lying to a court about bank accounts...

Thanks for this. He was just told by insurance at the roadside that a company would be in touch to provide a car. In all the confusion he just thought it was a courtesy car as he has that on his policy.  It all seems a bit underhand doesn’t it?  If he sends the statements over with my savings on what will happen?

AdrianC

Lucyloo22 said:
It all seems a bit underhand doesn’t it?

Whether it does or not, it's standard procedure - and has been for years.
NEVER sign anything that you don't read first.

If he sends the statements over with my savings on what will happen?

IF it gets to court, then the other side will say "So why didn't you pay for your own hire car? You could afford it..."
He then says "Well, it's my wife's money - an inheritance".
The court may or may not decide you (plural) should have used it instead of a hirecar. They may or may not decide that the car was unnecessary for some of the time. They may or may not decide the car was too expensive and the losses should have been mitigated.

But it might not even get that far.

The one thing you do not want to do is lie to the court...

Lucyloo22

AdrianC said:

Lucyloo22 said:
It all seems a bit underhand doesn’t it?

Whether it does or not, it's standard procedure - and has been for years.
NEVER sign anything that you don't read first.

If he sends the statements over with my savings on what will happen?

IF it gets to court, then the other side will say "So why didn't you pay for your own hire car? You could afford it..."
He then says "Well, it's my wife's money - an inheritance".
The court may or may not decide you (plural) should have used it instead of a hirecar. They may or may not decide that the car was unnecessary for some of the time. They may or may not decide the car was too expensive and the losses should have been mitigated.

But it might not even get that far.

The one thing you do not want to do is lie to the court...

Thank you, much appreciated 😊

Herzlos

AdrianC said:

Ah, the joys of credit-hire cars...

One of the first principles of any claim is that you mitigate your losses. The insurer will be claiming that if you could have afforded to hire a car yourselves, then it would have been a LOT cheaper than a credit-hire car.

And it'd be much cheaper for the other parties insurance company to hire the car directly - they can afford it and will be able to get fleet rates. It shouldn't be up to the injured party to rent a car and then spend years trying to get it refunded.

Ultimately, the driver/renter may need to attend court and tell them that they were just doing what the insurance company suggested and beyond that it's nothing to do with them. The layman can't really be blamed for following recommendations from the company they hire to handle it. They've only been named on the action because they rented it, but it's really a claim against the other insurance company and it'll almost certainly be settled before the court date.

I honestly don't know why insurance companies waste so much time and effort doing this stuff in such a pointlessly inefficient way.

AdrianC

Herzlos said:

And it'd be much cheaper for the other parties insurance company to hire the car directly - they can afford it and will be able to get fleet rates. It shouldn't be up to the injured party to rent a car and then spend years trying to get it refunded.

Where insurer liability is clear-cut, yes. But in this case, it wasn't. There was uncertainty as to whether the driver, taxi firm, or taxi hirer's insurance was the one that'd pay - even though the driver's liability was clear.

Lucyloo22 said:
...
It wasn’t clear at the time of the accident who the other party’s insurance was with, he was a taxi driver working for a local firm, but the car was hired from a separate firm so it was all a bit confusing who we were claiming off, the driver, the taxi company or the car owner.
...

EdGasketTheSecond

The insurance company/claims company never ask you whether you can get a hire car yourself cheaper do they? They just foist one on you and say there you go we will claim the cost from the other side. So why would a court expect you to know about all this and refuse what the insurer or their agent are telling you and get your own hire car? Seems a stupid waste of time all round.