Auxillis court case for hire car

DoaM

The reality is ... the insurance company complaining about the credit hire costs would do exactly the same if it was their customer and the other party was at fault. 

AdrianC

EdGasketTheSecond said:

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

They don't force you to take it. And the paperwork clearly states that the person receiving the car is liable for the cost if the other party don't pay. Accepting the car accepts that liability.

EdGasketTheSecond

I'd say most people won't realise that they might be liable; the accident management company never make this clear and who reads the paperwork anyway; there's usually pages of it and someone says sign here cos they're in a hurry. Most people wouldn't think of hiring a car themselves plus the claims co. wouldn't like it either and most likely would give up pursuiing the claim.

AdrianC

Congratulations, you've just nailed the reason they're still in business.

Nobody ever bothers to read what they're putting themselves liable for.

Herzlos

AdrianC said:

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.

That doesn't change that fact that it's everyone's responsibility to reduce costs and the insurance company is the expert here. Instead of advising the customer to get a cheaper option they passed them over to a company to sort the car. Ergo the responsibility for the cost of the car lives with the insurance company.

danwilliams

Herzlos said:

AdrianC said:

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.

That doesn't change that fact that it's everyone's responsibility to reduce costs and the insurance company is the expert here. Instead of advising the customer to get a cheaper option they passed them over to a company to sort the car. Ergo the responsibility for the cost of the car lives with the insurance company.

Basically if your involved in an accident go to the at fault insurer. Your insurance can deal with your claim but instead earn £250-£500 by passing your information to Auxillis who then inflate the costs of the claim while your stuck in a financially binding contract to foot the bill if the insurance doesn’t. The case law Copley v Lawn protects insurers from companies like Auxillis but at your expense and you must reduce the cost of the claim as much as you can and using Auxillis isn’t doing that 

payless

I agree to the principle but
Had two non-fault accidents in last 20years.
first one, the other insurance company made contact, dealt with everything including car Hire.

second refused to speak to me, had to claim off own, and fight for months to get excess back, and they even argued my request for £30 per day ( in lieu of care hire) for me using my “classic car” as a replacement ( cost me loads more to get It mot renewed and taxed ) 

[Deleted User]

Lucyloo22 said:

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. 

That might help him. If he was in hospital and in no fit state to sign up to a credit hire agreement in the event that he loses in court he could argue that whoever push the credit hire agreement on him took advantage of his reduced mental capacity and the contract is void.

They can't just look at your accounts, they are private and they have no right. They will probably just ask him questions about his income and savings in court.

Mercdriver

[DELETED USER] said:

Lucyloo22 said:

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. 

That might help him. If he was in hospital and in no fit state to sign up to a credit hire agreement in the event that he loses in court he could argue that whoever push the credit hire agreement on him took advantage of his reduced mental capacity and the contract is void.

They can't just look at your accounts, they are private and they have no right. They will probably just ask him questions about his income and savings in court.

Which he will have to answer truthfully and may have to back up with evidence.  Perjury and contempt of court accusations are just as valid in a civil court as they are in a criminal court.   

EdGasketTheSecond

So if it is your income and savings are key, then shouldn't auxillis be obliged to check those before deeming it appropriate to foister an expensive credit hire car on you? How can it be valid for the court to make this an issue when in the normal course of a claim it is never discussed? Are we expected to know that we should hire a car ourself; I don't think many people would be aware of that at all but just follow insurer's advice?