Car hire after non fault accident ......HELP !!!!!

Sandtree

Grumpy_chap said:

I still do not understand how the car hire racked up to £5.5k.
Using a major car rental firm, a large car like a Passat for one month is quoted online at £700.  £5.5k means either a very good car or a very long time.

The last credit hire complaint in the Motor section had an BMW M3 at nearly £1k per day (wasnt on ABI GTA rates) and their bill was £12k for a fortnight and the insurer has only offered £4-5k to settle - unfortunately the OP of that thread was elusive with answers to questions too

TELLIT01 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I still do not understand how the car hire racked up to £5.5k.
Using a major car rental firm, a large car like a Passat for one month is quoted online at £700.  £5.5k means either a very good car or a very long time.

Or the car returned with a lot of damage?

A credit hire car returned with damage gets billed to the hirer for the damage/LoR... the rental payments are all that get claimed from the TP

Grumpy_chap

Sandtree said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I still do not understand how the car hire racked up to £5.5k.
Using a major car rental firm, a large car like a Passat for one month is quoted online at £700.  £5.5k means either a very good car or a very long time.

The last credit hire complaint in the Motor section had an BMW M3 at nearly £1k per day (wasnt on ABI GTA rates) and their bill was £12k for a fortnight and the insurer has only offered £4-5k to settle - unfortunately the OP of that thread was elusive with answers to questions too

So, someone drives, say, a Focus, and then they take, say, a Range Rover, thinking it is a right old wheeze and will all be covered by someone else's insurance.  In such a case, I would say the claimant had been negligent in not managing their expenses and the increase above an equivalent car is for the claimant to fund.

Obviously, we don't know what actually happened for the OP.

Sandtree

Grumpy_chap said:

Sandtree said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I still do not understand how the car hire racked up to £5.5k.
Using a major car rental firm, a large car like a Passat for one month is quoted online at £700.  £5.5k means either a very good car or a very long time.

The last credit hire complaint in the Motor section had an BMW M3 at nearly £1k per day (wasnt on ABI GTA rates) and their bill was £12k for a fortnight and the insurer has only offered £4-5k to settle - unfortunately the OP of that thread was elusive with answers to questions too

So, someone drives, say, a Focus, and then they take, say, a Range Rover, thinking it is a right old wheeze and will all be covered by someone else's insurance.  In such a case, I would say the claimant had been negligent in not managing their expenses and the increase above an equivalent car is for the claimant to fund.

Obviously, we don't know what actually happened for the OP.

We don't know but you can have a fairly good guess as these things popup all the time... 99% of the time a credit hire will be as near as damn it a like for like so if you have the larger engine Focus they will ensure the hire car is also the larger engine version too and slap on the extra £30 a day for the higher grouping.

biscuit1_2

Sandtree said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I still do not understand how the car hire racked up to £5.5k.
Using a major car rental firm, a large car like a Passat for one month is quoted online at £700.  £5.5k means either a very good car or a very long time.

The last credit hire complaint in the Motor section had an BMW M3 at nearly £1k per day (wasnt on ABI GTA rates) and their bill was £12k for a fortnight and the insurer has only offered £4-5k to settle - unfortunately the OP of that thread was elusive with answers to questions too

TELLIT01 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I still do not understand how the car hire racked up to £5.5k.
Using a major car rental firm, a large car like a Passat for one month is quoted online at £700.  £5.5k means either a very good car or a very long time.

Or the car returned with a lot of damage?

A credit hire car returned with damage gets billed to the hirer for the damage/LoR... the rental payments are all that get claimed from the TP

Had a hired car from Nov 25th to Jan 13th 7 weeks, nothing on my part affected the length of time,they provided a citroen C3 to replace my Ford Fiest Zetec

biscuit1_2

TELLIT01 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I still do not understand how the car hire racked up to £5.5k.
Using a major car rental firm, a large car like a Passat for one month is quoted online at £700.  £5.5k means either a very good car or a very long time.

Or the car returned with a lot of damage?

No damage returned as picked up 

biscuit1_2

My main question is tbh, has anybody come across the term Contingent liabilty, i kind of get what is going on.
The company that is approaching me is a Solicitor that after some checks comes out as pretty reputable, i am being told if i am compliant they will pay any costs that are incured, primarily, i believe, as they work in a numbers game, so i have to admit i was in the wrong, and not pressured or cohersed, which i was, so they can carry on the game, if i go along all is ok, or is it ......

biscuit1_2

Please bear with me, i'm an old fart 

[Deleted User]

Another victim of the car hire scam. The government should have stopped this years ago.

Basically the other insurance company is saying that the hire charge is a ripoff and you should have gone somewhere cheaper. Legally you are supposed to keep your costs down, not take some ridiculously expensive hire contact just because it's the first one offered to you.

Anyway it seems they are saying as long as you cooperate you won't be in the hook. Have they explained exactly what they want from you?

Petriix

The moral of the story is to sort out your own alternative transport and limit the costs to what is strictly necessary. If you must have a hire car then ask the third party insurers to provide one of their choice so that you can guarantee that they won't try to pass the charges on to you.

TELLIT01

I suspect that the vast majority of people, if offered a car by the insurer, would assume it's all covered by the insurance.  The moral really is that you mustn't make any assumptions when dealing with insurers.