Admiral & Auxillis. Non-fault claim RTC advice needed.

Tushinteli_30

Good evening all,
Just looking for some advice regarding a RTC I was involved in this morning.
I was approaching a set of traffic lights on a two lane road (A559), with a limit of 60mph. You can see the lights way off and I saw that they were changing to green so moved into the outside overtaking lane as there were around 5/6 stationary cars in the left hand lane and my lane was clear. I approached doing around 45/50mph when a transit van pulled into my lane from the line of traffic on the left as he was trying to jump the queue and overtake the cars in front of him. Only the front right wheel/trim on his car took any damage whereas mine is now potentially a total loss.
We pulled over and he tried to say it was my fault as i was going too fast??! However the lights were green, i was in the overtaking lane and he pulled into me.
Anyway, I called Admiral and explained that I had been involved in an accident and would need to make a claim and would require a courtesy car for work purposes, as covered in my full Comp policy. I explained the situation to Admiral and they said they would handle it as a Non-fault third party claim. Fine. 
However they then transferred me over to Auxillis to arrange what i thought was a courtesy car but turns out its a Hire car.
After receiving documents through a secure link they want £80 for delivery and collection and £60 for Damage protection.
Surely I shouldn't have to pay anything as i am full comp. Plus why is it a hire car vs a courtesy car?  

I've done a little research and turns out they are a Credit hire company that will deal with the claim instead of Admiral.
This is the first time I've ever had an RTC so wanted to make sure I was doing the right thing in going through Auxillis and not Admiral direct. Seems as though they handle everything and then claim back from the third party insurer. 

I apologise for being a total noob, but i don't want/cannot afford to mess this up. 

AdrianC

Tushinteli_30 said:

Good evening all,
Just looking for some advice regarding a RTC I was involved in this morning.
I was approaching a set of traffic lights on a two lane road (A559), with a limit of 60mph. You can see the lights way off and I saw that they were changing to green so moved into the outside overtaking lane as there were around 5/6 stationary cars in the left hand lane and my lane was clear. I approached doing around 45/50mph when a transit van pulled into my lane from the line of traffic on the left as he was trying to jump the queue and overtake the cars in front of him. Only the front right wheel/trim on his car took any damage whereas mine is now potentially a total loss.
We pulled over and he tried to say it was my fault as i was going too fast??! However the lights were green, i was in the overtaking lane and he pulled into me.
Anyway, I called Admiral and explained that I had been involved in an accident and would need to make a claim and would require a courtesy car for work purposes, as covered in my full Comp policy. I explained the situation to Admiral and they said they would handle it as a Non-fault third party claim. Fine. 
However they then transferred me over to Auxillis to arrange what i thought was a courtesy car but turns out its a Hire car.
After receiving documents through a secure link they want £80 for delivery and collection and £60 for Damage protection.
Surely I shouldn't have to pay anything as i am full comp. Plus why is it a hire car vs a courtesy car?  

I've done a little research and turns out they are a Credit hire company that will deal with the claim instead of Admiral.
This is the first time I've ever had an RTC so wanted to make sure I was doing the right thing in going through Auxillis and not Admiral direct. Seems as though they handle everything and then claim back from the third party insurer. 

So the lights went green... two vehicles moved into the lane right... but only one was "trying to queue jump"...? Gotcha.
You were doing 50mph past a line of stationary traffic. 23 metres - five car lengths - per second, and you'd only just changed lane. And you were surprised that any one of those stationary vehicles had the same idea as you.

Hire car vs courtesy car? Terminology. No different. Somebody's going to pay for it somewhere down the line.

Charges? I can't read your policy docs from here, but surely the £80 won't be charged if you collect it rather than have it delivered, and the £60 won't be required if you opt out of the damage waiver...?

Admiral have passed you to Auxilis. You tried to use your insurer, they passed you on to their "accident management" outfit.

Dr_Crypto

Come on Adrian the OP was driving in his lane, presumably at a safe speed, and the van pulled out in front of him. How is it anyone other than the van driver’s fault? The damage is on the front of the van so the van man can’t even claim the OP went into the back of him! 

ontheroad1970

Dr_Crypto said:

Come on Adrian the OP was driving in his lane, presumably at a safe speed, and the van pulled out in front of him. How is it anyone other than the van driver’s fault? The damage is on the front of the van so the van man can’t even claim the OP went into the back of him! 

It's not necessarily that cut and dried.  Did the OP anticipate that someone might do this?  It's so likely to happen, I would not have had my foot on the accelerator but would have been covering the brake pedal.  It will definitely not be 100% the OP's fault but could still be held as contributory.  

fred246

They always have these videos on youtube with a title like "Idiot van driver pulls out in front of me". You start it and think "stationery traffic. OK to pass but I would take my foot off the gas and pass much slower than that". Why is he accelerating? Then you see the wheel of the van start moving and you're urging him to "brake brake brake". But instead he shouts "No you don't" and accelerates more. The car driver continues straight into the van and you're left thinking "What a stupid collision. That was SO avoidable". Legally the blame is apportioned to the van driver but you can see why no fault claims put your premium up. So many of these accidents are really caused by both parties.

Petriix

Accident management companies like Auxilis are pretty dubious and their hire car agreements tend to be extortionate, which can come back to bite you. We avoided a lot of the stress by going directly through the third party insurers after an obvious no-fault accident. The TPI have a good incentive to keep the costs down and were pretty reasonable throughout the process.

daveyjp

Whilst OP could have driven more defensively, the other driver is 100% at fault for failing to adequately ensure it was clear to pull out.  Or if what they say is true they pulled out knowing OP was going too fast!  Not a very watertight defence.

Highway Code.

133
If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed. When it is safe to do so, signal to indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear, move over.

Go via the other party's insurance to avoid the (mis) management company.

Auxillis

Hello Tushinteli_30,

We would like to clarify that if you have been involved in a non-fault accident, Auxillis does not charge customers for delivery and collection of the hire vehicle – as you correctly point out as a non-fault claimant you do not have to pay this. The damage protection waiver is also an optional extra providing cover and peace of mind should any damage occur to the hire vehicle. If you would like to discuss any of the questions you have regarding our service, please email onlineteam@auxillis.com and we can arrange for someone to contact you directly.

Kind Regards,

Auxillis Online Team

Glassart26

My husband was stationary waiting in traffic and was hit from rear side driver side bumper and passenger door by a Haulage flatbed vehicle on Grey's Inn Road on the morning of Friday 21st August 2020. Unfortunately, he did not take any situation photos at the time as this road is a major traffic route and wanted to get out of the way. We advised our insurer, Esure and they pursued the claim as a Non Fault Claim. We received great service overall. Got the hire car from Auxillus and the damage to our car was repaired. The damage did not impact the road worthiness of the car. The third party insurers were sent the costs on 8th September by Esure. On 21st September, they disputed liability claiming that they were stationary and that my husband hit them. By the time I was informed by Esure, on 28th September by letter to contact them, it was conveniently after the point at which I could obtain CCTV from Camden Council. ie The council keep CCTV on file for 30 days, after which it is deleted. I had requested it and have spoken to them but they don't have any videos of that date.

Our position is as follows:
My husband was stationary waiting in traffic on the one way road close to the bus lane. At the point of impact, the damage to the car started from the rear bumper and wheel arch, then along the door where it is shallow at the start and gets deeper at the end. There is no damage to the front of the car. The Haulage Vehicle was approaching Grey's Inn Road from the right side turning right onto Grey's Inn Road and as he turned in, he hit my husband. 

The Haulage Driver is claiming that he was stationary and that my husband drove into him. 
I have asked for a full account of their version of events, but this is all I have been told. 

My argument is that: If my husband was in motion, The point of impact would be at the front of the car, and there would be a lot more damage to the front driver side, then moving to the rear passenger side and, possibly even causing the bumper to come off. 
Esure has advised that their engineer could see both scenarios as plausible and has concluded the claim as 50:50 Partial Fault and that we have to pay 50% of the access fee. 
Based on the damage on my car, I completely disagree with this. We have motor legal cover.
Please can anyone advise? 
Thanks so much.

williamgriffin

Glassart26 said:

My husband was stationary waiting in traffic and was hit from rear side driver side bumper and passenger door by a Haulage flatbed vehicle on Grey's Inn Road on the morning of Friday 21st August 2020. Unfortunately, he did not take any situation photos at the time as this road is a major traffic route and wanted to get out of the way. We advised our insurer, Esure and they pursued the claim as a Non Fault Claim. We received great service overall. Got the hire car from Auxillus and the damage to our car was repaired. The damage did not impact the road worthiness of the car. The third party insurers were sent the costs on 8th September by Esure. On 21st September, they disputed liability claiming that they were stationary and that my husband hit them. By the time I was informed by Esure, on 28th September by letter to contact them, it was conveniently after the point at which I could obtain CCTV from Camden Council. ie The council keep CCTV on file for 30 days, after which it is deleted. I had requested it and have spoken to them but they don't have any videos of that date.

Our position is as follows:
My husband was stationary waiting in traffic on the one way road close to the bus lane. At the point of impact, the damage to the car started from the rear bumper and wheel arch, then along the door where it is shallow at the start and gets deeper at the end. There is no damage to the front of the car. The Haulage Vehicle was approaching Grey's Inn Road from the right side turning right onto Grey's Inn Road and as he turned in, he hit my husband. 

The Haulage Driver is claiming that he was stationary and that my husband drove into him. 
I have asked for a full account of their version of events, but this is all I have been told. 

My argument is that: If my husband was in motion, The point of impact would be at the front of the car, and there would be a lot more damage to the front driver side, then moving to the rear passenger side and, possibly even causing the bumper to come off. 
Esure has advised that their engineer could see both scenarios as plausible and has concluded the claim as 50:50 Partial Fault and that we have to pay 50% of the access fee. 
Based on the damage on my car, I completely disagree with this. We have motor legal cover.
Please can anyone advise? 
Thanks so much.

Start your own thread but you'll struggle to change their mind.

Glassart26

Thanks and ..sorry, I am new to posting on forums.