Car Written Off - Lousy Deal from LV

neilmcl

RedditchResident said:

The bottom line on this, and my probably my last comment, is that I was cheated by LV.  Everyone says 'prove your car was worth more'.  I can.  The records for the car testify to exceptionally high standards of maintenance.  The actual car testifies to the fact that pre collision it was perfect.  It therefore qualified as above average.  Allow for high mileage and maybe you can argue it comes back down to average per the guides used by LV.  That's still 2500 pounds.  I didn't get anywhere near that.  I was swindled.  That is all before you take into account any of the costs incurred as a consequence of being left without a car or the fact that no like for like replacement is available at even 2500.  Unless of course you are of the view that I am obliged to accept an unwarranted car with no service history.  Why?    

Thanks to all who took an interest.  I think that without exception folk were minded to be helpful.  There are experts on this forum as I have learned and it is heartening the extent to which they are willing to offer that expertise to those in need of it.  

No, the bottom line is you feel cheated, which isn't the same thing and tbh you've failed to convince anyone here that you have enough evidence to show your car is considerably worth more than the valuation you were given. You clearly are not going to accept this so you should follow the advice given earlier and take it up with your own insurer to see if you can get a better payout.

Sandtree

RedditchResident said:

Sandtree said:

RedditchResident said:

AdrianC said:

RedditchResident said:

AdrianC said:

RedditchResident said:

It is very clear that you are not an impartial commentator here.

You are wrong, and you are shooting the messenger.

Good luck. You will need it.

You defend the insurance industry to the death and avoid the uncomfortable facts of the case.

No, I'm explaining reality to you. It's not my fault you don't want to hear it.

"What was your car actually worth, the minute before it got hit?
That's what they owe you. Not a penny more."

And that isn't defending the insurance industry?  I am out hundreds of pounds over and above the value of the car.  Just one of the uncomfortable facts you seem not to want to hear.  What you are 'explaining to me' is what LV would want you to explain to me.  By coincidence.  

Read HandsonaBush above:  "Whatever happened to the premise that a non fault claim should leave you in the position you were as if the accident never happened? You can't buy a replacement that easily without costs and certainly not at Glasses guide prices. Maybe you should invite LV to source you a replacement!".  I couldn't have put it better myself.

As already explained on your duplicate thread.... you are not their customer, you are not protected by their T&Cs.

You are suing their customer and they are stepping in to defend their customer.  If you want to have LV buy you a replacement car then go to court and get an injunction against the at fault driver and the insurer will step in to fulfill it.

When you are not a customer this isnt about "insurance" this is about the tort of negligence and common law, their duty is to their customer not you. If you want someone to blame then blame the courts that have previously ruled that when someone does wrong to another they are only due indemnification. Also remember that were you to ever damage someone else's property that you too would be held to the same standards but we've seen it all before here where someone complains about what they get from the third party and then comes back complaining about how much someone is trying to get off them. When your the claimant the world is unfair, when you are the defendant the claimant is totally unreasonable and in cloud cuckoo land

The advantage of being an innocent third party is that you are entitled to claim all reasonable financial losses from the third party/their insurers not just your insured losses. So if you are "out hundreds of pounds over and above the car value" then submit your claim for those additional losses and your evidence to support them (eg taxi receipts, phone bills etc).

I don't think I have a duplicate thread on the go.  I just looked and I only have two threads on my profile, this one and another from when I found out Ford Motor Company didn't pay NICs due and I am out of pocket on state pension.  

A lot of sense in the rest of what you say.  My flat once flooded my neighbour below and I paid like for like and made an ex gratia payment in cash for the inconvenience.  I had only just bought mine and it was being worked on.  I had no insurance.  I was happy to pay more than the insurance would have because I felt that was the right thing to do.  Strictly speaking you are of course right.  We are all likely to be on one side or the other at different times and our view of the world can change in mysterious ways to suit the circumstances.  C'est la vie.    

You resurrected an old thread and added your story to Write off offer for car - Page 3 — MoneySavingExpert Forum but then ignored the people that took the time to reply to you.

AdrianC

RedditchResident said:

That is all before you take into account any of the costs incurred as a consequence of being left without a car

Which are a totally separate part of the claim to the value of the car. What are you proposing as your losses?

Presumably, you were offered/provided a loan car until such time as the write-off was decided and a settlement value offered?

The fact it's taken you six months and counting to agree that settlement value - when we're only talking about a £700 difference - is neither relevant to any payout you would be due, nor is it likely to be seen as reasonable.

How hard have you tried to mitigate your losses in this regard?

Sandtree

RedditchResident said:

Car_54 said:

RedditchResident said:

Car_54 said:

RedditchResident said:

 And if I want to do anything about it I have to take out an injunction against the other driver and go to court and on and on and on.   How much do i have to risk to set off down that road.  And if I win I get the balance of what should have been offered in the first place.

You wouldn't take out an injunction, you would make a claim. But why do you imagine a court would value your car higher than the insurer has?

See elsewhere on the thread.  Its a lot to type again.

Elsewhere on the thread, I see little support for your optimistic valuation.

You need to be aware that the court will apply the same logic as the insurer. And probably arrive at the same conclusion.

Not according to the Ombudsman's website.

The ombudsman deals with matter of insurance between a policyholder and their insurer... this is a matter between you and the third party under the tort of negligence, the third party have asked that their insurer steps in to deal with the matter on their behalf, they equally could have asked a solicitor to do so (though obviously would be financially sensible to). The only difference is that an insurer can go against the wishes of their client whereas a solicitor wouldn't. 

In my claims handling days those that deal with policyholders were a totally different part of the business to those dealing with third parties. Our processes were different, authorities different, KPIs different, even job titles were different (they were claims advisors, we were claims technicians) ... the only commonality was we had the same Managing Director and employer. 

caprikid1

I know what you mean OP, I had a similar experience with Direct Line. They were poor in every area, the negotiator would only ever call, not put anything in writing, they lied, bullied, blackmailed. In 30 years of driving I have never known an experience so horrid considering I was stationary at the time of they accident. They even had the cheek to tell one garage who quoted to repair the car to bash it out as opposed to doing the correct structural repair. Given the car was a classic mini you hardly want it any weaker.
I was rear ended by one of their drivers not paying attention on the motorway, 2 small children in the back. The accident could have cost lives or at least led to serious injury.
Never again will I try and deal with a third party insurance company in this scenario... straight to an accident management company. I landed out £2K out of pocket plus time plus inconvenience. All for trying to do the right thing.
Next time you go for a cheap quote, read the reviews.

RedditchResident

AdrianC said:

RedditchResident said:

That is all before you take into account any of the costs incurred as a consequence of being left without a car

Which are a totally separate part of the claim to the value of the car. What are you proposing as your losses?

Presumably, you were offered/provided a loan car until such time as the write-off was decided and a settlement value offered?

The fact it's taken you six months and counting to agree that settlement value - when we're only talking about a £700 difference - is neither relevant to any payout you would be due, nor is it likely to be seen as reasonable.

How hard have you tried to mitigate your losses in this regard?

Steady on. I had a loan car for a week.   LV paid what they considered my car to be worth some time ago.  It was two days ago that I got a response from the Ombudsman saying they cannot help as I am not a customer of LV.  Just a victim.  I get nothing for the other costs.  As far as I know other costs are a write off.  Like my car you might say.  Who cares what I mitigate?  Certainly not LV.

I'm pointing out that apart from the car, on which I am heavily out of pocket, there are other costs that I will never be compensated for.   Is that somehow a terrible thing to say?  Am I being 'pernickity' again? 

Sandtree

caprikid1 said:

Next time you go for a cheap quote, read the reviews.

The problem is that every insurer has bad reviews and the bigger the insurer the more there are but that doesnt mean as a proportion of all claims handled they are higher.

You also have to differentiate what is a bad experience of claims -v- what was unrealistic expectations. As to not pick on the OP I once had a claim from a TP where they claimed their solid gold bracelet had been dented in the accident and submitted a quote for a replacement of circa £5,000. It seemed broadly plausible that something on the wrist could be damaged but if its "solid" gold seemed a bit odd so requested they send in the bracelet. What turned up was something without hallmarks, less than 20% the weight state on the replacement quote and was a hollow tube design with a dent in it. Off it goes to our jewelry repair company for inspection and their report confirmed it was 9ct gold plate with a high street value new of circa £50 and a secondhand value of sub £10.

To put the matter to bed, the case had been running far too long, rather than offering the indemnity value of £10 I sent the report and offered £50 including the return of the item if they wanted. 6 months later it was accepted and a scathing review of how we had robbed her of £4,950 was posted online. 

People often have unrealistic valuations for things insured on an indemnity basis, they dont understand what their policies cover and dont cover plus think nothing of falsely exaggerating claims and yet when an insurer does exactly what they said they would, or even goes beyond that, still negative reviews are left... Obviously the same as any company they do sometimes mess up and some are better than others but a negative review can stem from multiple things

RedditchResident

Sandtree said:

RedditchResident said:

Sandtree said:

You resurrected an old thread and added your story to Write off offer for car - Page 3 — MoneySavingExpert Forum but then ignored the people that took the time to reply to you.

Actually you are right, I did.  At first I did a search and found that thread, added my post but then realised it was a 'stale' thread so initiated this thread.  I didn't realise you were referring to a 'post' I had made elsewhere, you actually referred to a 'thread' I had made.  I hadn't. 
I am only getting used to this forum.  I didn't see any notifications regarding that post.  I get immediate notifications regarding this thread.  I didn't deliberately ignore anyone.  I take care to acknowledge the time and effort taken to reply to me.  Its appreciated and I know you have particular expertise in this area.

AdrianC

RedditchResident said:
LV paid what they considered my car to be worth some time ago.

Ah, so the claim was actually closed back in August...?
You sort of forgot to mention that bit.

I was under the impression the claim was still ongoing because you'd refused the £1,800 settlement.

Don't bother phoning your insurer, then.

I'm pointing out that apart from the car, on which I am heavily out of pocket, there are other costs that I will never be compensated for.   Is that somehow a terrible thing to say?

I don't think you bothered to read the post you replied to, did you?

You are entitled to your out-of-pocket expenses arising from the collision.

They are separate to what we thought was an ongoing disagreement over the valuation, although they may have been deemed to be included in the now-closed claim...

RedditchResident

neilmcl said:

  

No, the bottom line is you feel cheated, which isn't the same thing and tbh you've failed to convince anyone here that you have enough evidence to show your car is considerably worth more than the valuation you were given. You clearly are not going to accept this so you should follow the advice given earlier and take it up with your own insurer to see if you can get a better payout.

Aren't you the presumptuous one!  Self appointed spokesperson for the forum no less.   Beyond pointing to ebay non runners, broken roofs, unwarranted cars with no service history etc, nobody on the forum has offered any evidence to suggest I might be wrong about the valuation.  On what grounds am I wrong?  Because LV say so?