Accident management companies like Auxillis - BEWARE!

Sandtree

Admiral_Barbarossa said:

Sandtree said:

Ectophile said:

ontheroad1970 said:

When I was hit by an Admiral customer, they put me onto Enterprise, not Auxilis.

That sounds very sensible of them.  Get a car from a normal car hire company, that charges competitive daily rates.  Not one from a claims company that charges as much as they think they can get away with.

Enterprise also have a claims management arm that charges the ABI GTA rates that are the same as Auxilis. The difference here is that there is a guarantee the bill is paid and so the hire company be it ERC or Auxilis will charge the commercial rates agreed with the instructing insurer... when there is risk for the company that they may not be paid at all then the ABI GTA rates apply or something similar if the CHC company/insurer isn't party to the GTA.

Admiral_Barbarossa said:
Never had a non fault claim!

But you said:

Admiral_Barbarossa said:
I pay the excess if it is my fault! At the time of my last prang, the insurer dealt with it. As it was not my fault, I pain nothing! 

Which of the two statements should we believe?

No Problem. When I took a car for a swim, my fault, I paid the excess! The other statement remains true!Does that answer your question?

No, you are missing the second and third sentence when you said... At the time of my last prang, the insurer dealt with it. As it was not my fault, I pain (SIC) nothing! 

How can you have had a "last prang" that the insurer dealt with that wasn't your fault so you didn't pay the excess and at the same time state that you've never had a non-fault claim?

Jenni_D

Admiral_Barbarossa said:

Sandtree said:

Ectophile said:

ontheroad1970 said:

When I was hit by an Admiral customer, they put me onto Enterprise, not Auxilis.

That sounds very sensible of them.  Get a car from a normal car hire company, that charges competitive daily rates.  Not one from a claims company that charges as much as they think they can get away with.

Enterprise also have a claims management arm that charges the ABI GTA rates that are the same as Auxilis. The difference here is that there is a guarantee the bill is paid and so the hire company be it ERC or Auxilis will charge the commercial rates agreed with the instructing insurer... when there is risk for the company that they may not be paid at all then the ABI GTA rates apply or something similar if the CHC company/insurer isn't party to the GTA.

Admiral_Barbarossa said:
Never had a non fault claim!

But you said:

Admiral_Barbarossa said:
I pay the excess if it is my fault! At the time of my last prang, the insurer dealt with it. As it was not my fault, I pain nothing! 

Which of the two statements should we believe?

No Problem. When I took a car for a swim, my fault, I paid the excess! The other statement remains true!Does that answer your question?

Jenni_D said:

Admiral_Barbarossa said:

Sandtree said:

Admiral_Barbarossa said:

Sandtree said:

Admiral_Barbarossa said:

Ectophile said:

Admiral_Barbarossa said:

Question. Are you fully Comp?
If no, I am afraid you will have to contest this!

I'm not entirely sure what the "this" is that should be contested.

Fully Comp means if I prang my wheels, I ring my insurer and they deal with it. Third party means you are at the whim of your good self, though they can reimburse the other party!

If that's "fully comp" then what is Comprehensive but not "fully comp" @Admiral_Barbarossa ?

You ring your insurers, you have to pay your excess and have an open fault claim on your insurance. You get a Group A car from the garage if your car is repairable and if the garage happens to have a free one. If the claim is settled at a later date as non-fault then you have to deal with reversing out the impact on your premiums and attempt to recover your excess from the third party insurers.

Admiral therefore give you the option of route 2, go to their pet accident management company, get the repairs done without having to pay your excess. Get a more appropriate hire car irrespective of if your car is repairable or not. Have no significant impact on your renewal as its a notification only on your record not an open/fault claim. 

There are various pro's and con's of both models but there are some very legitimate reasons why when someone with a MPV for 7 people needs to go down the credit hire route rather than trying to get everyone into a Corsa

I pay the excess if it is my fault! At the time of my last prang, the insurer dealt with it. As it was not my fault, I pain nothing! Previous time when I took my car for a swim, I paid the excess! When a car of Germanic extraction happened to hit the car two behind on the motorway, we found he had no insurance, still did not have to pay!

But thanks for the run down of how admiral operate, they are off any considered future quote!

Re read your policy book... you pay your excess for non-fault claims too, at your insurers discretion they can choose to waive it but its their choice alone and not a right. 

Admiral are not the only ones, and technically its just a suggestion from them, if you want to pay your excess and have an open claim on your record until its resolved you are entitled to do so.

ontheroad1970 said:

When I was hit by an Admiral customer, they put me onto Enterprise, not Auxilis.

When you were hit by their customer they would be paying the bill. Enterprise corporate rates for a group B car in my day was £15 and Credit hire £39/day... which would you put someone in if you were paying the bill?

Never had a non fault claim!

Can you let us know your normal driving routes please, so we know where to avoid?  

Why, as I have said. I have never had a non fault claim!

Perhaps you should brush up on sentence structure and phrasing then.

You've used a double-negative ... If you've never had a non-fault claim, then all your claims have been your "fault".  

Admiral_Barbarossa

As far as I am asware a non fault claim is when the insures decide that both parties are equally responsible! As I have said, I have not had a non fault claim!

Sandtree

Admiral_Barbarossa said:

As far as I am asware a non fault claim is when the insures decide that both parties are equally responsible! As I have said, I have not had a non fault claim!

No, if its a 50/50 claim as both are equally responsible then its a fault claim for both parties.

A non-fault claim is where another party is 100% to blame for the accident... like the classic scenario of being parked at the traffic lights and someone goes into the back of you. 

As quoted above, you stated that in your non-fault claim you paid nothing. 

Jenni_D

Admiral_Barbarossa said:

As far as I am asware a non fault claim is when the insures decide that both parties are equally responsible! As I have said, I have not had a non fault claim!

No ... a non-fault claim is where one party is deemed to be not at fault (i.e. the insurer recovers all their costs). What you've described is a shared fault claim.

Admiral_Barbarossa

Oh bother. I’m off to the CoOp to get some popcorn. I’ll get my coat. 

TimSynths

Admiral_Barbarossa said:

Oh bother. I’m off to the CoOp to get some popcorn. I’ll get my coat. 

You wont need it- its scorchio outside.

Petriix

So, back on topic...

Yes, definitely avoid the parasitic accident management companies. As usual, most people seem to be ignoring the most pragmatic course of action when involved in an accident where the third party is obviously at fault: deal directly with the third party insurers.

In the past decade my partner and I have been involved in three such accidents. On each occasion we've simply notified our insurers on an 'information only' basis and claimed back all our losses and expenses via the TPI.

It's a non-zero-sum-game. The TPI benefit because they're not being fleeced for every penny with extortionate costs. You benefit by avoiding any liability for having such costs claimed back. You also get the chance to negotiate a better payout, especially if you can put together a reasonable case of evidence to support your claim. 

It boils down to this: accident management companies are only interested in their own profits. They don't care about getting the best outcome for you. The TPI want to minimise their costs. By cutting out the middleman, you are in a far better position.

This obviously requires a bit of admin, but not massively more than would be needed anyway. It's also only recommended if liability is readily accepted by the TPI.

ontheroad1970

Petriix said:

So, back on topic...

Yes, definitely avoid the parasitic accident management companies. As usual, most people seem to be ignoring the most pragmatic course of action when involved in an accident where the third party is obviously at fault: deal directly with the third party insurers.

In the past decade my partner and I have been involved in three such accidents. On each occasion we've simply notified our insurers on an 'information only' basis and claimed back all our losses and expenses via the TPI.

It's a non-zero-sum-game. The TPI benefit because they're not being fleeced for every penny with extortionate costs. You benefit by avoiding any liability for having such costs claimed back. You also get the chance to negotiate a better payout, especially if you can put together a reasonable case of evidence to support your claim. 

It boils down to this: accident management companies are only interested in their own profits. They don't care about getting the best outcome for you. The TPI want to minimise their costs. By cutting out the middleman, you are in a far better position.

This obviously requires a bit of admin, but not massively more than would be needed anyway. It's also only recommended if liability is readily accepted by the TPI.

The problem with going directly to the third party insurers is that if there is a problem you have no recourse to the regulator.  

Petriix

ontheroad1970 said:

Petriix said:

So, back on topic...

Yes, definitely avoid the parasitic accident management companies. As usual, most people seem to be ignoring the most pragmatic course of action when involved in an accident where the third party is obviously at fault: deal directly with the third party insurers.

In the past decade my partner and I have been involved in three such accidents. On each occasion we've simply notified our insurers on an 'information only' basis and claimed back all our losses and expenses via the TPI.

It's a non-zero-sum-game. The TPI benefit because they're not being fleeced for every penny with extortionate costs. You benefit by avoiding any liability for having such costs claimed back. You also get the chance to negotiate a better payout, especially if you can put together a reasonable case of evidence to support your claim. 

It boils down to this: accident management companies are only interested in their own profits. They don't care about getting the best outcome for you. The TPI want to minimise their costs. By cutting out the middleman, you are in a far better position.

This obviously requires a bit of admin, but not massively more than would be needed anyway. It's also only recommended if liability is readily accepted by the TPI.

The problem with going directly to the third party insurers is that if there is a problem you have no recourse to the regulator.  

Sure, but they do have a legal obligation (backed by the courts if necessary) to leave you in the same position as you were before the accident. That tends to trump any regulatory body.