Insurance never ending nightmare 13 October 2022 at 11:06AM in Motoring 29 replies 1.3K views

TheGardener

 
DD had an accident in June this year, which should have been no fault (car in front braked, so did DD - car behind her didn't...) but as the driver of the car behind her was driving his wife's car, not his own -  DD's insurers have been dreadful but that's a whole other story.
The problem now is that after 4 months the garage contracted to do the work says they can't get the part they need for the vehicle and it may be many months before they get it! DD in the meantime is paying for public transport every day.
If the garage can't fix the car - can she press the insurance company to write it off? This can't go on forever - she simply doesn't have the resources to pay finance on a car she doesn't have and public transport indefinitely. 

pinkshoes

shouldn't the insurance for the person that hit her be paying for some sort of hire car?

You could then put it to the insurance to either pay for the hire car for an unknown amount of time until the part can be sourced, or write off the car and pay out.

DullGreyGuy

What has car parts got to do with insurance? If no insurance was involved how would the issue be any different?

Her insurance is limited by the T&Cs of her policy and as alternative transport is not an insured loss the inconvenience of part issues are neither their fault nor their issue.

Is her car driveable? Could it be made driveable?

Assuming no costs have been incurred it may be possible to deal with the third party insurer directly. They would be liable for the vehicle damage and alternative transport and so are more likely to consider that a long delay on repairs may become more efficient to write the vehicle off, especially if you talk about going into credit hire. 

TheGardener

pinkshoes said:

shouldn't the insurance for the person that hit her be paying for some sort of hire car?

You could then put it to the insurance to either pay for the hire car for an unknown amount of time until the part can be sourced, or write off the car and pay out.

Yeah, you'd think wouldn't you - but despite paying for the option of a hire car, apparently the T&C's say 'subject to availability and there is apparently 'no availability 

TheGardener

DullGreyGuy said:

What has car parts got to do with insurance? If no insurance was involved how would the issue be any different?

Her insurance is limited by the T&Cs of her policy and as alternative transport is not an insured loss the inconvenience of part issues are neither their fault nor their issue.

Is her car driveable? Could it be made driveable?

Assuming no costs have been incurred it may be possible to deal with the third party insurer directly. They would be liable for the vehicle damage and alternative transport and so are more likely to consider that a long delay on repairs may become more efficient to write the vehicle off, especially if you talk about going into credit hire. 

DD's own fully comp insurance is paying but the guy who caused the accident was insured 3rd party only on his wife's car - and, DD's insurers were not prepared to press for a no-fault case.. The car cannot be fixed because the lead time for the required part is spring 2024! 
Her car would be drivable without this particular sensor but the garage completing the repairs is not prepared to allow the vehicle to leave the garage without it as it is a 'safety feature' . The other parts required have been sourced and are ready and waiting to be fitted to the vehicle. 

DullGreyGuy

TheGardener said:

DullGreyGuy said:

What has car parts got to do with insurance? If no insurance was involved how would the issue be any different?

Her insurance is limited by the T&Cs of her policy and as alternative transport is not an insured loss the inconvenience of part issues are neither their fault nor their issue.

Is her car driveable? Could it be made driveable?

Assuming no costs have been incurred it may be possible to deal with the third party insurer directly. They would be liable for the vehicle damage and alternative transport and so are more likely to consider that a long delay on repairs may become more efficient to write the vehicle off, especially if you talk about going into credit hire. 

DD's own fully comp insurance is paying but the guy who caused the accident was insured 3rd party only on his wife's car - and, DD's insurers were not prepared to press for a no-fault case.. The car cannot be fixed because the lead time for the required part is spring 2024! 
Her car would be drivable without this particular sensor but the garage completing the repairs is not prepared to allow the vehicle to leave the garage without it as it is a 'safety feature' . The other parts required have been sourced and are ready and waiting to be fitted to the vehicle. 

If the guy is TPO, TPFT, Comp or even the ultra rare RTAO it makes no difference to your claim against them (assuming it was on a road or public car park). Assuming he was driving the car under the Driving Other Cars extension of their own insurance then inevitably there will be more enquiries done into indemnity to ensure no other insurance exists but thats a delay not something that stops a claim. 

Whilst some here seem to get aghast, the majority of people claim off their own insurance for a non-fault claim and then their insurer counterclaims from the third party insurer. Its a minority that claim directly off the third party insurer. There are pluses and minuses of both options but as mentioned above, off your own insurance they will wait for spare parts if they are believed to be available.

Sounds like your daughter has courtesy car cover rather than hire, this is typically subject to availability and the vehicle being repairable.

The garage, for a couple of reasons, will be sourcing the part from their set supplier (or even via the insurer) but have you seen if other routes have the part? Would a used part be acceptable to you to get things moving forward?

PS. you mention the car infront... was this a 2 car accident or was she pushed into the vehicle ahead?

sheramber

Was the damage your daughter's car caused by her hitting the car in front?

TheGardener

The car in front of DD braked sharply (legitimately) DD braked hard and although it was close - she did not hit the car in front - until - a second later - the guy behind sailed in to her and shoved her into the car in front. There was almost negligible damage to the car in front (small crack on the bumper) but nothing to render the car undrivable. Car behind was probably written off - whole front end crumpled up - DD's car sustained damage to the front and back. Perfectly repairable IF you can get the parts. Yes, we have made it clear to the garage we have no problem with a used part and yes, we (and extended family) are also scouring yards and websites looking for the part with the garage's knowledge we are doing so. many hands make light work etc...

So - if the garage really can not get a part until spring 2024, that means paying finance and insurance (I guess we can SORN and the MOT expired last week. ) for nearly 2 years (accident mid-June 2022) on a vehicle she can't use. Is there any point at which the insurers would say 'write off' ? DD does have gap insurance. 

Manxman_in_exile

@DullGreyGuy -  forgive me if I'm being dense, but are you suggesting to the OP that in this case his daughter ought to be claiming direct of the other driver's insurance rather than her own?  (The other driver being the one behind.)

The advantage being that by doing so the daughter could claim for car hire from the other insurer whereas her own insurer doesn't cover this?

Apologies if I've misunderstood, but I've been confused since reading the OP's first sentence:

TheGardener said:

 
DD had an accident in June this year, which should have been no fault (car in front braked, so did DD - car behind her didn't...) but as the driver of the car behind her was driving his wife's car, not his own -  DD's insurers have been dreadful but that's a whole other story...

Eh?

DanDare999

Manxman_in_exile said:

@DullGreyGuy -  forgive me if I'm being dense, but are you suggesting to the OP that in this case his daughter ought to be claiming direct of the other driver's insurance rather than her own?  (The other driver being the one behind.)

The advantage being that by doing so the daughter could claim for car hire from the other insurer whereas her own insurer doesn't cover this?

Apologies if I've misunderstood, but I've been confused since reading the OP's first sentence:

TheGardener said:

 
DD had an accident in June this year, which should have been no fault (car in front braked, so did DD - car behind her didn't...) but as the driver of the car behind her was driving his wife's car, not his own -  DD's insurers have been dreadful but that's a whole other story...

Eh?

Why not? After all liability for this accident is down to them. 

DullGreyGuy

Manxman_in_exile said:

@DullGreyGuy -  forgive me if I'm being dense, but are you suggesting to the OP that in this case his daughter ought to be claiming direct of the other driver's insurance rather than her own?  (The other driver being the one behind.)

The advantage being that by doing so the daughter could claim for car hire from the other insurer whereas her own insurer doesn't cover this?

Apologies if I've misunderstood, but I've been confused since reading the OP's first sentence:

As more recently clarified its a shunt... OP is the middle car and claims to have been pushed into the car in front. Its a commonly disputed accident circs as whilst the OP rear damage isnt going to be in question its not uncommon for the rear most car to say the front two had collided already and so they've no liability for the front damage.

Assuming liability isnt in dispute (for all damage), then the rear vehicle's insurer will be responsible for all of the OP's losses whereas the OP's own insurer is only liable for their insured losses, namely the vehicle damage. As such the TP Insurer may make a different decision on if the car is worth writing off or not because all alternative transport (public transport, taxies, hire cars etc) will be their responsibility to reimburse too. 

The downside, if the claim goes wrong your next step is court rather than complaint and Financial Ombudsman.