Car insurance - conflict of interest - company represents both drivers

anonmoose2000

My car was hit by another driver. My car was parked in a parking bay and the other driver drove into it. He admitted fault, but he is represented by the same insurer as me. The insurer is trying to claim my car is a write off without providing a quote for the repair, and by giving my a valuation based on the Parker guide or similar and not the market rate that similar cars to my own are selling for. I have 9 examples of cars that are selling for around £8,000 and they say my car is worth around £4,000.

I don't make many claims, and the last time I did over a decade ago the experience could not have been more different. The vehicle was repaired, no questions or haggling, but on that occasion the driver at fault was with a different insurance company.

Are my insurers acting unreasonably?

Is this a conflict of interest?

How can I resolve?

mr_stripey

it surely can't be that unusual to have two parties involved in a collision insured by the same company?

Aretnap

Not seeing a conflict of interest. Your insurer has the right to decide how to settle the claim - either by repairing the car or by writing it off, and the valuation they are offering is either correct or it isn't. Who the other driver is has no bearing on the value of the vehicle so that's what you should be concentrating on.

In theory the Parkers guide should be the market value - it is based on actual selling prices and the Ombudsman's view is that trade guides are more accurate than a collection of adverts for similar vehicles. The fact that someone advertises a car for £8000 doesn't mean that it will sell for £8000 - the seller might accept a lower offer, or it might sit on AutoTrader for weeks attracting no interest until it is readvertised at a lower price. (At which point it is probably snapped up quickly, so the majority of cars on AutoTrader on any given day are likely advertised at above the market price).

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/complaints-can-help/insurance/motor-insurance/vehicle-valuations-write-offs

However other trade guides are available and if they show a higher value than Parkers then that is something that should be considered. The FOS also says that they will consider adverts if they strongly suggest that the trade guides are wrong (eg if the disparity between advertised prices and the guides is very large).

Another thing to consider is that "market value" is assessed in national terms; if you live in an expensive part of the country and are only looking locally you might find that prices are higher, but this isn't necessarily something the insurer has to take into account.

daveyjp

Without an idea of damage its impossible to say.  However it doesn't take much to get to £3,000 for a claim even for what appears minor damage.  Add in courtesy  car and all the other insurance 'on costs' and costs can soar.

If you want to argue find a local bodyshop and see what they would charge for a repair.  If its reasonable the insurer may accept the quote and you can then get the car repaired.

dunstonh

I don't make many claims, and the last time I did over a decade ago the experience could not have been more different. The vehicle was repaired, no questions or haggling, but on that occasion the driver at fault was with a different insurance company.

The current environment is very different.   There is a shortage of courtesy cars.  There is a shortage of many parts and inflation with some car parts has been significant.    This means that things that may have been fixable cost effectively in the past are not necessarily cost effective today.

 I have 9 examples of cars that are selling for around £8,000 and they say my car is worth around £4,000

What have they said when you supplied them that evidence?

lisyloo

What damage is there?
have you had any quotes?
are you willing to get it fixed more cheaply?
are you asking for much in terms of other claims e.g. hire car?
some of the claim is under your control depending on what age of car it is.
what I mean by that is that if it was brand new I’d want it colour matched properly whereas if it was 20 years old I wouldn’t mind having a completely non matching scrap yard panel.

DullGreyGuy

anonmoose2000 said:

My car was hit by another driver. My car was parked in a parking bay and the other driver drove into it. He admitted fault, but he is represented by the same insurer as me. The insurer is trying to claim my car is a write off without providing a quote for the repair, and by giving my a valuation based on the Parker guide or similar and not the market rate that similar cars to my own are selling for. I have 9 examples of cars that are selling for around £8,000 and they say my car is worth around £4,000.

I don't make many claims, and the last time I did over a decade ago the experience could not have been more different. The vehicle was repaired, no questions or haggling, but on that occasion the driver at fault was with a different insurance company.

Are my insurers acting unreasonably?

Is this a conflict of interest?

How can I resolve?

Dont know what happened to my reply?

The shorter version:

The FCA and Lloyds are very aware of the risks of conflicts of interests and insurers have to show they have mechanisms to identify them and manage the risk associated with them. In cases like yours the risks are around liability and uninsured losses (eg injuries). In a case with two conflicting versions of events the most common settlement is a 50/50 however if the insurer covers both parties and one side has injuries it could be tempted to say it believes the non-injured version of events and so settle in their favour. Insured losses will be the same but by doing so it precludes the injured party from receiving any compensation.

Your complaint doesnt have anything to do with conflicts of interest. The reality is that repairing cars is really expensive right now and if a customer has an older car with a reasonable amount of damage its fairly bad form to send them around the place getting quotes when they know that in all probability its going to be beyond economic repair.

Insurers use guides like Glasses, CAP, Parkers etc, these days these are online and updated very frequently, some are daily, based on real sales values. The problem with adverts is that you could put your car online today with its damage and ask £12,000... you wont sell it but it'll be there that others would be able to see. This is why the Ombudsman pushes to using the guides because they are from actual sales rather than optimistic sellers.

Ultimately put a complaint in about the valuation, in the complaint also state that you'd prefer the vehicle to be repaired if the higher valuation makes it economical.

Clive_Woody

mr_stripey said:

it surely can't be that unusual to have two parties involved in a collision insured by the same company?

We had that with Aviva where both parties had the same insurer. My wife's car was hit hit head on by an elderly gentleman driving on the wrong side of the road. Initially Aviva proposed settling on a 50:50 basis. We politely declined and they reconsidered and my wife was found to not be at fault. The cynic in me says that Aviva would have liked both parties to be at fault, two excess payments and premiums increased accordingly.

DullGreyGuy

Clive_Woody said:

mr_stripey said:

it surely can't be that unusual to have two parties involved in a collision insured by the same company?

We had that with Aviva where both parties had the same insurer. My wife's car was hit hit head on by an elderly gentleman driving on the wrong side of the road. Initially Aviva proposed settling on a 50:50 basis. We politely declined and they reconsidered and my wife was found to not be at fault. The cynic in me says that Aviva would have liked both parties to be at fault, two excess payments and premiums increased accordingly.

Unless you have very unequal excess then that makes no difference, on a 50/50 settlement each party gets half their excess back and so its still effectively 1 excess paid if its 50/50 or 100/0.

There is a potential argument on two fault claims so higher premiums but if you arent happy that the insurer made you settle 50/50 when you felt you werent at fault, are you going to renew with them anyway?

Aretnap

Clive_Woody said:

mr_stripey said:

it surely can't be that unusual to have two parties involved in a collision insured by the same company?

We had that with Aviva where both parties had the same insurer. My wife's car was hit hit head on by an elderly gentleman driving on the wrong side of the road. Initially Aviva proposed settling on a 50:50 basis. We politely declined and they reconsidered and my wife was found to not be at fault. The cynic in me says that Aviva would have liked both parties to be at fault, two excess payments and premiums increased accordingly.

Premiums increased? More likely a 50:50 settlement leaves them with no premiums at all, because they will now have two unhappy customers who will look to take their business elsewhere at renewal time.

As for the excess, a 50:50 settlement means that both customers pay half their excess. So if insurers were going to risk the wrath of the regulators by rigging claims between their own customers, they would at least have the sense to rig them so that the party with the bigger excess was always 100% to blame. That way the risk of multimillion pound fines would at least be offset by the possibility of picking up an extra £100 here and there.

DullGreyGuy

Aretnap said:

Clive_Woody said:

mr_stripey said:

it surely can't be that unusual to have two parties involved in a collision insured by the same company?

We had that with Aviva where both parties had the same insurer. My wife's car was hit hit head on by an elderly gentleman driving on the wrong side of the road. Initially Aviva proposed settling on a 50:50 basis. We politely declined and they reconsidered and my wife was found to not be at fault. The cynic in me says that Aviva would have liked both parties to be at fault, two excess payments and premiums increased accordingly.

Premiums increased? More likely a 50:50 settlement leaves them with no premiums at all, because they will now have two unhappy customers who will look to take their business elsewhere at renewal time.

Its certainly 1 unhappy customer... the other one could be unhappy or not depending on their view of liability... if they thought it was a 50/50 narrow lane collision where both failed to stop in time then they wouldnt be unhappy with the 50/50 outcome. Actually had some who were fairly happy with the outcome as they didnt realise that it meant they got 50% of their excess back as they assumed 50/50 was the same as the old "knock for knock" agreement.