VanLine Direct

Deeping_Dave

Hi all,

Had an accident last year. Contacted my broker (above) they pointed me in the direction of solicitors who i assumed were acting on behalf of my underwriters. Basically I went along with everything as it seemed above board. Signed various online agreements pages long and I admit I didn't read them all. I thought i was just dealing with the solicitors of my insurer. The 3rd party involved admitted liability and my vehicle was repaired. I had a hire vehicle from a subsiduary company of the solicitors  It now transpires that the charges for the hire vehicle are very high and the 3rd party has refused to pay them or their insurer has. I am now apparently liable for these as I signed a credit agreement like an idiot. I pride myself on being savvy but at the time I was completely taken in as I'd never dealt with an insurance claim before. I've obviously raised my concerns with them. They keep telling me as long as I cooperate nothing will happen and they won't chase me for the hire charges. Yet they then go on to state that I am liable if they choose to pursue me. Does anyone have any experience of this and if you do what was the outcome?

Thanks all      

skycatcher

Was it auxalis by any chance? Same happened to me but eventually the third party settled the car hire even though at first they refused due to high cost! Hope it works out for you.

DullGreyGuy

skycatcher said:

Was it auxalis by any chance? 

There are many credit hire companies out there.

Having admitted to not reading them at the time its probably now time to read them properly. The language on these agreements has become convoluted overtime as the hire companies react to different judge's rulings but normally it will say something along the line of the fact your liability will be the same as the liability of the third party as long as you continue to support their recover attempts. 

The consequence of this is if the judge says the TP owes £500 of the £11,000 bill then the £500 comes from them, you're capped at £500 which has been got from the TP so your liability is extinguished and the £10,500 is written off.

Deeping_Dave

Thanks for the replies everyone. I’ve received a letter now from these solicitors with their costs. Again it says nothing to worry about and it’ll be recovered from the other side provided I play ball. All I wanted was my vehicle to be fixed and a hire car. I’ve complied with everything they’ve asked of me but I’m worried there’s a technicality that’ll make me responsible for these costs as well as the hire if they don’t get it from the TP insurers. I’m reading through the documentation but it’s all online and not easy for a laymen to understand. Is this the norm ? 

DullGreyGuy

Deeping_Dave said:

I’m reading through the documentation but it’s all online and not easy for a laymen to understand. Is this the norm ? 

Yes, is the short answer.

There is a lot of law around who can claim what etc. Insurers have it easy because the law explicitly says that by paying your claim they inherit your right to claim off of someone else (subrogation). If you were injured in a car accident your employer would have pay you sick pay but they cannot sue the at fault driver to recover the sick pay, they are too remote despite having suffered a loss because of the other driver.

The contracts used to be very simple, plainly stated you'd never have to pay a penny, but then they started losing cases, they'd effectively gifted you the hire and so had no right to get their money back. Hence the terms keep evolving to increase their prospects of recovery and close holes that insurers find. No longer do they say you dont have to pay a penny, now they say your liability is capped to the third party's liability so you now have made a loss that can be sued for. 

Deeping_Dave

DullGreyGuy said:

Deeping_Dave said:

I’m reading through the documentation but it’s all online and not easy for a laymen to understand. Is this the norm ? 

Yes, is the short answer.

There is a lot of law around who can claim what etc. Insurers have it easy because the law explicitly says that by paying your claim they inherit your right to claim off of someone else (subrogation). If you were injured in a car accident your employer would have pay you sick pay but they cannot sue the at fault driver to recover the sick pay, they are too remote despite having suffered a loss because of the other driver.

The contracts used to be very simple, plainly stated you'd never have to pay a penny, but then they started losing cases, they'd effectively gifted you the hire and so had no right to get their money back. Hence the terms keep evolving to increase their prospects of recovery and close holes that insurers find. No longer do they say you dont have to pay a penny, now they say your liability is capped to the third party's liability so you now have made a loss that can be sued for. 

Thanks for the reply. It’s now got even messier. I didn’t realise but my mot had expired. It was a new vehicle and I thought it was 3 years from date of purchase. Now I’m told it was 3 years from date of registration. It’s not been mentioned by anyone yet and I’m amazed it wasn’t picked up when my repairs were paid for. I’ve looked into it and it appears that because I was patently not at fault and they admitted liability it would probably mean my repairs would be undertaken. Obviously the van was road safe but it has got me even more worried now. I’m going to try Citizens advice or a local solicitor to find out where I stand should this all go sideways. 

DullGreyGuy

Deeping_Dave said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Deeping_Dave said:

I’m reading through the documentation but it’s all online and not easy for a laymen to understand. Is this the norm ? 

Yes, is the short answer.

There is a lot of law around who can claim what etc. Insurers have it easy because the law explicitly says that by paying your claim they inherit your right to claim off of someone else (subrogation). If you were injured in a car accident your employer would have pay you sick pay but they cannot sue the at fault driver to recover the sick pay, they are too remote despite having suffered a loss because of the other driver.

The contracts used to be very simple, plainly stated you'd never have to pay a penny, but then they started losing cases, they'd effectively gifted you the hire and so had no right to get their money back. Hence the terms keep evolving to increase their prospects of recovery and close holes that insurers find. No longer do they say you dont have to pay a penny, now they say your liability is capped to the third party's liability so you now have made a loss that can be sued for. 

Thanks for the reply. It’s now got even messier. I didn’t realise but my mot had expired. It was a new vehicle and I thought it was 3 years from date of purchase. Now I’m told it was 3 years from date of registration. It’s not been mentioned by anyone yet and I’m amazed it wasn’t picked up when my repairs were paid for. I’ve looked into it and it appears that because I was patently not at fault and they admitted liability it would probably mean my repairs would be undertaken. Obviously the van was road safe but it has got me even more worried now. I’m going to try Citizens advice or a local solicitor to find out where I stand should this all go sideways. 

Having a valid MOT is not a condition of 99% of policies, all it does do is reduce the vehicle value and therefore makes it more likely to become a total loss/write off. Clearly it was economical to repair the vehicle with or without an MOT so it's a moot point.