Management Claim Company No Fault Claim Going To Court

facade

Em62 said:

What I am worried about is that they did already supply bank statements and they do have that kind of cash.  What I am not sure about is why they were persuaded to take on the credit hire they have not claimed on insurance for over 30 years. And listened to the instruction of the claims management team. They did not read the small print and even when I pointed out to them that they signed the clause that stated they would be liable they seemed to not believe it was so.  But I have told them they must co-operate.  

Don't worry. Even if it goes to court they won't have to pay anything because the contract leaves the Accident management company liable to pay (well, write off the money, they own the car hire...), provided your friends co-operate fully (including turning up at Court if it comes to it). The Accident Management company can easily afford to write it off from the profit they make inflating managing other claims.

DullGreyGuy

born_again said:

Em62 said:

My friends are quite old and had an accident where a car ran into back of them as they were stationary trying to leave a multi storey car park. The other party Admitted liability and their insurance company have paid out for the full repair to the claims company. But,  the other insurance company is not happy with the hire company charges being so high with the replacement car.  They are taking the management company to court as the hire costs for 7 weeks hire are too high, 16k.  

My friends have the money to pay for it but they were told by the claims company that this would be covered as there is no dispute with blame and it is all ok.  

The claims company has an indemnity to cover costs up to 25k in the event that the other party’s insurer disputed any costs.  But my friends have been told they still have to go to court to prove they needed this hire car to help the claims company recover the 16k for them.  

I have never heard of this in my experience my hire charges were all covered for a similar situation. 

Do they need to get legal advice? Is this usual ?  

Thanks in advance

Time to contact their ins co & let them deal with it.

That ship sailed a long time ago @born_again but could be their insurer who sold passed them onto the credit hire place.

Your insurers deal with insured losses, ie the damage to your car. That has already been dealt with. Running up a £16k hire bill is an uninsured loss and so not of interest to your Motor insurer. Were it a normal uninsured loss like injury, loss of earnings, public transport costs etc and you have bought Legal Expenses cover then your LE Insurer would appoint a firm to assist with the recovery however in this case its not the OP's loss but the credit hire company's and they have their own solicitors to deal with the recovery. 

When the OP signed up to the credit hire agreement they agreed to fully support the company in their recovery attempts, in exchange they aren't on the hook for the hire costs even if the company only gets back 5% of the amount owed. They need to fully support them else it will get expensive; it's too late now to be stroppy and refuse to provide unredacted bank statements etc. 

Em62 said:
They are taking the management company to court as the hire costs for 7 weeks hire are too high, 16k.  

No, your friend is taking the other driver to court for the hire car charges... the person that wants to be paid is the one that issues the proceedings not the person defending that costs are too high. The hire car company weren't involved in the accident and dont have the same legal standing as an insurance company hence your friend is the litigant 

Em62 said:

Do they need to get legal advice? Is this usual ?  

That is up to them but naturally any cost for the advice would be theirs to bare, most people go through this without feeling it necessary. 

Its common for there to be disputes on credit hire because their rates are exceptionally high as its where they make 90% of their profit. Its a cat and mouse game though as things go to court and more importantly to appeals then precedent is set and contracts/processes are changed to find new ways to try and avoid them/ ensure their bills are paid. 

It used to be they advertised heavily on the fact you aren't liable for the costs no matter the outcome but then a series of cases were lost because unlike an insurer they dont inherit your right to sue and so judges said there was no loss. Now if you read the credit hire agreement it will say you are liable to the extent that the third party is found liable thus getting around the problem of the lost cases.