Car insurance total confusion. Cost dispute.

sun-n-moon

In April 2003. My daughter was involved in an incident where a vehicle turned a blind corner and hit her car door as she was disembarking. There was no issue with liability as the other party admitted fault. My daughter duly informed insurance company and her vehicle was taken for repair and a courtesy vehicle of the same type was issued to her.  Her vehicle was repaired and returned . She heard no more about it. A few days ago she received an email from jer insurance companies solicitor asking for information and requesting her to attend county court. We have no clarification in simple language as to the reason for this. I'm trying to sort this as she is currently on medication for anxiety, much due to this incident as she had the baby in the back of the car at the time.

sun-n-moon

Hi I posted this too soon as I hadn't finished it. I'll post the email doc she was sent as it looks as if I need to print it and photo it to a jpeg. I tried to attach it as a doc but that won't work. Thanks. Jim.

cw8825

2003 or 2023? I presume 2023 as you mention the baby and medication due to the incident.
Its likely to be fairly standard in assisting them with either defending or advancing their own claim. As many will say its unlikely she will need to actually attend court but there is a small chance.

sun-n-moon

Thanks. I'm attaching the documents hoping there may be someone with a more legal brain than me can figure them out. I can't understand why the insurance companies can't sort this out between themselves. My daughter had nothing to do with repair or courtesy car costs. Sorry about quality of pics

Aretnap

It looks like a credit hire company rather than an actual insurer that she's dealing with. 

Basically the third party's insurers are requiring proof that she needed a hire car, and that the cost of it was reasonable etc, before they will pay for it. The credit hire company has failed to negotiate a settlement so is having to take them to court to resolve the issue. 

Now any court claim against the third party insurer has to be made in your daughter's name - ultimately she's the person who was harmed by the third party's carelessness so only she can sure the third party (or their insurer). The credit hire firm will do most of the actual work on her behalf but they do need some information from her to make their case. (I see requests for things like MOT certificates to prove that she was driving legally in the first place, for example).

She will have agreed to provide this information if necessary in the small print of the hire agreement that she signed, though I would hope that the company would be able to provide her with a list of exactly what they are asking for in a more concise and readable format than that document.

sun-n-moon

Thank you for taking the time to read that and comment. She is worrying that she will have to go to court and pay out lots of money. She works full time but has little spare  funds as she is in rented accommodation with her children. Plus she has children to pick up and drop off so attending court is a problem apart from the anxiety issues this will magnify. Mot etc can easily be found on the net. I don't understand why she has to gather all this info when it is already in the hands of the insurers. Describing the whole thing again two years on is ridiculous. Asking her to go looking for a cheaper car hire and garage when her insurers arranged everything? I'm wondering if they are just trying it on. Shouldn't her insurers be doing all this leg work as it's their responsibility? Thanks again.

Aretnap

She probably won't actually have to attend court and she almost certainly won't have to pay out lots of money (or indeed any money). The only way she might end up personally liable for any of the costs of this would be if she refused to cooperate with the credit hire company when it comes to reclaiming their fees from the third party insurer.

Her insurers didn't arrange the car hire. Her insurers pushed her in the direction of a credit hire company who have provided her with a hire car at an inflated rate (£194/day), which is ultimately supposed to be reclaimable from the third party. (She might not have realised that's what her insurers were doing - it will have been couched in terms like "our hire car partner can arrange a replacement car at no cost to you" - but that's what they did).

The third party insurers are (not unreasonably, to be fair) digging their heels in at the thought of paying nearly £5000 for 3 weeks car hire - hence the fact that it's moving towards court. The document you've posted looks like part of a preliminary defence which is part of the cat and mouse game between the insurer and the credit hire company. The insurer asks for a laundry list of documentation in evidence, hoping that the credit hire company will be unable to provide some of it.

It's unlikely that she actually needs to go hunting down every document referred to in the defence. Some of it is stuff that the credit hire firm already has (copy of the hire agreement, itemised receipts for the repairs etc). However some if it is stuff that only she will be able to provide (bank statements and payslips, for example). If they haven't already provided it she should ask the solicitors for a clear list of the information they're actually asking for.

The insurer's demand that she attends court is part of the same cat and mouse game. If she refuses outright to attend at this point, they win. If she says she's willing to attend there's a fair chance that they decide she isn't actually needed after all, and an even better chance that they come to a settlement with the credit hire company without the need for a hearing at all.

(If you're wondering why they're asking for bank statements etc it's because her financial situation affects what she can claim. If someone else damages your car you can claim expenses for things like a replacement car while yours is being repaired from their insurers. However you have a duty to keep those costs reasonable - you're not allowed to go out and hire a car at £200/day just because someone else is paying for it. So if you have lots of spare cash lying around you'd be expected to go down to your local branch of Hertz, hire a car, pay for it yourself and ask the third party to reimburse you at a later date, because that's the cheapest way of hiring a car. However if you're skint you won't be able to do that so you can get one on credit hire instead - this is a lot more expensive but means there's nothing for you to pay up front. Basically to claim the full credit hire rate of £194/day Enterprise need to prove that your daughter couldn't have afforded just to waltz into her local car hire place and pay for three weeks car hire up front. If she could have afforded to do that, they would only be claim what the local car hire place would have charged her.)

Again this sounds stressful but it's not an unusual part of what happens after an accident. It's unfortunate that it's come back after 2 years, but that's how long these things sometimes take. She's not going to be left out of pocket, and she's probably not going to have to attend court - once Enterprise are able to provide all the documents referred to there's a good chance that the insurer will settle with them.

DullGreyGuy

sun-n-moon said:
A few days ago she received an email from jer insurance companies solicitor asking for information and requesting her to attend county court. 

It was from her insurance company's solicitor? Not Enterprise's Solicitor?

She is presumably listed as the claimant and her car is a Rav4?

As others have said, the claimant certainly had a credit hire car rather than a courtesy car, it's less clear if the repairs were also done on credit or were done by their insurers. All the language is standard boiler plate stuff when disputing a credit hire invoice. It looks like the defendant's insurance did pay over £2,570 towards the hire but Enterprise didnt accept this as full settlement however erroneously didnt deduct it from the amount they are claiming. 

Utlimately she'd need to read the credit hire agreement she signed to check the actual terms, typically as long as you support them in their attempts to recover and haven't lied about the incident then any amounts not recovered are written off. It's in part why hire rates are so high because they need to cover the write offs. 

saajan_12

Brief translation / summary:
- Claimant = daughter and Defendant = other driver / their insurer
- Case = to recover the costs from the accident. 
- The other driver is saying they don't dispute that the accident was actually their fault and they're just questioning the costs claimed.
- They are asking for proof of the repair cost, why daughter needed a hire car at all and the cost of the hire car since a credit hire is more expensive than paying upfront. 

Basically the idea is to GET money from the other driver's insurer, NOT PAY money. If the full money isn't received from the other driver's insurer then your insurer / credit hire co would probably cover it barring an excess, but you can check that with the insurer / credit hire co. 

Either daughter is just there as the official claimant and won't need to say anything, or there might be some simple questions on why she needed a hire car and why she couldn't pay for one upfront. No harm in preparing the answers to those.  

sun-n-moon

Thanks all, very informative. The Jag supplied was the same size as thee Rav ( outlined on the hire agreement) though more expensive to run as the Rav is a Hybrid.  She has children in Nursery and School and no nearby bus route plus carries 2 buggies and her mum's wheelchair, so a smaller car is out of the question. She doesn't want to give access to her bank account as she believes its personal and doesn't know who how secure that is. As it happens, having been made redundant without any payment she was claiming Universal Credit at the time of the incident, so no spare funds. I'll relay all your info to her and I imagine it will calm her fears. You've all been great with info. Very much appreciated.

DullGreyGuy

sun-n-moon said:

She doesn't want to give access to her bank account as she believes its personal and doesn't know who how secure that is. 

She doesn't give access to her bank account, she gives them bank statements to prove that she couldn't reasonably afford an opened hire car at the day spot rate. If she plays silly and refuses to provide them with the information she is then the one repaying them. 

Some of these firms should do a better job at explaining what is happening, though of the complaints that go to the Ombudsman its fairly 50/50 if the Ombudsman agrees that it was unclear or not, but irrespective of that, having borrowed £11k from them you either need to support their recovery efforts or repay them yourself.