TP Side Mirror while insured with "XS Direct Insurance" back from 2022 - becomes a 6K debt.

OliMcSheese

Long story short:

26 January 2022 on a narrow passage Our Van and a TP VAN had a touch and TP vehicles mirror was damaged. We suggested to contribute for damages on the scene due to reasons in the bottom (RIB) without admitting any fault. TP said he will check with the garage a bit later but later said he made a claim with insurance (possibly due to business vehicle)

Anyways, our VAN was insured with XS Direct insurer, who I researched now, had something like £3500 all and any event excess. Meaning Fault/ No Fault - you pay.

We believe this incident was reported on the call to us.

Liability was never admitted!!!

On call with broker, due to change of the car a month or so later, asked to replace vehicle, but advised new policy required as this one will not cover newer VAN. So asked to cancel XS Direct policy - payment of £248 was asked as to close the policy.

- Paid.

Little later, received a letter asking to pay ~£900 due to relation with the accidents damages to the mirror and is final again. 

- Paid in 3 instalments expecting this would close the case.

Settled all back in Summer 2022

On 2023 Somerset Bridge - wrote to "us" 

-----------

We refer to the above incident and previous communication. Please note we have now settled the Third Party Claim on the best terms available to us in the amount of £4719.59

The handling of your claim is being managed by Somerset Bridge and payments have been made in relation to the settlement of the Third Party claim in accordance with the Underwriters obligations under the Road Traffic Act. 

As per your XSDirect Policy:

If the Underwriters are required to pay a claim under the Road Traffic Law or the law of any country in which the policy operates the Underwriters reserve their right to recover from You and/or the person who incurred the liability any amount paid out which the Underwriters would not have been liable to pay had the law not existed.' 

Therefore you are now liable for the full cost of the settlement of this claim.

The Underwriters of your policy have instructed Bowline Quantum Solutions Limited to handle the management of your settlement of this claim. Please contact them within 14 days of the date of this letter t discuss payment options. Failure to make payment may result in you being liable for further costs.

---------------

2024 we tried to get advise from Citizen Bureau, they referred to some company who eventually dropped case or went quiet  after trying to unwind where is the issues...

since then - XS Direct ceased operating in UK and moved to Ireland after being accused of poor practice, however shortly after stopped trading in Ireland as well. (don't  feel it is makes any good for us, as we are now chased by Bowline Quantum Solutions Limited via STA UNIFY .

Their letter is attached and some research made on them, as they also have under 2 stars reputation, claiming they work with the client to reduce payment, but very weird suggestion:

7 days offer to pay at Reduced cost. of £2784.56 from the Now total: £5569.12

However this has now withdrawn.  

And I looking to any assistance.

The whole situation is looks like a scam (somehow covered by law, taking over on payments liability by someone else and sucking money from the paper when victim can't defend themselves )

I, Us, We = refer to my client, Acting for my neighbour as his English is not very good , chap from Moldova).  Who's wife came crying

RIB - "Alex" was aware of some issues with insurances from his community , as to loss of excess and inability to defend for non English etc. evade liability etc. 

He also had no understanding what excess is per particular policy, he knew it is high if you claim, but his vehicle was worth less than that by far. 

I assist the way I can with my English and admin skills, but right now seems like 2 paths:

1. Get ready for Legal Proceedings
2. Request documents from Bowline and XS Direct and launch Finance Ombudsman Claim

cw8825

If it was an XS direct policy (who prey on they vulnerable) the excess was £3000 for all claims
if they have had to deal with the third party claim the most you should be liable for is £3000

I would start by asking for confirmation of the total claim costs then working from there

from what you have said. You have already paid £900 

the costs of cancelling the policy are seperate and not involved. 

Mildly_Miffed

I'm not quite sure I understand all of that...

Jan 2022 - collision, other vehicle's mirror broken. They claimed from insurance.
Summer 2022 - you paid the insurer £900 to settle this claim
2023 - letter received from Somerset Bridge asking for £4,700. Didn't pay.
Now - letter received from STA asking for £5,570 but will accept half in seven days.

XS Direct stopped accepting new business in January 2022, both here and in the republic.

There were warnings about them years before that, though, that while they looked cheap they could expose policyholders to large bills. 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5859648/xs-direct-is-it-a-scam

The devil is going to be in the detail of the Summer 2022 payment, I suspect, and the 2023 Somerset Bridge letter. Any chance of posting pics of those?

Ectophile

Do you have any evidence that the £900 was a full and final payment?  If so, there is no debt, as you have paid the debt off in full.

XRS200

Think you need to find out why they were acting as RTA insurer.

Was there a problem with cover?

cw8825

XRS200 said:

Think you need to find out why they were acting as RTA insurer.

Was there a problem with cover?

what makes you think there was an issue with cover?
 i read it as from my understanding, they dealt with the claim because they were liable for at least 50%

the issue is the large excess and attempting to recover more than that from the op

Aretnap

cw8825 said:

XRS200 said:

Think you need to find out why they were acting as RTA insurer.

Was there a problem with cover?

what makes you think there was an issue with cover?
 i read it as from my understanding, they dealt with the claim because they were liable for at least 50%

the issue is the large excess and attempting to recover more than that from the op

"If the Underwriters are required to pay a claim under the Road Traffic Law or the law of any country in which the policy operates the Underwriters reserve their right to recover from You and/or the person who incurred the liability any amount paid out which the Underwriters would not have been liable to pay had the law not existed.' 

Therefore you are now liable for the full cost of the settlement of this claim."

They are not paying a claim under the terms of the policy and seeking to recover the excess. They are saying that the policy was void or that it did not cover him to drive the vehicle for that purpose or at that time, but that they have been obliged to cover the claim anyway by the Road Traffic Act and are seeking to recover the full amount that they have had to pay out.

His excess is irrelevant because the policy does not apply - they would be looking to recover the full amount even if he had no excess at all.

So he does need to find out why they are saying that his policy was not valid. The excess is a distraction, for the moment at least.

cw8825

To be honest I read it differently but you may well be correct

i doubt tho op will return but it would have made a lot more sense to post this thread on receipt of the first letter 

XRS200

cw8825 said:

XRS200 said:

Think you need to find out why they were acting as RTA insurer.

Was there a problem with cover?

what makes you think there was an issue with cover?
 i read it as from my understanding, they dealt with the claim because they were liable for at least 50%

the issue is the large excess and attempting to recover more than that from the op

The OP mentions paying a claim under RTA law, and they seem to be wanting more than the excess.  These suggest to me it's not a normal policy claim.

Mildly_Miffed

XRS200 said:

The OP mentions paying a claim under RTA law, and they seem to be wanting more than the excess.  These suggest to me it's not a normal policy claim.

...or has a couple of years of interest and debt collection fees added.

The Bowline letter explicitly describes the £2.7k as being 50% of "the original debt plus third-party collection costs as per your agreement with them".

The original insurer have sold the debt on to Bowline for a fraction of its face value, and Bowline are now trying to recover as much as possible. Standard for long-overdue debt. The insurer (or their administrators) crystallise their loss, the recovery firm try to make a profit.

XRS200

Mildly_Miffed said:

XRS200 said:

The OP mentions paying a claim under RTA law, and they seem to be wanting more than the excess.  These suggest to me it's not a normal policy claim.

...or has a couple of years of interest and debt collection fees added.

It says 50% of original debt plus costs  No mention of interest