no dault car claim and car hire isn't being paid by the other insurer

Supernova1

I was hit in Oct 23 , police report etc, person admitted liability. My car was off the road oct 23 - Mar 24. I rang my insurance company who passed me over to a no win company who told me to get a hire car thru a certain company. My insurance states I can have one , didn't know there was a difference between hire and curtesy. They all assured me I was doing the right thing and I went along with it , I was still in shock when this all happened , I'm elderly and not computer savvy. Thought it would all be okay . I had a hire car , not like for like , mine was worth  12k , the ones they gave me were top of the range 40-50k jobs, I was scared to drive them , all they said-  theres nothing else !  I did sign the paperwork but it meant nothing to me , I just went along with it believing they had my best interests . The final bill is £ 31, 500, how on earth is that allowed ! I am now having to go to court as the other side wont pay that , can you blame them ? I am sick with worry , and I had to provide 6 months of paperwork to say I couldn't afford it or could , why would i when my car is only worth 12K !  They also wanted my partners 6 months money details ! My insurance company didn't want to know , I can't eat , sleep and desperate for help , I can't afford a solicitor and seek ideas please

Mark_d

You were involved in an accident that wasn't your fault.  You quite reasonably took a hire car - which should be paid for by the person who hit you.  Since you hired a rather extravagant car, the third party can quite reasonably refuse to pay for it.

When bad things happen you need to be reasonable and careful as if you are spending your own money.  If I chose to live in a palace when my home got flooded, it would be unreasonable to expect insurance to pay for the palace.

When my Vauxhall Astra was involved in an accident I hired an equivalent class of car.  It would have been nice to hire a BMW but you can't expect anyone else to pay for that.

DullGreyGuy

Mark_d said:

You were involved in an accident that wasn't your fault.  You quite reasonably took a hire car - which should be paid for by the person who hit you.  Since you hired a rather extravagant car, the third party can quite reasonably refuse to pay for it.

When bad things happen you need to be reasonable and careful as if you are spending your own money.  If I chose to live in a palace when my home got flooded, it would be unreasonable to expect insurance to pay for the palace.

When my Vauxhall Astra was involved in an accident I hired an equivalent class of car.  It would have been nice to hire a BMW but you can't expect anyone else to pay for that.

We have no idea what the OPs car was, just its value. The car could be only £12k because it's 10 years old. Hire companies dont use 10 year old cars and instead they are typically 0-2 years old so even if you have a like for like hire there will be a significant disparity in the value of the vehicles.

The OP clearly has used Credit Hire, they will almost certainly have given an "equivalent vehicle" just much newer hence higher value. If they didnt have any stock of an equivalent vehicle they will have gone one or two grades up but still have billed it at the like for like hire rates. 


As to the OP, read what you signed, it may need to be in a dark room with a cold towel as the language can be complex as Credit Hire have been playing a cat and mouse game with insurers since at least the late 90s. It will tell you what you are an arent liable for. Unfortunately the time to read it was before signing but most people dont read what they are signing for and assume it's just a damage report or such.

Most likely, if you can pierce the veil of the language, it will state that as long as you continue to support their recovery action and haven't acted fraudulently that you are not liable for any of the costs (it may say your liability is capped at the liability of the third party which is fine as they will pay that amount). The times when people get unstuck is when they start refusing to share bank statements etc so the hire company can't demonstrate that you couldn't have afforded a 5 month hire car on a day by day rate

mebu60

Is the hire company suing you personally for the money or are they taking the third party insurers to court?

Supernova1

The hire company is taking the other persons insurer to court as they don’t want to pay for the hire car . The 2 cars given to me were on a take it or leave it basis , from another well known hire car company who even dropped off a car at my house, I told them several times I didn’t want a car like that but they weren’t interested, . The no win solicitors who my insurer use told me I could have afforded the £31,500.00 , I could have got a loan  or borrowed the money ! Why on earth would I use a hire car when I could’ve bought one for less , mine is only worth 12k . I was persuaded to have it , they played me , 

mebu60

So you are not being taken to court and no-one is pursuing you so what is it exactly that you are worried about? 

DullGreyGuy

mebu60 said:

So you are not being taken to court and no-one is pursuing you so what is it exactly that you are worried about? 

Technically the OP is the one taking someone to court and they are worried about the consequences of what would happen if the court doesn't find 100% in their favour, eg if the court rules that the TP is liable for £5,000 of the £31,500 bill what happens to the remaining £26,500

Supernova1

The hire car company that I was told to use is going to court to claim the money from the other persons insurance company , who refuse to pay at the moment, my solicitor has said to me , don’t worry if you get letters from the car hire co asking  you for the 31k , as you did sign the form , if a judge deems that the other insurance shouldn’t pay that money then surely I’m liable 

Aretnap

Supernova1 said:

The hire car company that I was told to use is going to court to claim the money from the other persons insurance company , who refuse to pay at the moment, my solicitor has said to me , don’t worry if you get letters from the car hire co asking  you for the 31k , as you did sign the form , if a judge deems that the other insurance shouldn’t pay that money then surely I’m liable 

In nearly all cases no you're not. There'll be a clause in the contract saying that as long as you assist the credit hire company in recovering the costs, your own liability is capped at the third party's liability. In other words if the judge only awards you £5000 from the third party insurer, and you have done everything that has been asked of you, your own bill for the hire car miraculously reduces to £5000.

DullGreyGuy

The wordings used to be more straightforward and actually said you would owe nothing as long as you supported them and didnt defraud them but defence insurers managed to argue that if you have no liability then neither do they as their liability is for your losses not some random hire car company's hence we ended up with more convoluted wording that has the same effect as the prior wording but enables them to recover their outlay. 

Supernova1

So I could still wind up paying 5K , more than my  car cost to repair . If anything happens again to my car , I’ll take it to the local garage and pay myself . Remember the old days , you rang your insurer , they rang round the local garages, who gave you a curtesy car and fixed yours . Happy days