Credit hire car agreements in non-fault claims - The law as it stands June 2017.

[gangzoom]

As some people might know I was involved in a non-fault accident where my car was written off back in June. My claim is complex due to various reasons but essentially my insurance company has ordered me a new replacement car, however it is not due to arrive till late September/October. Leaving me with no car till then, with little options offered by my own or third party insurance company I took my case to an accident management company (AMC) who have provided me with a like for like loan car on a credit hire agreement.  

 

There has been quite a bit of ‘concern’ from various forum members who was worried about the hire car costs and my own liability for those costs. My case is now sorted, but I thought I clarify the matter for anyone else who finds themselves in a similar situation.

IF the third party has 100% admitted liability than the law is reasonably clear:
 

• You (the injured party) is entitled to be back on the road in the same car/condition as you were before the accident.
• You are allowed a loan car is you need a car to work, and cannot afford to find a replacement car your self whilst your car is been repaired/replaced (This is a bit of joke, as I suspect most people don't have money sitting in the bank ready to splurge on a replacement car just in case their own car is damaged).
• You can have access to a loan car till your car is repaired/replaced, as long as the loan car is of the same value/type of your own.

You have a responsibility to minimise you claim – This means not billing the third party for £500/day when you can get the SAME car for £100/day. You are entitled to be mobile on the road in the same type of car as before the accident till a settlement is reached - providing your not 100% NOT at fault, your simply not allowed to overcharge for the car - which is 100% fair.

In my case the third party insurance company (Admiral) initially tried to get out of ALL costs – including offering me a stupid low settlement amount, but apparently that’s the way Admiral work. But today they have come to an agreement with the AMC dealing with my case regarding a daily hire car rate they are willing to pay till my new car arrives in a few months time. The total duration of my hire car period will be around 120 days once everything is concluded.

 

I can see how people can get tripped up in these case, and how some AMC try to get a profit which ever way possible. BUT the law is clear on the non-fault individual been given access for to a ‘like for like’ car providing the hire rate is in line with what you would pay if you hired the same like for like car your self.

 

Hope this is of help to anyone else who find themselves in a similar position as my self.

Edited July 21, 2017 by gangzoom

[coldel]

Still seems grey to me? A Kia Sportage is the same type of car as a Model X, just that one is electric powered one isn't? Type for me is defined as hatchback, SUV, etc?

[Ekona]

Yup, I'm with Col. A car is defined on what you need it for and what you can do with it, so if you're only commuting then a 1L Fiesta will do; If you're a horse vet then you may well need a Disco to get to where you need to be. 

 

The law does not state like for like replacement in the statute at all. If you choose to take a Ferrari as the offered loan car for a year when a Mondeo would do, expect to lose that one in court. This is why I will never use an AMC, as all the risk is on you. You pay your insurer a good amount every year, why would you not use them?

[Toon Chris]

It says same type, not same model that is true, but there are many 'types' of SUV.

If you drive a powerful, luxury car then what is wrong with having a loaner that is a powerful luxury car, so long as the cost is reasonably as low as you can get it for.

It does not say 'functionally the same', it says type, i.e. similar in more ways than only function.

 

That said, I'd clear it with the insurers first if only to save an argument later on   

Edited July 21, 2017 by Toon Chris

[coldel]

Exactly, type is not defined in any shape or form hence how grey it is and not black and white at all. In the context of GZs issues, he wanted an electric SUV and wasn't interested in a petrol/diesel alternative, even if it was powerful and a luxury car.

[Toon Chris]

I see, so a Range Rover or Jag SUV something like that could have been an alternative.

Still, you could always argue the Green card and say none of the rest were electric.

Risky I suppose but then why should the OP be worse off.  This one could go to court ...

 

[coldel]

I guess the argument is that alternatives were on offer which were turned down, it really comes down to whether the alternatives were a viable alternative because of the fuel source? If they were much cheaper than the Model X hire car and the cost is significant, then I guess the insurance company might have pushed back?

[gangzoom]

Guys at the end of the day it doesn't matter what you guys think about the term 'like for like' the law is quite clear.

 

Have a look at this, one guy has his 5L XK and get an replacement 5L XK as hire car, the Judge has no problems with that, the issue is with abnormal hire car rates for the XK compared to other hire car companies, not the car it self. The other guy loss the use of a Mustang, and gets a M3 convertible hire-car, again no issues with the car, it's the higher than industry rates for the M3 that is the issue.   

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/144.html

 

Admiral have now agreed to pay my rental costs in the X till my new car arrives, this is in writing, if you guys think Admiral could have got away with pushing me into a Ford Fiesta or similar they would have reached an agreement with the AMC regarding rental costs for the X?

 

I hope none of you find yourselves in my position, and if your happy having a 1.0 Fiesta great, but for others, if delt with properly AMC can be a help.

Edited July 21, 2017 by gangzoom

[coldel]

A Range Rover Sport is like a Model X - both performance SUV type cars. In your bullets you quoted 'type' but you listed like for like in your commentary?

 

The point on the other thread was taking the chance on insisting on an X when it wasn't clear that you would get 100% pay out etc. Obviously now its been agreed in writing etc. fine, but the point everyone made on the previous thread was that nothing at that point was agreed and you took the chance it would work out. Happy it has, but it was a risk. 

[AliveBoy]

I wonder what you could get for the same price as the model X. Find a Ferrari 458 or something for less, and argue that you're saving them money, whilst lording it up in a fezza for 3 months

[Jay84]

Glad you got it all agreed, and are happy with the replacement you'll get in a few months . 

We had our Zaffy written off when a tree fell on it (act of god style) with high winds. No bargaining chips on that one as no third party (I asked, God said no), so thou shalt have Seat Ibiza. 

[gangzoom]

3 minutes ago, AliveBoy said:

I wonder what you could get for the same price as the model X. Find a Ferrari 458 or something for less, and argue that you're saving them money, whilst lording it up in a fezza for 3 months

 

^^ That would be the kind of thing that sees you going to court.......Not sure how anyone could justify a 458 as a 'family car', but it would be funny to watch :).

[coldel]

My mate ended up in court because he took a RR Vogue instead of a RR Sport ! I wouldn't mind but the insurance company recommended it to him.

[gangzoom]

2 hours ago, Ekona said:

 You pay your insurer a good amount every year, why would you not use them?

 

Because the insurers were useless, first my car is sent to local garage in Hinckley for a 'rapid repair', than they couldn't tell me where the car was for 24hrs - seriously they 'lost' the car, it was apparently on a low loader but they couldn't track down where!! Than they wouldn't believe Tesla engineers who said the car was written off and send in their own inspector who calls me up to ask for the spec of the car because he didn't know anything about Teslas.

 

As for the loan car, my own insurance company didn't want to provide me with a loan car themselves instead they referred me to their own AMC, Auxillis who have a mixed reputation. The third party insurance company offered me nothing interms of hire-car, instead a cash settlement not enough to replace the car and some intimidating language to try and get me to take the cash settlement.

 

The best thing I did in my case is to involve a GOOD AMC, am sure there are lots of cow boys out there but the good companies work to get you the best resolution possible.

Edited July 21, 2017 by gangzoom

[gangzoom]

18 minutes ago, coldel said:

My mate ended up in court because he took a RR Vogue instead of a RR Sport ! I wouldn't mind but the insurance company recommended it to him.

 

I highly doubt it was because of the difference between a Vogue / Sport, more likely because his own insurance company referred his case to an AMC for a fee. The AMC would have than smacked on some stupid hire rate. Read the case law I posted above, the points of dispute is never with the type or car but the hire car rate.

 

One thing I have learnt from this case is NEVER trust what the insurance companies say, be it your own or the third party, they are all out to either make a quick buck or try to reduce their own costs.

Edited July 21, 2017 by gangzoom

[coldel]

Nope it was because of the difference in value.

[gangzoom]

1 minute ago, coldel said:

Nope it was because of the difference in value.

 

Oh yes I forgot there's a difference cost between a full fat Range Rover and Range Rover Sport......They all look the same to me .

[StevoD]

Interesting point to note as was speaking with a senior debt collector the other day whose car was in an accident, 

 

Hire companies will get you to sign a credit/hire agreement as 'standard policy' when taking delivery/collection of the car which sees you 100% responsible until the bill is paid

 

so if the claim is 100% other persons fault once you sign that hire agreement you are responsible for the cost until the third party insurance pays the bill should the third party company go bust you are now legally responsible for that cost, or if the 100% fault claim now becomes 50/50 you could well end up with the cost of a hire car afterwards

[gangzoom]

2 minutes ago, StevoD said:

Interesting point to note as was speaking with a senior debt collector the other day whose car was in an accident, 

 

Hire companies will get you to sign a credit/hire agreement as 'standard policy' when taking delivery/collection of the car which sees you 100% responsible until the bill is paid

 

so if the claim is 100% other persons fault once you sign that hire agreement you are responsible for the cost until the third party insurance pays the bill should the third party company go bust you are now legally responsible for that cost, or if the 100% fault claim now becomes 50/50 you could well end up with the cost of a hire car afterwards

 

That why you need a dash cam, and before I approached any AMC I made sure the third party was insured with a decent big name company :).

 

I also got a letter signed by the director of the AMC stating they will NOT persue me for the costs of the rental car should they not be able to claim the costs back from the third party. Like all things in life if you go in blind you often get burnt, but I did my research before hand.