Accident management car hire payment refused
Discussion
Anyone come across this?
It's a slightly garbled version of events as one of my wife's friends is in a right state over it and I'm getting it from my wife.
She had a no fault accident which is accepted by the other driver's insurer. She has a bells and whistles policy with hire car etc included but as it's a no fault claim her insurance passed her on to an accident management company.
They hired her an equivalent car at £600+ a day for the 16 days while hers was in the garage.
But ( and the is the question...) the other party was only insured 3rd party so the insurer is refusing to pay the fee.
Like I say she's got in a right state over being on the hook for £10,000+
She's gone back to her insurer who have said they're not interested as it's gone to the AMC despite her having a hire car on her own policy. (Understandable TBF.)
So is the bold just their insurer trying to play hard ball and reduce the fee with the AMC as I suspect, or is there some sort of "only 3rd party so ner" get out?
It's a slightly garbled version of events as one of my wife's friends is in a right state over it and I'm getting it from my wife.
She had a no fault accident which is accepted by the other driver's insurer. She has a bells and whistles policy with hire car etc included but as it's a no fault claim her insurance passed her on to an accident management company.
They hired her an equivalent car at £600+ a day for the 16 days while hers was in the garage.
But ( and the is the question...) the other party was only insured 3rd party so the insurer is refusing to pay the fee.
Like I say she's got in a right state over being on the hook for £10,000+
She's gone back to her insurer who have said they're not interested as it's gone to the AMC despite her having a hire car on her own policy. (Understandable TBF.)
So is the bold just their insurer trying to play hard ball and reduce the fee with the AMC as I suspect, or is there some sort of "only 3rd party so ner" get out?
Bill said:
A
But ( and the is the question...) the other party was only insured 3rd party so the insurer is refusing to pay the fee.
I don't think that's a thing. In fact the opposite. The other party is insured to cover third party losses of which this is exactly one.But ( and the is the question...) the other party was only insured 3rd party so the insurer is refusing to pay the fee.
They may be refusing for a different reason though. However that is for the AMC to sort out. However the person claiming will have an obligation to help them as needed (all part of the credit hire agreement).
Bill said:
Anyone come across this?
It's a slightly garbled version of events as one of my wife's friends is in a right state over it and I'm getting it from my wife.
She had a no fault accident which is accepted by the other driver's insurer. She has a bells and whistles policy with hire car etc included but as it's a no fault claim her insurance passed her on to an accident management company.
They hired her an equivalent car at £600+ a day for the 16 days while hers was in the garage.
But ( and the is the question...) the other party was only insured 3rd party so the insurer is refusing to pay the fee.
Like I say she's got in a right state over being on the hook for £10,000+
She's gone back to her insurer who have said they're not interested as it's gone to the AMC despite her having a hire car on her own policy. (Understandable TBF.)
So is the bold just their insurer trying to play hard ball and reduce the fee with the AMC as I suspect, or is there some sort of "only 3rd party so ner" get out?
No. The other insurer may dispute the costs involved, but they are liable for the claim of the third party (your wife’s friend).It's a slightly garbled version of events as one of my wife's friends is in a right state over it and I'm getting it from my wife.
She had a no fault accident which is accepted by the other driver's insurer. She has a bells and whistles policy with hire car etc included but as it's a no fault claim her insurance passed her on to an accident management company.
They hired her an equivalent car at £600+ a day for the 16 days while hers was in the garage.
But ( and the is the question...) the other party was only insured 3rd party so the insurer is refusing to pay the fee.
Like I say she's got in a right state over being on the hook for £10,000+
She's gone back to her insurer who have said they're not interested as it's gone to the AMC despite her having a hire car on her own policy. (Understandable TBF.)
So is the bold just their insurer trying to play hard ball and reduce the fee with the AMC as I suspect, or is there some sort of "only 3rd party so ner" get out?
There's many reasons why an insurer will refuse to pay excessive hire car charges, but I can't see how "third party insurance only" is one of them.
https://www.furleypage.co.uk/following-a-car-accid...
https://www.furleypage.co.uk/following-a-car-accid...
BertBert said:
I don't think that's a thing. In fact the opposite. The other party is insured to cover third party losses of which this is exactly one.
They may be refusing for a different reason though. However that is for the AMC to sort out. However the person claiming will have an obligation to help them as needed (all part of the credit hire agreement).
Ta, that was my thinking. She sending the paperwork over at some point but I thought I'd best check I'm not completely talking out of my arse before saying anything! They may be refusing for a different reason though. However that is for the AMC to sort out. However the person claiming will have an obligation to help them as needed (all part of the credit hire agreement).
Out of interest, what car does she drive.
10,000 gpb for just over a fortnights worth of car hire seems pretty expensive to me, unless it's something extremely valuable.
People question why insurance is so expensive. If this is typical it's not hard to see why the cost of claims is high, and premiums are proportionate.
10,000 gpb for just over a fortnights worth of car hire seems pretty expensive to me, unless it's something extremely valuable.
People question why insurance is so expensive. If this is typical it's not hard to see why the cost of claims is high, and premiums are proportionate.
At some point the AMC will have said 'we will try and reclaim these cist from the third party, but you may be liable for the costs' or words to that effect.
It'll be on the paperwork she signed I expect.
However, there should be no reason the third party should refuse REASONABLE hire car fees. You are meant to mitigate your losses, and not 'milk' the situation.
It'll be on the paperwork she signed I expect.
However, there should be no reason the third party should refuse REASONABLE hire car fees. You are meant to mitigate your losses, and not 'milk' the situation.
gazza285 said:
We’ve had two cars written off in no fault accidents, both times we had a hire car, and both times we received letters like this. Both times we left it with the AMC and have heard no more.
Likewise when I have. But she talking about hiring a solicitor to fight it so I'm trying to work out how much is her getting in a tizz and how much is an actual issue.Not sure what she ended up with but they gave her a Ford Ranger initially which she sent back as ridiculous. Her car's a Discovery sport full of horse tack and used for towing.
FWIW when I was in a similar situation when my Disco 4 was hit they tried to send me an S-class! All I wanted was enough room for 5 and some luggage but the computer said no, that's the class it's in. Thankfully I managed to get "downgraded" and got a small SUV but I would have preferred an estate.
FWIW when I was in a similar situation when my Disco 4 was hit they tried to send me an S-class! All I wanted was enough room for 5 and some luggage but the computer said no, that's the class it's in. Thankfully I managed to get "downgraded" and got a small SUV but I would have preferred an estate.
Jordie Barretts sock said:
At some point the AMC will have said 'we will try and reclaim these cist from the third party, but you may be liable for the costs' or words to that effect.
Usually the only claim the AMC has directly against the hirer is if they've lied. (i.e. incorrectly claimed they couldn't afford to hire a car themselves, or forgotten that they had use of another car)I was on the other end of this once.
low speed crunch on an icy country lane.
I didn't claim. They did. Thankfully I informed my company that I had had the bump but wasn't wanting to claim...
My insurer rejected about £7k of hire car and fees.
Their insurer issued County Court proceedings against me personally for the sum, with some very threatening language around never getting insurance a bank account or a mortgage ever again.
I sent all correspondence to my insurer.
I never heard about it again.
It's a crummy trick to scare people witless played by failed Clarence Darrows working for little better than minimum wage in Insurance companies.
low speed crunch on an icy country lane.
I didn't claim. They did. Thankfully I informed my company that I had had the bump but wasn't wanting to claim...
My insurer rejected about £7k of hire car and fees.
Their insurer issued County Court proceedings against me personally for the sum, with some very threatening language around never getting insurance a bank account or a mortgage ever again.
I sent all correspondence to my insurer.
I never heard about it again.
It's a crummy trick to scare people witless played by failed Clarence Darrows working for little better than minimum wage in Insurance companies.
The other party only had third party insurance?
She is the third party
What is gobsmacking though is £600 a day. Why would you even consider agreeing to that.
Also- what if you had a at fault prang in the accident management's car?
For that one reason alone I wouldn't accept one. I imagine their terms are the wateringly wallet ripping.
She is the third party
What is gobsmacking though is £600 a day. Why would you even consider agreeing to that.
Also- what if you had a at fault prang in the accident management's car?
For that one reason alone I wouldn't accept one. I imagine their terms are the wateringly wallet ripping.
ChocolateFrog said:
As long as she needed the car then she should be OK.
I've had a couple and I made sure it was recorded what I needed and not necessarily what I wanted.
The management Co will give you as expensive a car as they can get away with.
£600 per day? I've had a couple and I made sure it was recorded what I needed and not necessarily what I wanted.
The management Co will give you as expensive a car as they can get away with.
I'm in a hire car at the moment, provided through the third parties insurance - they have accepted full responsibility. 2023 Golf 1.5TSi. It's costing them (from Enterprise) just over £22 per day.Edited by matchmaker on Thursday 5th September 20:30
Begs the question why her insurers passed her to the AMC who are just vultures intent on ripping off the 3rd party insurer.
If people wonder why insurance costs have rocketed, this is part of the problem and the insurers are doing it to themselves and expect their customers to pick up the tab in higher premiums.
You just can't make this stuff up.
If people wonder why insurance costs have rocketed, this is part of the problem and the insurers are doing it to themselves and expect their customers to pick up the tab in higher premiums.
You just can't make this stuff up.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff