One for you legal eagles - or anyone who has had to deal with similar.

On the 4th June I was involved in an RTA. I was 'rear ended' by someone at the top of the motorway slip road. Followed the usual procedures, exchanged details,etc and when I got home I reported the accident to my insurers. The call handlers took the details before passing me on to what I now know to be an 'accident management company' who arranged a courtesy car for me - they told me this was essential as my car was not legally driveable (even though I'd driven it the five miles from the scene of the accident to home without any problems) as the hatchback tail-lift had been curved in, and I was unable to open the boot, so could not access my spare wheel.
After going through the 'rigmarole' of sorting the car (which involved a conference call to the DVLA), I was then passed to my insurers who re-confirmed everything and said they be in touch. At the end of nearly ninety minutes on the phone, i hung up to find I had a voice-mail from the solicitors who would be handling my 'personal injury' claim (genuinely have whiplash). All is well with the world thought I, and assumed all would be resolved to my satisfaction.
I now find this wont be the case. Long story short - my insurers, I feel, are trying to 'railroad' me into accepting my car as a write-off, which they will pay out on, then claim back from the third party's insurer. This works in theory, however my car is 12 years old, 150k on the clock, and not in 'showroom' condition (but mechanically sound, and reliable - I have owned it from brand new) - so has a market value of probably 500 quid if I'm lucky. Take away my excess of 150, and the fact that I will have to pay the remainder of my insurance premium in full, and I'll end up in the position of having no car, and no money toward a replacement (could actually end up out of pocket!). I've asked the advice of friends and workmates who've been in similar positions, and have had conflicting stories. Some say it should be nothing to do with my insurer, and any claim should be direct with the 3rd party insurer, thus avoiding the excess, and premium charges. One suggested I take what was on offer,but could then take the 3rd party to the small claims court for my losses (ie the fact that I end up with no means of transport despite the insurance payout). Another has suggested I drop the claim for vehicle damage, pay for the repairs myself -and just await the personal injury compensation. This would also leave me quite a bit out of pocket, as I believe I would then be charged for the courtesy car I've been driving for the last 9 days.

Can anyone suggest a way I might get through this without ending up skint in the short term? All suggestions much appreciated.

With many insurers if the other party has admitted liability then you won't have to pay any excess as your insurers will recover the full costs from the other insurance company.

My view would be that, if you were not at fault (and if there's no dispute about who was at fault), all costs should be recovered from the third party insurers. You shouldn't have to pay anything except for the standard 'admin fee' to cancel your policy. That's how it worked when a third party wrote my car off a few years ago.

Can you still buy the written off vehicle back from the insurers, you used to be able to - might be a route to take after they've settled and sorted, ultimately your problem is that you've now lost a reliable car that had its full history with you and the value of it is going to buy you something of a similar age and standard but with no knowledge of its repair state.

They've got you hooked now with the courtesy car though.

The 'buy back' option is still there - dependant on the scale of damage - but is not a 'policy' of my insurers!!



That's my point - the law says that if I'm the innocent party I am entitled to be returned to the position I was in before the accident occured (repairs, etc) - OR be compensated to the 'full market value' of my vehicle - which is all well and good, and the 'market value' of my car might be 500/600 quid -but there is no way I could buy a car for that sort of money and by guaranteed the reliability that I know comes with my car!!

As regards the courtesy car - does anyone know what the legal standpoint is in this case? Is it true that the car is not allowed to be driven because the boot wont open? As several people have pointed out to me, a lot of cars these days don't even have a spare wheel....and I can still access the boot from the back seat anyway!! Could it be argued I was coerced into signing up for the courtesy car under a false pretence?? I know I'm probably clutching at straws here, but it just seems so unjust that I'll end up shelling out whichever option I take!!

I think there is some confusion here and I don't think you have the full picture.
I suspect you are being scammed.

Insurance companies are just in it for the money. A "courtesy car" is just that. If a comprehensive policyholder was off the road, then his insurance company would provide him with a temporary replacement, as a courtesy. A benefit under the policy. But you can have it only as long as they think reasonable. Usually, until either repairs are complete, or you get paid out as a write off.
The point is, you NEVER pay for a "courtesy car", you already paid for it when you took out the policy.

Then what happened was that insurance companies realised they could make a nice little earner on the back of non-fault accidents, and that's when the scams started.
Suddenly, instead of getting a courtesy car, you typically would find yourself diverted - very often by a claims management company - into the arms of a CREDIT HIRE company. They get you to formally sign up legal hire documents, and this means YOU OWE the full cost of hiring their vehicle for as long as you have it. If they can claim that from the other insurer then they will, but where that goes pear shaped, the hirer has to pay. The bill can be £700 a week or more.

So many people have been scammed in this way, they say they had no idea they were hiring on credit, but when it comes down to it, it emerges there is indeed a valid credit agreement which they have signed. Moral - don't sign stuff you don't know what it is. Many are coerced under false pretence - the "pretend a credit hire is just a courtesy car" scam is widespread. You say it was all apporved by your insurer - I'd check the policy. That will tell you if you were entitled to a courtesy car and if so then they should have provided one.
There is no legal requirement to have to be able to get to your spare wheel as there is no legal requirement to HAVE a spare. So if you could prove that's what you were told then again, a scam, but no doubt the CMC would laugh, and flatly deny saying any such thing.

The car remains your property. It doesn't sound like it is that category of write off that can't be put back on the road so you keep the car, and your insurance company has to pay you the pre-accident value, minus the value of the salvage. They may not want to, but it isn't up to them. You are not "buying back" anything. Your car is your property, and they are just paying you a sum of money for its loss in value. Tell them that is a policy of yours!

You don't have to claim on your policy. You could claim from the other driver's policy, but it would work just the same way (PAV minus salvage). Whether they claim the money back from the other driver is their problem, it doesn't affect your claim (though of course may affect your next renewal).


What nonsense. As there is no liability issue, you should be able to negotiate a payment for ALL valid heads of claim with the other driver's insurance company, so why would any court need to be involved? Second, you didn't end up with no means of transport, you ahve a "courtesy car". If you get your car back and fix it, you have that. If you instead take the money, then it is up to you to get a replacement. So theer is no possible claim "for ending up with no means of transport". If you end up temporarily without wheels while it is sorted out then you can claim maybe £75 a week for loss of use and inconvenience but that's about it. (But if you do take the net money from your own insurer, of course you then also claim "the excess" from the other driver, unless your insurance company recover it for you.)

I had a claims management company on the phone to me about 2 months ago.

In February I was reversing onto a prosepective customer's drive when he reversed into the side of my van. We both got out and his immediate statement was "what the hell are you doing on my drive?". To which I replied "well I was hoping to sell you some fish but I suppose that's bolloxed now". His initial statement led me to believe that he had simply reversed without looking behind him.

We exchanged details and I informed my insurance company of the incident and when asked if I wanted to make a claim, told them that I didn't and because I had a £200 excess, I would be sorting the damage to my van myself. I asked if this would have any detrimental effect on my NCB or accident record and was assured by them that it wouldn't. As it was, the repair to my van came in at less than my excess anyway.

Fast forward to April and I get a phone call from a claims management company suggesting that I accept 50/50 liability. This means I pay 50% of rectifying the damage to my vehicle and 50% to rectifying the damage to his. Quite different to "knock for knock".

When I refused to accept any liability, I was then passed to their "legal expert". This woman tried to tell me that if I refused to accept liability they would have no option other than to take me to court and the court would find that I was liable for 50/50 repairs, plus I would have to pay all costs. Her reasoning being that as we were both reversing, we were both equally liable. I asked if she'd seen the photographs of the collision and when she affirmed she had, I then asked her how, given all the laws of physics and vehicle dynamics, it would be possible for me to reverse sideways into the back of another vehicle. Her response was that was irrelevant and in all previous cases, the courts had found both parties to have 50/50 liability.

I asked her to send me the relevant case law and once I had an opportunity to read and further assess my legal position, I would get back in touch. So far I've heard buggerall from them.

A good start in reducing insurance premiums could be made by outlawing these scavenging, para-legal bastads who masquerade as "claims management companies".

You're not much of a salesman if you still couldn't sell him a fish though.

Any good salesman knows when there's no chance of a deal and simply moves on to the next s̶u̶c̶k̶e̶r̶ prospect

A friend of mine got rear ended on the motorway recently too. His car had the same issue, his rear bumper was damaged and the lock to the boot was faulty so it had been written off. He actually works for aviva insurance so was clued up on what to do and told me all about it.

First of all, don't accept the first offer for your car. They will try and get away with offering as little as possible, Do as much searching online or locally for car's of the similar type and age and see what they go for and then appeal for a better payment if you think it is unfair, which it probably will be. If you have a full service history you could even forward that and argue that it would add to the value.

Secondly the car is yours and even after they have paid for the value of your car as a write off you can you still take it back. That is exactly what my friend did. He was looking for a new car anyway but he got about £700 for the value of his car, had the vehicle returned to him and had a mechanic he knows repair it for him. It was then sold on.


I'm no expert but you shouldn't be paying for anything or ending up out of pocket in anyway as you are 100% not at fault.

Thanks for the advice.

It has now been suggested that I approach the 3rd party Insurance directly, and enquire about a 'cash in lieu' settlement. [i"They'll know what you mean!"[/i
This is apparently where they pay you a compensation figure rather than arrange to have the car repaired, and it works out cheaper for them than the 'write-off' - as effectively there was no accident, so no need for the category A/B/C/D stuff - assuming I withdraw my claim from my insurers.

It sounds like my best shot for coming out of the experience relatively financially 'unscathed'!!

We'll see!!

It is cash in the place of paying for repairs. Insurers are happy to pay it if it saves them money. It usually saves them money because if your estimate for repairs is (for example) £1,000 plus VAT, that's £1200; whereas if they pay cash in lieu, they only pay £1000, as you have not incurred any VAT, so you haven't "lost" the VAT, so you have no VAT to claim..

In reality in that scenario most insurers would actually offer somewhat less than £1000, as they reckon you might be making money, and that you might be tempted by, say, £800. Most people are, or can't be bothered with the hassle of an argument.

I wouldn't withdraw the claim from your insurers. What if the other driver suddenly puts in a carload of whiplash claims against you? What you would do is simply tell them that you've been paid out in full by the TP insurance, so you won't be making any cash claim off them. However that might be complicated in your case by the "courtesy car" - unless somebody recoups that money from the other insurer, then that's a claim on your policy. For those reasons you shouldn't do any final deal with the other insurance company unless you have confirmation that such other claims have been taken care of, and that you were in the clear to do so.

Had a bump myself recently ( my fault). Made the mistake of getting the insurance company to get the car repaired. Got car back 5 weeks later for work that should have taken no more than 1 day! Apparently this is a common timescale, another scam, where the repair centre keep hold of the car for as long as possible, to get more storage money. Eventually got car back. Repairs cost £1200 ( think of a figure and double it at least), then came the next scam, had to pay excess to garage before I could have my car back, another scam. Subsequent result being that I lost 13 years no claims and insurance has now pretty much doubled.

Lesson to be learned in future is to buy a car with 12 month tax and mot and don't bother with insurance, and hope for the best like the other 33pc of road users. The whole insurance game is one hell of a con.

Ps, could be wrong, but didn't they change the rules regarding whiplash, and anything under 30mph would not cause it? Thus they wouldn't pay out.

So the rest of us suckers who pay our insurance can contnue subsidising your criminal activity? I realise that driving uninsured may not be a criminal offence but it should be, just like drink-driving. As I've said previously: get caught driving uninsured, then your car should be seied and scrapped or sold and never mind 6 points, it should be a minimum 12 month ban.

Get caught driving while disqualified? Amputate your right foot.

It always amuses and infuriates me when you hear of cases where someone is convicted of either driving while disqualified or driving without a licence and the punishment is a paltry fine and a ban from driving.

The driving without insurance punishments aren't enough either, you're right. The car should be seized and made available to unemployed who have to turn down or not apply for certain jobs because they can't afford to run a car.

When you run a small fleet of cars and vans which are doing relatively high mileage each year then you get used to handling the odd knock and dent here and there - its when you take a car thats got a few scrapes on it to a main dealer bodyshop and ask for a quote to knock a few of them out and respray other bits and the VERY first question they ask EVERY time is "Is it an insurance claim ?" THATS when you know what scamming insurance companies is all about.

The dynamics of business work differently when it comes to car repairs - the ones with the highest volume of work to pass their way get the highest quotes while Joe Public with one dent and a panel respray once every five years gets the best possible price, especially if he's willing to pay in cash.

The motor insurers are supreme conmen, it's true, but now they also have the government in their back pocket so can do absolutely what they like.

That said, uninsured motorists should be strung up.


No, they didn't. And the reason they wouldn't pay out was not the speed, but because you don't get paid for whiplash when it was your own bleedin fault

Driving without insurance is a criminal offence. S.143 Road Traffic Act.

You can be taken to court and, if convicted, fined up to £5,000. Not that anyone would ever get fined anywhere near that.

I agree there is seeming inconsistency between what an uninsured motorist pays by way of fine and what he would pay for A YEAR's insurance.

BUT.

a) you don't need to have paid for a full year's insurance to be driving legally
b) the car will be seized, if he doesn't get it insured he won't get it back
c) you get at least 6 points on your licence which means
..(i) if you do it again, you will be banned as well as other penalties
..(ii) you therefore quickly get into the realm of driving whilst disqualified, which is a fairly short route to a prison sentence.

Whilst I would agree generally that the deterrent to driving uninsured doesn't seem to be big enough to do its job properly, I don't think the escalator of punishments is perhaps as toothless as people often think it is.