|
Thanks to everyone for your comments, sounds like a bit of a minefield though. With regards to trying to claim back my excess should my insurance company give me details of the other party insureres? At the time of the accident the other party would only give details of the company he worked for.
|
Yes you need to get details of his insurers. Then if it's as simple as you say, that he drove in the back of you, it's a simple process.
Pay your excess
Send a copy of the receipt to the other person's insurers.
They'll send you a cheque.
Pay cheque into bank :)
Send a copy of the cheque and the letter from the insurer to your insurer so that they can adjust your record to show that you were not at fault, the other party has paid out and the case is closed. That way you don't have an open claim affecting your no claims when you come to renew.
You could have avoided paying the excess at all by claiming directly from his insurers but by the sounds of it he was not keen to give you those details, so you've probably gone about it the right way.
|
Yes you need to get details of his insurers
>>
my method for dealing with non-fault accidents, which has been found to work extremely well in practice by those who have taken this route, is:
1. write to the third party (in this case to his employer's address) teling them you hold them responsible for your losses/damages. always send letters by recorded or special delivery, and give them a week to respond; otherwise threaten to start proceedings in court.
2. they will generally pass this on to their insurance company, and you will then be dealing direct with their insurance company.
3. keep your own insurance company fully in the picture, initially telling them that you are not making a claim on your own compreshensive policy at that stage, but may have to do so if the third party fails to repair yor car
mlrogers can start at step 1 for his excess and any other unisured losses/damages/expenses.
|
|
|
|
You insurer may well give you details of the TP Insurers, but they have no duty to do so.
I'd basically follow Dalglish's advice further down, although I always advocate starting with a polite letter first.
|
>>follow Dalglish's advice further down
[sigh] or up.
Wherever it is, its dated Thu 14 Sep 06 08:21
|
|
|
I always advocate starting with a polite letter first
>>
ditto.
i second that.
|
>> was shocked to read the HJ faq stating that I have a right to be supplied an equivalent vehicle .. That is inaccurate. ...
no-fm2r : this backroomer says hj is correct -
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=43285&...e
Non fault accident - best way to proceed - CGNorwich Thu 14 Sep 06 22:51
HJ is correct. I believe there is a confusion here between what the Insurance comany will provide you under the terms of the accidental damages section of the policy and what you are legally entitled to receive in compensation from the third party as settlement of damagages. I believe a court would normally view the cost of hire of a similar car for the period a damaged car is off the road as reasonable calculation of special damages. You may have to arrange the hire of an equivalent vehicle yourself if your Insurer will only provide for a lesser car but they should be instructed to include your hire costs in their recovery from the third party
|
You are of course aware that you have a duty to minimise your losses as far as is reasonable ?
No doubt you are also aware that insurance is about financial compensation ?
An example....
If you have a McClaren F1, but do not drive during the week, do you think you are entitled to hire an F1 and leave it parked on your drive while you're at work all week ? Why not ? Because your own would have been parked like that ? Perhaps because the *need* isn't there nor justifiable and therefore you would not be minimising your losses. In fact you would be pointlessly increasing them ?
If you feel that to be reasonable then follow the principle through. You are not entiteld to any car if you don't need it, and you are only entitled to the minimum vehicle you need for the minimum amount of time you actually need it. In practice, as I said, most insurers are more lenient that that, however that doesn't affect the situation if someone wants to push it.
You'll have to make your own mind up as to who is correct and as I always say - anything in here has the value of a pub conversation after a few vodkas and if a particular fact or situation is important to you, then you should go and seek professional advice.
|
....You'll have to make your own mind up as to who is correct and as I always say - anything in here has the value of a pub conversation after a few vodkas ...
except for the fact that hj's faq is not in a discussion thread, but has a special page devoted to it.
unless, of course, no-fm2r is saying that the statement "anything in here has the value of a pub conversation after a few vodkas " that it applies to hj's faq pages too.
|
The FAQ is not about what insurers want to offer you, it is about what you are legally entitled to. If someone else negligently damages your propery then you are entitled in common law to be put back into the situation you were in before the other party negligently damaged your property. You may then have to sue that party and if you do so successfully then his insurer will have to pick up the tab. However, the same does not apply if you damage your own property, or if someone else accidentally damages your property. As well of that, in law, as No FM2R pointed out, you should never sue for more than is "reasonable" or your claim is likely to be denied. As stated in the FAQ, the relevant case law is Clarke v/s Ardington in the Appeal Court, 1 May 2002
HJ
|
|
|
HJ can comment on his own pages, I am talking of my comments. I try not to voice opinions at all, and certainly not represent them as definitive statements, unless I am pretty sure of my ground.
You cannot neccessarily claim for a replacement car from the TP insurers at all;
Where you can, you cannot neccessarily claim for a car equivalent to your own;
Where you can, you may not be able to claim it for the whole period.
And insofar as insistng that your car is repaired or replaced with a similar example, you can't. Under certain circumstances your insurer can simply give you money and refuse to eiher repair it or replace it.
That's how it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In an open & shut case where there is no personal injury the 3rd party will often cough up your excess (£350) within a few weeks.
Is it likely to be a bit more complicated, as in the OP's case he was pushed into the vehicle in front, so presumeably they will be claiming from him?
|
|
Well the saga continues, I'm still struggling to get my car repaired properly. Basic bodywork is ok apart from panels and seals not alligning. More annoyingly, it's a convertable and the hood no longer opens amongst lots of other niggles. Clearly I'm never going to get my car back in anything like the condition it was in prior to the accident. Then there was the courtesy car, which broke down and not replaced! Now the really sting in the tail, the driver who caused the accident was driving a courier van from company that has offices in 3 towns and which I see lots of the vehicles in these towns. My insurer tells me that the details are not on the insurance database and that attempts to contact the company have so far failed! Clearly without these details I've no chance of recovering my £350 excess, but yet more seriously does this mean that I am liable? I've tried asking my insurers but they won't answer and have just given an unreachable telephone number! Any ideas, tips, suggestion please?
|
I would check the Companies House website
the free search should give you the address - follow the arrow to Find Company Info
then Webcheck - free service
|
|
A hood that opens is a fairly basic requirement on a convertible... I would reject the repair immediately in writing, the longer you keep the car the weaker your case will be and they may claim "well Sir, it was working when we handed the keys back to you....."
|
|
|
|
|
The saga continues, I've managed to get my car into a reasonable condition, albeit at my own expense! What really annoys me now is that on my insurance renewel the accident is listed as 'Fault'. When I queried this my insuraer stated that this was because they have been unable to recover the cost from the guilty party. Initially they said that the problem was that the vehicle registration didn't show up on the insurance database. I have enquired about this and was advised that commercial vehicle insurance often covers a quantity of vehicles rather than specific vehicles, anyone know if this is true? I have tried chasing my insurers but after the usual long wait they blind transfer to a solicitors voicemail! The company whose vehicle caused the accident are still operating, have a website showingf multiple offices, and the vehicles are prominent in the towns where they operate so why can't the insurer claim against them? Ant any advise would be very very welcome.
|
sounds like crap to me as all vehicles have to be on the abi database if on the queens highway,i think someone is lying
at one time if the company in question was "self insuring" like a hire company lets say then yes there was a possibility that a particular registration plate would not show up
this has all now changed
go see a solicitor conversent in motor insurance
|
|
|
|
|
|
