What are the rules governing suitable replacement vehicles while your own is under going repair entirely due to the actions of a third party?
I don't want to get stuck with some god awful snail that will struggle up the steep hill nearby and will be a nightmare to join the nearest 70 mph dual carriageway. I've never owned a car with less than 2 litres and the few times I drove an underpowered car it was just scary. The loan cars all seem to be dreadful little buzz boxes without even basic amenity such as electric windows. One loan car I had was a supermini without power steering and had wind up windows. This was to replace a 2 litre family hatchback with leccy windows, power steering and decent performance!
As my normal car is a 2 litre turbo hatchback, do I have any leverage in insisting the loan car is an equivalent? I have enhanced loan car thingummies with my accident management/legal protectiony thing with my insurance but the third party insurance admitted fault straight away so I have had to go through them.
Astra/golf/seat/alfa with 2 litres in a hatchback form would be reasonable approximation. Would this be considered an over top thing to insist on?
|
|
I wouldn't have thought you were being unreasonable. Our director had some body repair work done to his 10-year-old Jaguar XK at the start of the winter, the courtesy car was a 60-plate E-Class.
|
|
Millions of people are happily and safely driving cars with no turbo and less than 2 litres, and they are not scared either. Loan cars are to supply you with transport, not "decent performance"
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 14 Apr 11 at 16:54
|
Unless it is stated in the terms of your policy what type of loan car they will give you, then you are stuck with whatever the insurance company will authorise, ie cheapest going.
You can often upgrade at your own cost though - my wife did this when she was offered a manual loan car when her car was in for its bump early in its time with us ( she doesnt do manuals unless you want a pile of cogs etc on the floor ) - cost her around £15 for the week if I recall.
|
|
Beat me to it Zero. If a small car is not good enough for you, rent yourself something adequate for your image.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 14 Apr 11 at 16:58
|
You are entitled to what you need, not what you want. You have a duty to mitigate the loss to the insurance company - i.e. you have no right to another Jaguar to replace your Jag.
So if you own an estate car, and are going on holiday with four friends, then the replacement car has to be up to that size, if not lux. If you are instead merely pootling to and from work, then the buzz box will have to do.
Ring the insurance co, and tell them a story if you have one, and squeeze it out of them. Remember lying to insurance companies can land you in jail.
Whatever happens, don't be tempted to get a "helphire" car with the outrageous hire charges. You might not be able to reclaim them.
|
I am mitigating the loss. I'm not going anywhere near their approved repairers for a start.
If I had managed to get to my accident management company first I wouldn't have the problem as my policy entitles me to an upgraded car. I don't see why the other insurer shouldn't respect those terms as I could have easily have gone through them and the resulting claim would be a damn site higher.
|
>> Whatever happens, don't be tempted to get a "helphire" car with the outrageous hire charges.
>> You might not be able to reclaim them.
>>
I used helphire a few years back and they were pretty good. The charges for the loan car were probably at the upper end of what one of the main car hire companies would have charged for a walk in.
Also there was no risk on the charges not being recovered - they charged me £10 for an indemnity policy that would pay all the charges in the event that they could not recover their costs (which they did)
|
>> Millions of people are happily and safely driving cars with no turbo and less than
>> 2 litres, and they are not scared either. Loan cars are to supply you with
>> transport, not "decent performance"
>>
I don't force them to drive a decent car. Why should I be forced into driving a carp one? If it had been my error that had caused the accident then fair enough. Porridge with some hideous Ka or Corsa would be reasonable. I'm the innocent party so I should have a suitable replacement while I am forced to be without my car.
|
Don't be so pompous Teabelly:)
It will improve you're driving skills no-end to learn how to drive an 'old dog' like it was always meant to be driven.
What's more, if you approach it with the right attitude you might just enjoy it.
You will certainly notice a difference in the way other (larger) car drivers treat you and I can guarantee it will be an eye opener.
Pat
|
>> Don't be so pompous Teabelly:)
>>
>> It will improve you're driving skills no-end to learn how to drive an 'old dog'
>> like it was always meant to be driven.
>>
>> What's more, if you approach it with the right attitude you might just enjoy it.
>>
>> You will certainly notice a difference in the way other (larger) car drivers treat you
>> and I can guarantee it will be an eye opener.
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>
>>
I've driven enough slow carp cars to know I don't want to do it again :) Took a 1.4 punto up the cat and fiddle. Jeez. Held everyone else up because the asthmatic heap couldn't manage more than 20 mph in some places. Also got stuck with a loaned cinquecento that needed double de-clutching to stop 3rd gear grinding. I want an easy journey now, ta very much!
|
>>Took a 1.4 punto up the cat and fiddle. Jeez. Held everyone else up because the asthmatic heap couldn't manage more than 20 mph in some places
I'd venture to suggest that either the Punto had something seriously wrong with it, or your driving did.
|
|
It had a close ratio gearbox which didn't help. A hair pin and a steep slope after was a tricky combination. Went like the wind downhill though :)
|
Now tubby tommy, I tried to say that ever so delicately:)
Pat
|
|
These are the sort of attitudes that cause car insurance to rise by 40% in the last year, as quoted in today's news. You'll pay for your luxury courtesy car one way or another.
|
you *need* transport you dont *need* performance.
You'll be the first to whine when your insurance goes up because of the "Its my right - I want" attitude.
|
I'm not the one having *fault* claims. Insurance is high due to insurance companies using accident management companies and not handling claims properly themselves. It is also a result of EU legislation fitting cars with endless airbags and other gizmos that have to be replaced at very high costs. It is also high due to fake claims and spurious injury claims. None of which apply to me.
I've never had a fault claim, ever. Insurance would be a lot cheaper if people watched where they were going and drove carefully.
|
|
Teabelly, you are not going to die driving a car less than 2 litres. What about the 1.4 TSI? Seriously quick and shock, horror, less than 2 litres. Get a reality check.
|
Blimey. Up go our premiums again.
Perhaps Sir should make do with a bicycle, or use the bus.
Last edited by: FotheringtonTomas on Thu 14 Apr 11 at 17:35
|
I was in Italy again last week. Hired a Fiesta 1.2 I think it was. Went like the wind. Well, it was a hire car...
:-)
|
>> I was in Italy again last week. Hired a Fiesta 1.2 I think it was.
>> Went like the wind. Well, it was a hire car...
>>
>> :-)
>>
Nothing goes and handles quite like a hire car (except the 1.8 insignia I had last week....)
|
Certainly wouldn't use a bicycle. Too many potholes! I still have the scars from the last time I ventured onto a bicycle. Cheaper to lend me a car than mend broken bits in casualty :)
Bus service is hopeless. I often need to go to a couple of places within a day which most of the time proves impossible. And there aren't any after 6. And the ones back often aren't for several hours so you can't nip in and nip back like you can with a car. I check out lots of journeys on PT and stopped after I concluded you needed 4 hours to do what you could with a car in an hour.
|
|
If you can "justify" something bigger just tell the insurer why you need an equivilent to your existing car. This happened to my other half and she needed a full size MPV while the sharan was being repaired. As the third party had accepted full liability they agreed she could hire a car from Avis (I think). She got an espace for the week
|
I watched the Top Gear episode yesterday when they had the Rover 3500, Dolomite and Princess.
Was amazed when they said the Rover 3500 had something like 130 bhp!! From a 3.5 litre engine!
I remember taking a hire car Uno, 950cc or something with 4 onboard, all the way to the top of Mount Teide and back!
|
>> Was amazed when they said the Rover 3500 had something like 130 bhp!! From a 3.5 litre engine!
From a V8 engine. That's not good if right. My Passat diesel will be 168bhp. Okay I know we've moved forward a lot but a 3.5l V8 giving out only 130bhp is either just crap or Top Gear is wrong.
|
I suspect they have been misleading. The American version would have had to have a crude cat converter which robbed tonnes of power. I suspect they have been quoting power figures for the American market.
I remember once I think it was the same series May was driving a 1600 Lada and said it had 45bhp. The true output of the Lada 1600 SLX was closer to 90bhp and had a good top speed but was never a fast car due to its awful brakes and chasis.
|
My wife's car insurance provides a courtesy car but it is supplied by the bodyshop. So you get a cheap buzz box. So no worse than her car.
I can see where teabelly is coming from. When I had a Passat back in 2001 I got given a courtesy car. But it was a Polo... back in the days when the low end ones did not have power steering. I decided I didn't want the car and would get a hire car after all.... in the end I got the dealer's manager's Passat instead. They didn't have to do that - they'd supplied a courtesy car.
Nowadays I'd take what was on offer because all small cars are probably good enough.
I have a hire car booked for the start of May on holiday. I should get a Corsa sized car but I hope I can downgrade to a FIAT 500 to be honest :-)
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 14 Apr 11 at 18:16
|
|
I have booked a fiat 500 (I hope) in Sicily! Looking forward to it.
|
I'd not sat in one until this week. Clutch cable snapped on wife's car so went to (a) price up a new cable at the dealers and (b) sit in a FIAT 500 in case I didn't like it ;-) Hopefully will get one at Pisa airport as it will be a fun car I think. There's only the two of us so boot space not an issue. Paperwork for the free hire car with Thomson says Corsa sized. Europcar has the FIAT 500 in a lower category of cars. I was willing to pay up though.
If we needed a new small car I'd get one for my wife. We cannot justify one based on how much it would be used. I suppose I could have taken the money from the company and got an Abarth 500 Esseesse ;-) But I want something a bit bigger for motorway cruising. And the insurance quote per annum was around the same as a Passat CC!
|
|
Oh dear, I had better not admit to what I will be using in Australia from next week. (Not a buzz box).
|
The Rover 3500 had around 155bhp iirc..
www.roversd1.info/3500/3500engine.html
Top Gear were wrong (again).
Last edited by: madf on Thu 14 Apr 11 at 18:34
|
|
Pisa and Sicily ? Sure as eggs is eggs they will be Pandas. They're alright though.
|
You're probably right Humph :-( But if I don't get a FIAT 500 I'll stick with the size I am due and probably get a Punto. Last time I got a hire car in Pisa Airport it was a Corsa too.
Of course FIAT 500 = Panda = Ford Ka.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 14 Apr 11 at 18:41
|
|
Still crap if only 155bhp from a 3.5l V8 though. Although having said that my brother once had a Jeep with a 5.2l V8.... with around 230bhp and 300lb/ft torque! But when you floored it and it changed down it did move. But I bet my Passat diesel will be faster.
|
|
Non fault claim against MB driver - 3rd party insurer said no to equivalent car - I said I can hire the car @ £60 /day - he could hire the same car @ £30-£35 / day - the choice was his - the hire car turned up @ their expense and not me Credit Card
|
I needed a replacement car during insurance repairs about 4 years ago. The other party admitted full liability for the accident, and the repairs dragged on for two months.
Since I couldn't put life into deep-freeze for that time, I insisted on a rough equivalent car to my own for the duration of the repairs.
I wasn't concerned about performance, toys, image, or even fuel economy. However I'd bought an estate car because I needed the space, and that meant that I wasn't going to be happy with a supermini!
After completion of the repairs the other party (and their Insurers) turned nasty, and took the matter to court, claiming that I should have been happy with a small runaround for two months.
I contested their claim and won (fortunately).
Last edited by: Londoner on Thu 14 Apr 11 at 18:52
|
>> Still crap if only 155bhp from a 3.5l V8 though.
Not "crap", merely of the time - 44BHP/l. Rather more than a Mini 1000 of the same era (39BHP/l. The Aston Martin Vantage from the same period - a "supercar" - produced about 73BHP/l.
|
>> The Rover 3500 had around 155bhp iirc..
Still seriously slow compared to something with that capacity today. I had a 3500 auto - you really had to be committed to overtake unless you could see the road ahead for miles. Lovely noise though.
|
I can understand if it's a fault claim, you say thank you when they hand over the keys of a 1.0 Micra that smells of other people.
But a non fault claim? Why should you be without, why should you be inconvenienced, why should you have to drive around with flashes up and down the length of the car advertising some coachbuilders, or worse, those Arnold Shark ones "Yet another free courtesy car provided by Arnold Clark..."
I know it takes 2 to tango and non-fault are rarely completely innocent, but still. If someone ran in to me, i'd be wanting something comparable to my car.
Paid enough for the insurance over the years! :-)
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 15 Apr 11 at 00:49
|
|
Yes - and now that you mention insurance....as we have discussed on this forum many times, the "innocent" driver involved in a no-fault accident gets penalised with higher premiums regardless.
|
|
.
Last edited by: Clk Sec on Thu 14 Apr 11 at 19:22
|
It certainly was absolutely non fault in my case. My car was parked. I wasn't in it. There was plenty of room for the other person to get out. They didn't look and just reversed into it! They were in a hurry and didn't spend 5 seconds looking where they were going so I've spent hours beggaring about on the phone and filling in forms.
We shouldn't be put out by the actions of others. If I damaged someone else's car I'd expect my insurance company to foot the bill for an equivalent loan car for that person. I wouldn't expect them to slum it in a rubbish car because of me. If they had an MPV I wouldn't expect them to have to diddle around in a supermini having to decide which of the kids to leave at home. I wouldn't expect a Bentley owner to be stuck with having to drive round in a supermini. I'd also expect the network repairers to do a better job of making sure everything they need they had if the car was driveable. My car was stuck with one for 6 weeks as they didn't order the trim needed in advance. They wouldn't even let me take the car as it was, without the stripe, and then take it back to them later. This would have saved weeks of car hire and hundreds of pounds. The approved repairers are often the ones loaning out the cars so they have a vested interest in foot dragging the repairs. I dread to think how much it cost the other person's insurance because of their stupidity.
|
|
We had a non-fault accident, where the driver came flying out from the pub, hit the parked Jazz (no-one in it) up the rear and shot off. Police found him eventually, but too late to charge re D&D. Insured via a well known chain. How I know not: he'd already got form.We refused all "accident managment" offers, and only used a very new latest etc Fiesta the repair firm offered gratis. If not, we'd have managed without a second car. No contract. My God: the Fiesta the press get for testing must be from a different production line! Never will I drive such a heap again. Anyway, the car was repaired by an outfit Honda used which neatly coincided with the "Approved Repairer" of LV. No penalty on renewal insurance price, or NCD.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 15 Apr 11 at 00:50
|
|
my friend has a mint 1985 vandes plas sd1 EFi and from the factory came with 190hp and is very quick by modern standards so must have been supercar car like for 1985
|
|
Compared to today's heavy cars, 190bhp in the SD1 was probably a lot of power.
|
>> 190bhp [in an SD1]
Pah! This nut case deserves much respect in my book www.ppcmag.co.uk/old-car-info/rover-sd1-27-litre-v12.html
There's videos on youtube, there's a funny one playing on the marks and sparks adverts.
|
>> What are the rules governing suitable replacement vehicles while your own is under going repair
>> entirely due to the actions of a third party?
>>
legal expert Lucy tells you how she sees it
www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/credit-hire-1/
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=87848
www.honestjohn.co.uk/askhj/answer/17367/loss-of-value-following-no-fault-accident
|
>> >> What are the rules governing suitable replacement vehicles while your own is under going
>> repair
>> >> entirely due to the actions of a third party?
>> >>
>>
>>
>> legal expert Lucy tells you how she sees it
>> www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/credit-hire-1/
>> www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=87848
>> www.honestjohn.co.uk/askhj/answer/17367/loss-of-value-following-no-fault-accident
>>
That is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. Thank you :)
|
|
About 18 months ago my then 8 years old Mondeo 2.0 Zetec was damaged in a no-fault (on my part) incident (it was subsequently deemed to be a write-off). My replacement vehicle, which I had for about one month, was a 6 months old Volvo C70. No complaints on my part, except for the write-off value of the Mondeo!
|
|
After finally going through the rigmarole of getting an estimate and various delays I'm glad to say that they agreed a 2 litre car would be reasonable. I argued I was mitigating my losses as I wasn't asking for complete equivalent which would be a mitsubishi evo or subaru imprezza and that a normally aspirated 2 litre would suffice as it was my only car. Had I got another car to toodle around in it wouldn't be a problem and something with 4 wheels and an engine would have done.
|
>> Had I got another car to toodle around in it
>> wouldn't be a problem and something with 4 wheels and an engine would have done.
So you were not mitigating your losses then.
|
>>
>> >> Had I got another car to toodle around in it
>> >> wouldn't be a problem and something with 4 wheels and an engine would have
>> done.
>>
>> So you were not mitigating your losses then.
>>
I am as the loan car, if it is replacing the sole vehicle, has to be a reasonable equivalent. It is one thing to have a car to get home in, quite another to be stuck with it as sole transport for every journey for however long the repair takes. I might need to buy an 8 foot curtain pole. Or long fence posts. They fit in my car without bother. It wouldn't in quite a lot of other cars, including the asthamatic superminis I would have been fobbed off with.
I certainly am mitigating my losses as an equivalent would be much more expensive than a boggo 2 litre mass produced euro box to hire. The other party's insurer's claim handlers agree with me, so ner :)
Think it was because I mentioned Ms Bonham-Carter...
|
>> I am as the loan car, if it is replacing the sole vehicle, has to
>> be a reasonable equivalent. It is one thing to have a car to get home
>> in, quite another to be stuck with it as sole transport for every journey for
>> however long the repair takes. I might need to buy an 8 foot curtain pole.
>> Or long fence posts. They fit in my car without bother. It wouldn't in quite
>> a lot of other cars, including the asthamatic superminis I would have been fobbed off
>> with.
>>Had I got another car to toodle around in it
>>wouldn't be a problem and something with 4 wheels and an engine would have
>> done.
So can you resolve those two statements for me please.
Ta.
|
Read the links given further up. It is quite clear. I'm not explaining it again.
The claims people agree and they're working for the other side so if in their opinion it is fair and reasonable then it is. Even if you don't agree.
|
To my (limited) knowledge no insurance company has successfully gone to court to challenge a like-for-like replacement vehicle hire during a 'repair period'.
Without legal precedent to the contrary, any other definition of 'mitigating losses' is moot.
Good chance I'm wrong but I haven't seen substantive proof that I am .. yet.
|
Not a matter of disagreeing, just your gloating that you got a bigger car when you admit that you didn't really need it, just wanted it. Which proves my point waaaay at the top of this post.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 4 May 11 at 20:55
|
>> Not a matter of disagreeing, just your gloating that you got a bigger car when
>> you admit that you didn't really need it, just wanted it. Which proves my point
Teabelly said that DID really need it. I don't see where you think the opposite was written?
|
>> Teabelly said that DID really need it. I don't see where you think the opposite
>> was written?
Here
>Had I got another car to toodle around in it wouldn't be a problem and something with 4 wheels ?>and an engine would have done.
|
>> >Had I got another car to toodle around in it wouldn't be a problem and
>> something with 4 wheels ?>and an engine would have done.
>>
No, she didn't. She doesn't have another car to toodle around in. Her accident damaged car was the only car she has/had. Therefore she wanted a "like for like" replacement.
|
Not but she admits "something with 4 wheels and an engine would have done." and "it wouldnt have been a problem"
So in a nutshell, a like for like was not required.
|
But to play devils advocate slightly, what if I'm leasing an Aston Martin @ say £1,800 a month and, due to someone elses negligence, its off the road for 6 weeks. Should I be expected to pay £2,400 yet get to drive a Fiesta Style + ?
Or, more realistically perhaps, I choose to drive a convertible because I like them. If my car is off the road for the whole of June because someone runs in to it, why shouldn't I be able to have a loan car that's also a convertible?
Peter
|
|
.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 5 May 11 at 16:38
|
>> Not a matter of disagreeing, just your gloating that you got a bigger car when
>> you admit that you didn't really need it, just wanted it. Which proves my point
>> waaaay at the top of this post.
>>
>>
>>
>>
teabelly is entitled to the equivalent car. She was right to have referred to Bonham Carter.
Quotes from Bonham Carter article as linked by John H further up this page
"I was in an accident which was not my fault. Am I entitled to a like-for-like vehicle?
Generally speaking the law provides that if you suffered damage or injury wholly caused by another person you should not be disadvantaged in any way. Thus if you drive an Aston Martin which is damaged in a collision which is not your fault then you should should be provided with a vehicle of equal prestige and not asked to accept the body-shop's Micra while yours is off the road.
The converse equally applies. If your Micra is damaged and a credit hire company offers you an Aston Martin the insurer of the at-fault driver cannot be expected to pay the additional hire costs. Falsely "upgrading" you is a well established scam. Never accept a credit hire vehicle which is better than the vehicle it is replacing unless the hire company guarantees in writing that it will be charged to the third party at the same rate as your own vehicle. Failure to do so can leave you picking up their bill.
On like for like" be aware that the entitlement to claim for an equivalent vehicle is not unlimited.
From the Law Society Gazette:
In Boardman v Byrne [2008] Lawtel (Walsall CC, 18 April 2008), Mr Boardman owned a Porsche GT3. He claimed that it was a very rare car, which personified a certain image of wealth to the outside world (insert your own view as to the image conjured up). An ‘ordinary’ Porsche 911/966 would not, in his opinion, have been an adequate substitute. His Porsche garage did not have a GT3 and referred him to Accident Exchange Ltd who supplied him with a Mercedes Benz SL55 AMG at £675 per day.
The court found that if Mr Boardman had given the matter any thought – which he didn’t in fact – then he would probably have hired the best available Porsche car and his stance about ‘lesser models’ was unreasonable. He recovered the average ‘spot hire’ rate for a Porsche 911/966 of £253 per day.
The claimant is entitled an equivalent vehicle (Lagden v O’Connor [2004] AC 1067 per Lord Hope at paragraph 27)."
Last edited by: Suppose on Thu 5 May 11 at 10:45
|
When I got rear-ended on the A23 in my E-Class merc by some fluffy dice in a Peugoet I insisted that their insurance pay for something of a similar spec because of the amount of Motorway driving I had to do. We came to a compromise, they supplied a Rover 600..........
RM
|
|
I believe, in the common parlance of today's youth, that you were 'Owned' on that occasion RM!
|
Replacement vehicle during insurance repair - Dave_
