Embroiled in the car insurance credit hire scam

Hmm, I've not had this. When we had an accident our insurance made it clear they were paying but only for like 3 days. How the hell can you arrange a new car in 3 days? Useless. But no scams sorry.

I’m fully comp insured with a “reputable” company

Claim was handled by claims management company,

I'd be batting this back to your reputable insurance co, I'm guessing they engaged the services of  the claims company and not you.

Yes they did. I have logged a complaint with them so hopefully I'll get a call back early this week. I expect that they'll just say that I knew what I was getting into and signed my rights away.

Like I say though, it's not really presented to you like it's an option, it's presented like this is the normal way it works and if you don't sign, you don't get your car repaired.

I’d be going 100% at the insurance company about sharp practices and reputation. These are the sorts of companies that market themselves in terms like ‘hassle free’ and ‘reputable’ so by buying a policy from them you don’t expect to have to negotiate the minefield alone (hence the claims management process). Having read your original post I don’t honestly see where the scam is but the fact that a scam even exists in a process your insurance company invited you to follow is alarming. Hit the insurance company hard, then the ombudsman.

That's an interesting one, we had an accident, counerparty admitted responsibility to police. I was contacted pretty swiftly by an accident mgt company who I thought was employed by our insurance company.

Anyway, about 30 mins later I got a call from our insurance co saying don't engage with anyone else, they will do everything.

Turns out said third party lot were just chancers who get tip offs from, well a bit obvious really.

Our hire car as a replacement, it was made q obvious it was for 10 days I think and has to be returned when offer accepted for total loss.

Sorry to hear about your situation, I can see how vulnerable people can be post accident, we were 5 mins from home maybe if we were stranded miles away I may have fallen for it.

market themselves in terms like ‘hassle free’ and ‘reputable’

that's literally what it says on their website!

The scam is that the claim management coompany provide you with a hire car, not a courtesy car (at the time the nuances of that aren't really explained or deemed important.) You effectively enter a credit hire agreement. The small print says if the other side dispute it, you will help the legal process to claim the money back. If the other side don't pay, you are now liable. The legal firm and claims company involved aren't bothered what happens because either way they get their money.

Are the hire charges "reasonable" and were you made aware of them before you signed? If not, that might give you some wiggle room.

You are normally entitled to an equivalent car up until the point yours is a total loss. We had an argument years ago about this has they tried to give me a tiny car to replace a Citroen XM estate which was the size of an aircraft carrier. We were going on holiday with 3 kids and camping stuff and I successfully argued the car was not equivalent and got an upgrade on the hire car to a larger car.

I had a friend go through exactly the same. Her car was parked in a pub and someone reversed into it when we were talking, at the time we were about 20 metres away. She was offered, and accepted a hire car and then fought for the costs with her insurance company for around 18 months. She eventually won but it was a long drawn out frustrating process and unfortunately for the insurance company she's a bright cookie and very very determined. Her damaged car was a well specced BMW 2 series and she was offered a similar car but much lower spec, the insurance company based a lot of their arguments around the opulentness(sp) of car she hired.

Are the hire charges “reasonable” and were you made aware of them before you signed? If not, that might give you some wiggle room.

I think the charges were slightly inflated (you could probably get a better deal via enterprise or something, but not a huge difference.) I think it was <£1500 for approx 12 days in an octavia, I'd have to find the documents to confirm. We weren't told the actual charges or presented with any options beforehand.

However, it's not this they are now arguing about. The other side are saying we should have paid ourselves as we could have afforded it. Our "defense" are asking us to present statements for ALL of our bank accounts and credit cards to prove we couldn't have afforded to pay ourselves. I just don't get how you can reasonably argue whether or not we could afford it, where do you draw the line?

And is it still not unreasonable to expect that we should be provided with a temporary replacement for our car whilst it was off the road through no fault of our own!?

And is it still not unreasonable to expect that we should be provided with a temporary replacement for our car whilst it was off the road through no fault of our own!?

I don't think it is, but it doesn't mean your insurance will automatically cover it - isn't this kind of stuff the basis of the "uninsured loss" and "legal cover" bolt-ons the insurer tries to sell you?

Yeah it's a bolt-on, but it's one we look for when renewing, it's in the policy booklet "our approved repairers or company instructed by us will give you a courtesy car whilst your car is being repaired."

Stick to your guns I say. We had a
similar challenge around a rental motorhome provided by claims co while ours was repaired. Also a clear cut other party 100% to blame insurance claim).

After the event, challenged as to why we needed a rental (well cos we had holiday arranged and our van wasn’t useable after accident).

And also why so long, why so costly etc (we only needed 2 weeks hire they choose to deliver us one from 500 miles away and not collect for 4 weeks after).

They might also have raised a financial capacity type question but they got a robust jog on from me. Not a chance they were going down that route.

Chancers, just need stick at it. Keep a record of every conversation if anything over phone. You’ll get told one thing on the phone from agent #1 and polar opposite next time speak to someone else.

Also so many ways the claim company increase cost rather than avoid it. We had to fight to get out motorhome trailered to the factory 200miles away - only place could repair it. Initially adamant we’d be responsible for that. Fought all the way and they eventually relented.

And they then sent a recovery vehicle next day which the driver said was a £1200 cost as deemed an emergency call out. Pretty sure if they’d agreed earlier and arranged a trailer at a non-emergency type recovery rate they’d have avoided hundred of £s.

think it was <£1500 for approx 12 days in an octavia, I’d have to find the documents to confirm. We weren’t told the actual charges or presented with any options beforehand.

However, it’s not this they are now arguing about. The other side are saying we should have paid ourselves as we could have afforded it.

I think you have misunderstood slightly. £1500 is a crazy amount of money for 12 days in an octavia. A quick google suggests <£20 a day is easily findable, and the insurance company knows this. They are complaining that, instead of paying for a hire car (at a reasonable rate) yourself, and claiming it back, you took a credit hire (at massive cost), which you're now trying to claim from them. If you genuinely couldn't afford the hire car up front, this is a reasonable step (which is why you're being asked for bank documents etc). If you could have paid for it up front, and you just signed some paperwork without checking, you haven't been reasonably prudent in minimising your losses. Stuff like this cost us all money on our car insurance bills, so the industry is clamping down on it.

You are normally entitled to an equivalent car

You might think, but you have an obligation in the small print to minimise losses to all parties, hence the queries of cost, did you really need an Octavia, would a Polo not have done, and so on.

It is a scam and when Rich posted a few weeks back, sad to say I predicted it. I'd try to stick to your guns and also try the consumer affairs champions, but unfortunately they are quite well practised at this now

Good luck

£1500 is a crazy amount of money for 12 days in an octavia. A quick google suggests <£20 a day is easily findable,

Yeah don't quote me on the exact cost, I'm not at home to check the documents at the moment!! I think it's somewhere in that ball park, a quick check on enterprise got me 12 days in an octavia at £815. It is inflated for sure, but I didn't think to an outrageous amount.

However, we weren't presented with the costs or any other options up front. Yes maybe we could have made do with a polo for a few days, however that wasn't given as an option. It was "would you like an octavia?" to which we thought well, yes taht makes sense.

If you could have paid for it up front, and you just signed some paperwork without checking, you haven’t been reasonably prudent in minimising your losses.

It's this stuff that gets me. It annoys me I went along with it, but as I keep saying although it felt a bit odd, it was presented like this is the normal procedure, don't worry about, just go along with it. It obviously started to feel more wrong a few weeks ago, but now they're asking for all this documentation it's now just a massive stress I could really do without.

And actually, why should the claimant have to pay up front for what they think is a courtesy car? It's what you have insurance for. If I had paid up front, I'd still be in this situation only they'd already have my money.

It’s this stuff that gets me. It annoys me I went along with it, but as I keep saying although it felt a bit odd, it was presented like this is the normal procedure, don’t worry about, just go along with it.

Because it's a scam, and you're the mark. Like all other scams, if it felt wrong people would check and then it's blown, but a quick google and there's dozens of hits explaining it.

And actually, why should the claimant have to pay up front for what they think is a courtesy car?

Because you think it's a courtesy car but it isn't. It's a car hired to you at an inflated cost at a time you're vulnerable wondering how you're going to get home / to work, and which in the panic and confusion you haven't read the small print for and which the lovely person helping you out on the phone barely mentioned in passing.

Sorry, but time to stop complaining about how unfair it is and start getting on with proving why it was a reasonable cost, which is all that'll make a difference now.

We had almost the same with Mrs BS’s motorbike. She was hit from rear whilst stationary at red light. The guy admitted fault and witnesses were present.

She had the insurance sort everything and a replacement ’courtesy’ bike was dropped off next day. A fortnight later, hers was fixed and returned and the ‘courtesy’ bike collected (from Liverpool, we live in Leicester!!).

The end of it we thought. But no, a few months later she was requested present bank statements etc, and to prepare go to court to defend the £4500 hire bike charge! Her bike repair was £900 and the original bike only worth £3k. At no point was she told she’d signed a hire agreement, or what the costs would be, otherwise we’d have told them not to bother.

We were pretty worried, but got the insurance to sort things out. In the end, at the last moment before court appearance, the insurance companies agreed amongst themselves and the case was dropped. All very stressful.

Sorry, but time to stop complaining about how unfair it is and start getting on with proving why it was a reasonable cost,

Fair enough!

So should I forward on all the bank statements and stuff the legal firm are asking for? (I guess I have no choice this far down the line.)That certainly feels a bit grubby. However, they state that should any documentation be missed it's a default and an automatic win for the other side.

Although, hopefully my complaint to the insurance company might provide another solution I guess...... yeah right!!

The accounts are going to show we have money going in and out and a small amount in savings, but how do you prove that it would have been an unreasonable outlay for us? I feel that is too simplistic/subjective an argument to make.

Ignoring all other factors, why was the claim handled by a claims management company rather than your insurer themselves? Is the CMC a part of the insurance company? Also very surprised the 3rd party insurer didn't offer to look after everything for you as its in their interest to do so.

I'm not sure. I reported it to my insurance provider and they just said ok, it'll be dealt with by the CMC from now on. It didn't seem untoward. I was told (probably by the CMC but could have been the insurance company) that should the other insurance company get in touch I was not to communicate with them.

Not thought about that before, at the time I just thought well maybe it's dodgy if the other insurers start asking me questions, but now it seems dodgy I was told not to talk to them!!

I'd lean on the advice from eg: Martin Lewis

Martin Lewis, founder of MoneySavingExpert.com, recommends setting up an emergency fund to the value of <b>"at least six months' worth of bills"</b>, although three months' worth "wouldn't be too bad"

extend that to outgoings, and argue that funding a car hire that you know is the responsibility of the Ins Co's is not one of the reasons to use this fund

It's a grey area, to not be disadvantaged by the situation the accident put you in, but that doesn't mean exactly the same car and so on. But I can reasonably argue that using your funding to subsidise the Ins Co's and so put yourself at the mercy of a roof leak or whatever - even temporarily - is not your responsibility.

Not thought about that before, at the time I just thought well maybe it’s dodgy if the other insurers start asking me questions, but now it seems dodgy I was told not to talk to them!!

Its quite common, in fact its usually better all round, if liability is clear and accepted then that insurer will want to deal with their customer and you, and often will treat you extremely well. Its saves them a lot of unnecessary costs, such as your situation. That's certainly how our claims teams deal with it. CMCs just add extra costs for the same services you receive from your own insurance.

I'm intrigued by who your reputable insurer is, if they actively use CMCs.

@theotherjonv thanks for that, seems a reasonable argument, depends how effective "my" legal representation is!!

@fazzini not sure I should specify given there's an ongoing court case!!?

We had EXACTLY the same crap pulled on us - mentioned it on other threads previoulsy. There's an element of trust that one's own insurer will look after their customer's interests - no way, complete scam and should be banned.

My other half told her insurer to stuff it in the end as they hadn't been honest in the dealings post (non-fault) claim. Told them no way would she turn up in court (don't remember being asked for docs proving affordability). As soon as she pushed back they caved and accepted what would have been the usual hire rate from the other party's insurers for the car concerned. Same as you, she was practically told to accept an equivalent car rather than a box with tyres.

Because the scam pisses me off so much, I'm reposting RK's original thread. It's textbook, all the things that were predicted / are the hallmarks of the scam are there. Just so more people read it and don't fall for it.

https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/car-insurance-claim-question-2/

@richardkennerley wasn't suggesting you share was just curious.

There's a local, well known CMC, and they pull this every time. Their hire cars are provided by a hire company, that just so happens to belong to the same CMC. They, funnily enough (irony alert) also have their own repair centres. It's in their interest to delay repairs thus extending credit hire period.
They've also recently partnered with an insurance broker and will be first point of contact for all claims. FFS

it’s in the policy booklet “our approved repairers or company instructed by us will give you a courtesy car whilst your car is being repaired

I reported it to my insurance provider and they just said ok, it’ll be dealt with by the CMC from now on.

This doesn't make sense to me. The policy says they or a company instructed by them will give you a courtesy car. A company instructed by them did provide a courtesy car, so how can they say you have to pay for it?

The other point I'd be pressing is that as a no-fault claim, the primary liability for the costs of the incident is via a claim for damages against the other party; your insurer is handling that for you. What your policy covers should only be relevant if they aren't able to recover your losses in full.

@theotherjonv thanks for posting that, I'd forgotten it was me that started that thread, I just thought I'd contributed to a different one!

A company instructed by them did provide a courtesy car, so how can they say you have to pay for it?

They actually provided me a hire car. There's a difference. The other side don't have to pay for that. Although you are provided with an explanation of what is going on, it is presented in such a way that it seems like the only option and that this is just the way it is done. Then once it's gone so far, well..... You're buggered basically.

When my old Octavia got clouted by another driver, who actually admitted it was her fault to my insurance company when they phoned her while I was on hold giving them the details, they arranged an equivalent car, an Insignia SRi diesel, I ended up doing nearly 900 miles in it, and handed it back with a full tank of fuel, so it effectively cost me £72. My car was written off, but I accepted a lower payout, minus 24%, in order to keep the car as it was just a dented wing, had it MOT’d and kept on driving it for several more years.
The other party never paid up, so it went to court, but apart from regular communications keeping me up to date, it never cost me anything extra.
My insurance company at the time, and is now, was Saga.

So the honest, reliable, trusted de facto 5 star insurance co appoint an 'independent' claim management co to 'help' you through the process
All the while knowing ypu will not loaned a courtesy car whilst yours is being repaired, but in fact you will be renting a car at a grossly inflated rate. All the while knowing that either the 3rd partys insurance or you will be conned
They accept this a a quid pro quo as they end up paying for hire cars at grossly inflated rates so its a zero sum gain/loss to them if you force the issue and refuse to fold?
Bumch of petrol tankers

Yes had this recently. There has been a couple of cases where the insurance companies have won. Basically you have a liability to ensure they aren’t being ripped off when you take a hire car they will be liable for. If you take a fiesta at £800 a week when someone like enterprise does them for £150 a week their argument is your decision has cost them money, a court found in favour of the insurance company.
Having found all this out after I’d taken and returned a car 6 weeks later I explained to them I didn’t know how much the market rate was for the car I was given, it was given late at night and I didn’t have any other option. Luckily as it was late at night the hire company didn’t do the paperwork so I didn’t see the cost. This saved me from being liable, I can see both sides tbh but it is a scam from the management company. I’ll never take a car again during an insurance claim in future.
I’d go with you didn’t know the charge if you can and hope

Well, bloody hell.

My son had the exact same as the op!

Thought this was a one off and never really got my head around what was going on as my lad handled most of it.

In the end it didn't go to court, almost did though. The other party* folded. Went on for a couple of years! My son also had to prove earnings etc.

All because some idiot hit him whilst he was not even moving and accepted the "courtesy" car whilst his was repaired. How is this crap not illegal?

F****ers!

Stuff like this cost us all money on our car insurance bills, so the industry is clamping down on it.

But it's the insurance companies that enable it! It's them engaging with these claims management companies when you make a claim (I wouldn't be surprised if many of them owned them or at least had part ownership of them).

Would be handy if someone produced a list of insurance companies that didn't engage in these shady practices, I suspect it would be quite short but they'd get my business if the premium wasn't ridiculous.

My money is on this being Hastings….🤔

Someone hit the wifes car (twice) outside the house recently, we were contacted by the hire company about a car while hers was being repaired, they wanted to speak to the wife, I said she was working and I'd handle it. The lass got quite aggressive and wouldn't engage me, I told her not to bother them ,as it was only gonna be away for a week, and the wife was now working at a location close to our house, so wouldn't need a car that week.

They then contacted me a couple of times to try and sort it out, but I declined. Was Direct line btw.

As an insurance underwriter and broker but one who works completely by the book (and not in personal lines either) this kind of stuff boils my piss. At the end of the day you will not be liable for the charges. Assuming you have followed the instructions of your insurance co or you believe you have followed the instructions of your insurance co they can go bollocks.

It may take some fighting but there is no way on earth the FOS would hold you liable for the charges. But, and it's a reasonable but, if your insurer pays the bill it ends up being a claim against your polocy regardless of whether the accident was your fault and that will have implications for your premium. The increase in premium over time may be more than the cost of the hire bill.

I suspect the other party will fold eventually however they will play hardball as at this stage it is in their interests to do so. I have helped other people on here and friends and family sort out insurance messes and am happy to see if I can help at all on this one if needed.

But, ulimately at this stage you should just bat everything back to your ins co and get them to deal with the mess. You may need to provide certain evidence to help them but it is they that should be responding to the other party on your behalf.

My money is on this being Hastings

Nope! You lose. That's £1500 please 😜

@dannybgoode we're getting correspondence from the legal firm that represent the CMC. They're the ones saying we need to forward all our financial records. The actual insurance company have no involvement at all really. Although I'm hanging on for the call back from the complaints process.

The request for the financial records comes with a guide stating if we don't include EVERYTHING, including credit cards and even accounts with a zero balance, then it's a default on our part and the other side automatically wins. How much should I believe that do you think? Can they/would they actually track down every account I have!?

I've not got secret millions squirreled away or anything, it just seems a bit much really.

Poopscoop
...How is this crap not illegal?

Insurance companies are run by the same people who have bought our politicians...

It is a difficult one. I would still be on the phone to the insurer syaing along the lines of 'you told me to use this firm, you sort it'. but that does not help with the immediate issue. As I say though there is no way the FOS would find you liable for the hire charges - at the worst your insurer would have to stump up.

Also, regardless of who paid for the hire car initially, it is what is called an uninsured loss, but one that you can still claim from the other party if they were at fault. So, even if it is decided you could afford to pay the hire car costs yourself you would still be claiming from the other side so it is all just a bit pointless and it is just the other ins co playing hardball.

And no, they wouldn't track down every account but your CMC needs to be in the strongest position possible.

So, even if it is decided you could afford to pay the hire car costs yourself you would still be claiming from the other side

this isn't true. If i crash a baggy old micra (non fault) and rent a rolls royce for 3 months at a cost of £20k I can't claim it, despite it being an uninsured loss. That's a big exageration, but you have to demonstrate prudance in minimising your losses (which is hard to do if you could have paid for a car rental at normal rates, but paid 3x that much), and unfortunately there's nothing the FOS can do about it. The OP has entered into a contract with the credit hire company that has legally nothing to do with their insurance company, and under the terms of that hire I expect they are required to do anything that is asked by the hire companies lawyers to try to recover the funds from the 3rd party.

The T&C of the hire company normally states they will only come after the OP if they do not cooperate, but really it always seems to come to some 'settlement' 3 days before the court date (presumably for some number that is somewhere inbetween what they OP could have hired a car for, and what the car hire company is trying to claim).

The OP has entered into a contract with the credit hire company that has legally nothing to do with their insurance company, and under the terms of that hire I expect they are required to do anything that is asked by the hire companies lawyers to try to recover the funds from the 3rd party.

The T&C of the hire company normally states they will only come after the OP if they do not cooperate, but really it always seems to come to some ‘settlement’ 3 days before the court date (presumably for some number that is somewhere inbetween what they OP could have hired a car for, and what the car hire company is trying to claim).

There is no way on earth FOS would side with the ins co / CMC here. As a consumer purchaser of insurance you would be classed as 'unsophisticated' ie - not expected to know the minutae of such things and if your ins co told you to use a CMC and you followed that instruction and took the CMCs offer of a car - particuarly when you have a courtesy car extension on your policy, there is no way they would expect you to stand to it.

I have met with senior people from the FOS and discussed in detail their adjutication process and understand it very well.

Yes, you are correct about if you hired a Rolls Royce etc but that is not relevant in this case - the OP was acting on the instructions of their ins co and had no reason at all to suspect anything would go wrong. As this is an ins co appointent CMC then if they were worried about mitigating losses then they should flag this with the policyholder and they did not.

The insurance company have fired my complaint back at me saying my complaint is actually with the CMC not them, so they consider the matter closed.

I've reopened the complaint making clear it is with them, they didn't offer me an alternative course of action, I was given no choice but to go with the CMC and now I'm stuck on this path. It's that initial move by them that I'm complaining about, and now the fact they've tried to brush me off as well!

I know doing it on the phone would offer more immediate results, but I'm stuck in a shift pattern of long days at work at the moment and can't squeeze in what will no doubt be a bloody long long tiresome call. First day off is Friday so I know what I'll be doing then! 👎

I’ve reopened the complaint making clear it is with them, they didn’t offer me an alternative course of action, I was given no choice but to go with the CMC and now I’m stuck on this path. It’s that initial move by them that I’m complaining about, and now the fact they’ve tried to brush me off as well!

I find that very hard to believe as they'd be working to an approved script. What is usually used to funnel people towards CMC's in non-fault accidents is the requirement for you to pay your own excess to claim on your own policy, which will subsequently be reimbursed once the claim is paid by the other insurer. CMC's are presented as the "easy" option with no cost to you.

The request for the financial records comes with a guide stating if we don’t include EVERYTHING, including credit cards and even accounts with a zero balance, then it’s a default on our part and the other side automatically wins. How much should I believe that do you think? Can they/would they actually track down every account I have!?

Why do they need this information?

I'd be very loathe to provide it as it has no relevance to me as my relationship is with the insurers. Not to mention the risks of future phishing attempts, identity fraud etc

And no, they wouldn’t track down every account but your CMC needs to be in the strongest position possible.

Why would the claimants financial status change the CMC position? It's irrelevant to the facts regarding the loss and expenses incurred

Probably not much use to the OP now but for general information Admiral have form with this type of thing.
story from a couple of years back

I've been wary of these claims management companies with hire cars ever since a work colleague was caught up with the same problem a number of years ago.

What actually happened was his claims management company hired him a similar car (Mercedes C class) and because his car had a sat nav insisted also on hiring him a Tom Tom on a daily rate.

They were charging a stupid amount of money for this, I can't remember exactly but it was North of £250 a day. Not suprisingly the party at faults insurers balked at this and refused to pay it. (he also had signed papers saying he was liable for it if the other sides insurers didn't pay)

Eventually after a long time and several postponements he had to go to court over it. The judge sided with him and told the other sides insurers to pay up.

There was no talk over his financial circumstances, it is completely irrelevant to expenses occurred as a result of the accident, as someone mentioned above.

They're arguing I could have afforded to pay the hire charges up front so I have to prove otherwise. If I don't provide the docs, it's a default and auto win for the other side.