Got bumped whilst parked last year, other persons fault, relatively minor damage,but it’s a lease car so I went through insurance to get it repaired properly. Fully comp with Admiral.

Whilst the car was being repaired we were provided with a hire car (for ten days.)

The other party have accepted liability, but are disputing the hire car costs. The claim is being dealt with on behalf of admiral by Auxilis, and now it’s gone to court, it’s being dealt with by a solicitor. We are being sent various documents and statements to sign relating to why we needed the hire car, could we have paid ourselves etc.

I’m not entirely happy that we are now involved in this process at all, isn’t this why we pay Admiral? We claimed on the insurance for the car to be repaired and as part of our policy, we got a hire car. Seems reasonable to me.

Anyone been through anything like this? Dealt with the solicitors and court proceedings?

I feel like I should just phone Admiral and tell them to deal with it, that’s what we pay them for.

You might not like the answer but you may have a problem. Check your small print, for the claim management company. I nearly got caught a while back with this and only because the claim company that contacted me on behalf of my insurer was such a dick was I inspired to see if I had to use them (I didn’t) and then when I looked into it I was glad I didn’t.

The issue is that the claim management people can seek to boost their profits by overcharging for the hire car (NB hire car is not the same as a courtesy car) – either by just overcharging (they rent for £30 a day yet bill ‘you’ way more because the insurance co is going to pick it up in the end) .  Or by putting you in a car you don’t need – you’re supposed to minimise your losses so while you may have lost use of your exec saloon while it’s repaired, if you could use a Smart Car for the work commute for that period you aren’t ‘entitled’ to a Mercedes on loan, no matter what you feel morally about it.

And then in the small print there’s something about the claim management co will seek to claim their costs from the other party’s insurer but in the event they can’t, you agree to pay them.

Check what you signed and agreed to.

Sorry.

https://www.confused.com/car-insurance/guides/the-hidden-cost-of-hire-car-claims

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4693261/very-worried-about-insurance-claim-hire-car-charges-please-help

You have a legal duty to minimise your costs, which theoretically could conflicts with automatically getting a courtesy car while yours is repaired.

I’m surprised it’s being challenged. Your justification is that you needed the car to get to work, do the shopping, take granny to hospital appointments, as you would use your own car.

Obviously, if you drive an i10 and hired an X5, there’s an argument that you haven’t minimised your losses. I suppose the same might apply if the normal cost for 10 days hire is £500 and the cost has come in at £1000.

You aren’t allowed to profit or benefit from an incident, but they’d have to show some evidence why they think your claim is excessive.

Beaten to it, yes, I’d read it as a courtesy car rather than a hire car.

The hire car was an Octavia, our car is an Octavia. The only difference was the colour!

But the hire car costs came in at about £1500 for the ten days, £90 odd a day plus admin fees, engineers report (I guess the day we sent it back and it was checked over) pick up and drop off cost etc.

I just don’t really like the fact that we involved in all this. I just did what I thought was right and now we’re being involved in court proceedings!

Horrible thing to get caught up in. But I’m pretty sure you’re entitled to a similar standard of vehicle for a reasonable amount of time. As always, the judge decides how to apply this, not the insurance companies. I got a nice convertible sports car after my TVR was bashed with no questions asked. Had it for 3 weeks.

Interesting article about a genuine case at truthlegal.com

Ah, but did you need an Octavia? Or could you have got something cheaper?

I’ve just put the details into Sixt and can get a 10 day hire of an Octavia for about £50 a day.

etc.

The other ins co doesn’t want to pay these inflated costs, and you’ll have signed somewhere that you’ll do whatever is needed to assist the Claims Co to recover / pick up the bill if they can’t.

It’s a scam pure and simple, but like it or not you are being scammed and may be on the hook for it.

Sorry, I know it’s not right but you did ask.

But I’m pretty sure you’re entitled to a similar standard of vehicle for a reasonable amount of time

You might be if you can demonstrate a need for it but it’s not ‘by default’. Whatever you might morally think.

We are being sent various documents and statements to sign relating to why we needed the hire car, could we have paid ourselves etc.

Obviously we have not seen the paperwork, however if its as normal for an accident management company then;

They need your signed statements to prove to the court that you needed the car.

As part of the agreement you signed you will have agreed to cooperate fully, if you do not they will reclaim the hire costs from you.

Auxillis is an accident management company, the hire car costs will be vastly inflated for their profit. Pretty common if you look on pistonheads, car hired out at £360/day, £13k bill after 36 days.

Who is asking you to sign the documents? Admiral or the other party?

Don’t forget any insurance claim can go to court, insurers can’t necessarily prevent that nor can they always prevent it from escalating a bit first before agreeing to settle.

Admiral is trying to recover all their costs, the other party minimise theirs. That’s their job at the end of the day and sometimes to do that job they need to be able to prove their position and they are just trying to build a case by asking you, the party that benefitted from the hire car, that you actually needed it.

Insurers are not there just to pay out any bill that lands on their desk without question. They are their to minimise their client’s exposure and minimise their own expenditure.

Oof some good info there from @theotherjonv, I was aware a lot of profiteering happened with hire cars during insurance claims but I thought that was just inflating all our policy costs, not that you can get left footing the bill.

I’ve just put the details into Sixt and can get a 10 day hire of an Octavia for about £50 a day.

OK, but try hire one by the day, using a credit agreement. Then it won’t be £50 per day. That’s all in the case linked by ofked.

TBH £1500 doesn’t sound massively excessive to me but I’m not sure if there’s a general £100 rule of thumb somewhere that the insurer might be using. I’ll have a think about it.

I am, however, aware of a couple of stunners in my time. One was a TVR hit by a combine harvester. It was off the road for 3 months and a Porsche Boxster was hired… total cost £38k. That wouldn’t hold up these days but it did back then (10 years ish).

Also had a young insurance broker turn up in a hire car to a training course I was running. One month into his new job. Non fault accident in a Corsa or something. His hire car? Merc S600. And yes he’d signed an agreement. Never met him again – always wonder what happened.

Who is asking you to sign the documents? Admiral or the other party?

The solicitors acting on behalf of auxilis.

It’s not so much the concern that we may have to pay, although that would be a kick in the pants. It’s just this process that were now stuck in. I figured having insurance with a “reputable” company would mean they do the leg work?

I’ve been in similar bumps before and gone down the avoiding insurance route, just get get a quote and I’ll sort it out for thing. But that can end up in a right pain in the arse and I just wanted to make this whole thing as easy as possible!

OK, but try hire one by the day, using a credit agreement. Then it won’t be £50 per day. That’s all in the case linked by ofked.

It’s a really murky area….. but as a for example, if you had savings you could have used to hire a car at £50 a day instead of using a credit hire then why didn’t you, to mitigate the losses?  And then claim that back directly as part of your losses. There are cases if you search where this exactly has been asked, to supply bank details to show you had to use the inflated credit hire costs.

I’m not saying it’s right. In fact; I’m saying it’s not, it’s a scam, taking advantage of people who are already on the back foot and in some cases completely discombobulated by having just been in an accident.

I figured having insurance with a “reputable” company would mean they do the leg work?

Not for the first time on here this week there seems to be a misunderstanding about the legal processes for claims for negligence and the legal contract people have with their insurers to try and resolve them.

I figured having insurance with a “reputable” company would mean they do the leg work?

They are doing the legwork, its not like they are asking you to turn up in court without any representation and sort it all out yourself.

They are asking you to confirm that the hire car they arranged for you, was needed. Because that’s what the court needs to know if the other persons Insurance company is disputing the claim for the cost of a hire car.

The other drivers Insurer has decided to dispute the claim, and your Insurer is defending the claim in court on your behalf. But as a “witness” you will need to be involved in a minor way, like signing some papers and confirming some details.

When you spell it out like that it sounds ok. It just feels a bit dodgy somehow, like I’m basically arranging myself to be screwed over when I thought I was doing the right thing!

It’s a really murky area….. but as a for example, if you had savings you could have used to hire a car at £50 a day instead of using a credit hire then why didn’t you, to mitigate the losses?

I think you’re missing my point. Your figure was £50 per day based on a known period of time etc etc.

If I search for car hire in my area, nearest is Enterprise. A one day hire of an octavia, including excess waiver and roadside cover, paid when I collect the car, is £123.08 for 24 hours. It’s not reasonable for me to know how long I’m going to have to hire it for in advance so it’d have to be day by day. The price is similar for anything from a Corsa to a Focus or Cashcow. What I was saying was that £150 is not utterly unreasonable in scope. That’s all.

When you spell it out like that it sounds ok. It just feels a bit dodgy somehow, like I’m basically arranging myself to be screwed over when I thought I was doing the right thing!

Do you have courtesy car cover on your policy? If yes then assuming the costs cannot be recovered from the other party then your policy should pick up the bill. However, your insurer is trying to recoup their loss if they can and the other party minimise theirs. That is how insurance works.

If you do not have CC cover then hire cars are what are called uninsured losses and this is where the legal defence bit of a policy comes in and they will help fight to reclaim the uninsured losses from the other party. If they cannot be recovered then yes, you would ultimately be liable for them.

The big problem, and I quite understand why, but people do not read their policy terms and conditions from front to back which really they should. No insurance just pays out any bill that hits the desk. There are exclusions and caveats but without reading what you are about to buy you may not notice these. My mum was the same – she always asked why she should bother reading the policy booklet and then in the same breath moaned about insurers trying to wriggle out of stuff…

It’s a really murky area….. but as a for example, if you had savings you could have used to hire a car at £50 a day instead of using a credit hire then why didn’t you, to mitigate the losses?

I think you’re missing my point. Your figure was £50 per day based on a known period of time etc etc.

If I search for car hire in my area, nearest is Enterprise. A one day hire of an octavia, including excess waiver and roadside cover, paid when I collect the car, is £123.08 for 24 hours. It’s not reasonable for me to know how long I’m going to have to hire it for in advance so it’d have to be day by day. The price is similar for anything from a Corsa to a Focus or Cashcow. What I was saying was that £150 is not utterly unreasonable in scope. That’s all.

Isn’t this all by the by though anyway? I get you’re obliged to keep the costs down, but when you take out an insurance policy, one of the main selling points is you’re provided with a replacement car should yours be off the road. Mine was off the road, Admiral said the claims management company would phone and offer me a replacement car. They did. It was the same as mine, albeit red not blue, they didn’t tell me how much it would cost. I accepted without thinking twice about it because that’s what my insurance company recommended. This doesn’t seem an unreasonable course of action.

Does anyone actually check the cost of a replacement hire car and say they’ll look for alternative quotes?

But anyway, that’s not exactly what I’m bothered about, more that I’m a bit pissed I’m now dragged into some murky legal proceedings that I wasn’t expecting!!

Just wanted to know if it sounds ok to proceed with it or should I be saying to Admiral, you handle this, this is what you’re here for!!

We had exactly the same – our insurance had a ‘deal’ with Enterprise. Enterprise took the OH through paperwork with the “Oh your car is a 4×4 then you’ll want similar I guess?”. Paperwork not read, just sign here and here etc…told her she was entitled to this.

Charged a Korean 4×4 out at vastly inflated cost having just got the OH to sign that she has to go to court and defend the cost should the other party’s insurers demand it.

They did dispute of course – Calls and letters started arriving from our insurers, stress mounting up..OH told insurers to do one as no way was she going to court. Our insurers settled for the ‘regular’ price of the daily hire for that type of car the next day!

Never been near Enterprise since. Its a scam, same as many other parts of the car insurance industry.

Same stuff as otherjonv up there was mentioning.

Conversley, with Direct Line myself and they offered a 320d to replace my ageing Mondeo having been rear ended by a drunk driver. I specifically raised the question with them about the scam above and they said no problem, no one’s going to court! They have their own ‘internal’ legal services and repair operations. All arranged via Sixt and I never had a single problem with it.

Some policies specifically mention a small class of replacement car, some like for like.

Interesting topic. When my car was written off 3 years ago, the main dealer I got the car from (and whom I was trying to get the original invoice for, for a gap insurance claim 🙂 ) put me in touch with a hire car supplier that delivered a like for like vehicle – well not quite, but similar spec. When I signed for it, they also got me to sign for an insurance policy which would cover the cost if it transpired I had some liability (I didn’t) and I’d have to stump up the cash for the hire. It seemed slightly weird, but also quite clever at the same time. I guess those sorts of services are no more – the USP was that they would match the car that you normally drive.

You need to read what it says on your policy. Some fully comp insurance policies may have like-for-like hire cars, some may not. Anything else is guesswork.

@richardK

Does anyone actually check the cost of a replacement hire car and say they’ll look for alternative quotes?

No, otherwise scams like these wouldn’t happen. I’m 100% on your side and sympathetic to your predicament. I’d have ‘fallen for it’ too potentially if the person on the phone from the claims management company hadn’t been an arse and made me determined not to use them, which led to me googling about whether I had to and uncovering what I’m now regurgitating here.

one of the main selling points is you’re provided with a replacement car should yours be off the road

Yep. But the devil’s in the detail.

@rich_s; yes, point taken. Still you can see why the TP insurers might say they won’t pay £150/d for a car that’s worth £50/d even if that is just an opening gambit.

I’ve read that money expert post you posted. I get the scam where it adds up to a few thousand like in that instance, but in my case the total hire charge was approx £1500. Doesn’t really seem worth contesting that. Surely the opposing insurers/solicitors are amassing more costs here for a negligible, if any, gain.

depends if they have people employed to do this sort of work (IDK if it needs to be a solicitor at solicitor’s rates for example) and if they have capacity, why wouldn’t you contest an ‘overpriced’ claim to try to save a few hundred quid.

When I say scam, it’s not necessarily a big ticket one, but the whole system of overcharging the costs by a bit here and there, by enough to make it worthwhile but not enough that makes anyone complain too hard. Do it enough times / on every claim and there’s an industry.

Very few “solicitors” in insurance claims are proper qualified solicitors, most are just claims handlers same as the insurance companies staff. There might be some oversight or supervision, but if insurance companies could pay the likes of me to handle claims up to the actual point of issuing/receiving a summons with no legal qualifications, so can the ambulance chasers.

My experience as a claimant using an ambulance chaser in the last couple of years rather confirmed that. I’d got an admission of liability out of the responsible parties insurers before my “free legal cover” had acknowledged my claim.