IanA2
MB Enthusiast
What to do when you are in a non fault incident.
Taken from Honest John.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...mId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=P8&targetRule
It rather nicely illustrates what I have said several times before and which some have doubted.
Bang to rights
A delivery vehicle reversed into my wife's car while she was stationary. She saw it coming, hung on to the horn, checked the rear mirror and went into reverse - but too late. A nearby pedestrian dashed over, checked she was all right, had a word with the delivery driver and provided all his witness details. No arguments, only apologies. The delivery driver acknowledged his error and I wrote to my wife's insurer, as is required by the policy, but made it plain she was not making an insurance claim. She was pursuing the driver and/or his employers since he was on company business. I then wrote to the company and the driver making it clear that my wife was claiming for her vehicle to be put back into the condition it was in before impact (11 years old but perfect). I notified them of the repairer we would use: a father-and-son local family business with a long history and well known for excellence. I was then asked by my wife's insurer to take the car to their "approved repairer" for assessment for the records. I did and the price quoted was £2,500. Her insurer then told me the cost exceeded the value of the car and they would pay only its value. I responded, telling them we were not claiming through them, but were pursuing the guilty party, through the Small Claims Court if necessary. I then received a telephone call from my wife's insurer telling me "this is not the way it works". I made it clear that it was the way it works for me, put the phone down and later changed insurer. But this was not the end. My chosen repairer quoted £1,300 for a first-class job (new bonnet and headlights etc) and I passed this on to the delivery company. A director of the company told me he would have no more contact with me - the matter was in the hands of his insurer. I wrote once more: "Repairs commence in seven days. Pay up or I will, and then see you in court." The company's insurer then wrote to my repairer agreeing to pay in full less the £100 excess that my wife had on her policy. I told my repairer to get on with the job and, if there was a £100 shortfall, I'd pay it and see the other party in court. I rang the company's insurer, made my position quite clear and was told that they'd written to the repairer after consultation with my wife's insurer. I made my position absolutely clear to them yet again, no room for doubt, and my repairer was paid in full.
P.V., Camberley
Many thanks for that illuminating story. We are both right to assume that insurers have taught their employees to believe a convenient and expedient way is correct in law when, of course, it isn't.
Taken from Honest John.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...mId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=P8&targetRule
It rather nicely illustrates what I have said several times before and which some have doubted.
Bang to rights
A delivery vehicle reversed into my wife's car while she was stationary. She saw it coming, hung on to the horn, checked the rear mirror and went into reverse - but too late. A nearby pedestrian dashed over, checked she was all right, had a word with the delivery driver and provided all his witness details. No arguments, only apologies. The delivery driver acknowledged his error and I wrote to my wife's insurer, as is required by the policy, but made it plain she was not making an insurance claim. She was pursuing the driver and/or his employers since he was on company business. I then wrote to the company and the driver making it clear that my wife was claiming for her vehicle to be put back into the condition it was in before impact (11 years old but perfect). I notified them of the repairer we would use: a father-and-son local family business with a long history and well known for excellence. I was then asked by my wife's insurer to take the car to their "approved repairer" for assessment for the records. I did and the price quoted was £2,500. Her insurer then told me the cost exceeded the value of the car and they would pay only its value. I responded, telling them we were not claiming through them, but were pursuing the guilty party, through the Small Claims Court if necessary. I then received a telephone call from my wife's insurer telling me "this is not the way it works". I made it clear that it was the way it works for me, put the phone down and later changed insurer. But this was not the end. My chosen repairer quoted £1,300 for a first-class job (new bonnet and headlights etc) and I passed this on to the delivery company. A director of the company told me he would have no more contact with me - the matter was in the hands of his insurer. I wrote once more: "Repairs commence in seven days. Pay up or I will, and then see you in court." The company's insurer then wrote to my repairer agreeing to pay in full less the £100 excess that my wife had on her policy. I told my repairer to get on with the job and, if there was a £100 shortfall, I'd pay it and see the other party in court. I rang the company's insurer, made my position quite clear and was told that they'd written to the repairer after consultation with my wife's insurer. I made my position absolutely clear to them yet again, no room for doubt, and my repairer was paid in full.
P.V., Camberley
Many thanks for that illuminating story. We are both right to assume that insurers have taught their employees to believe a convenient and expedient way is correct in law when, of course, it isn't.
.
