Yet another accident

[markjay]

Iwas well looked after last time and the whole process was sooo smooth it caused me no issues.

What exactly have Auxillis done for you that is any different to you talking directly to the other-party's insurer? You would have had the exact same conversation that you had with Auxillis with the other-party's insurer. The process would have been 100% identical.

I get the issue regarding you trying to 'force' the repair while avoiding a write-off discussion, but in all honesty I can't believe that the Mercedes Benz dealer commenced with the repair before getting authorised from either Auxillis or from the insurer, and if the authorisation came from Auxillis than I have no doubt that they got authorisation from the third-party insurer. It's inconceivable that the MB dealer started repairing your car without the insurer's authorisation. I therefore doubt very much that anything was achieved by not going directly to the other-party's insurer. You can't circumnavigate a write-off by using an accident management firm - that's no how motor insurance works.

My own experience was that I took my car to the dealer, then notified the insurer who the dealer was. From that point on, I was out of the loop until the car was repaired. The insurer and the dealer simply communicated directly with each other, they are well versed in this. In fact, if I didn't insist that the dealer provide me with a photocopy of the invoice they sent to the insurer, I would have no idea what parts have been replaced or how much it cost.

Yes, accident management firms do make you believe that things will somehow be easier if you work with them as opposed to working directly with the other-party's insurer, but in reality their entire business model is based on providing you with a hire car at an inflated daily rate, paid by the insurer.

 

[Pontoneer]

The hire car is where theur income comes from.... I wonder how they get paid otherwise? A commission from the garage is they arrange the repair?

I know , but if you are unsure of not being stuck with the bill if the other party’s insurer refuses to pay for the hire car , then it is wise to do without .

 

[Diana1990]

I had a indepth conversation with Auxillis. I asked them twice between Sat and yesterday, who exactly authorised the repair. It was them, not 3rd party. Them. So I questioned what will happen should 3rd party deny to pay the invoice once they get the bill because I know 95% they will given the repair is estimated at around 15k of which I found out today. And plus the stupid rates for my current hire car. I was told there are many insurances including Admiral (who the 3rd party are) that agree in advance to pay any bills Auxillis send through as they have a prearranged agreement in place. Which is why many insurers tried to guide their customers to them when in clear cut no fault claim. I also found out today Auxillis will authorise repairs up to 89.999%, sometimes more of the value of car. Most insurance will only pay 60% of the value which would have most definitely written of my car. Had I gone with them and I insisted MB repair my car, it would have cost the exact same and they probably would have written off right away. Had I gone with authorised repairer.... They most likely would have spent less money to repair using after marker parts which are probably just as good but not the real parts MB offer. Auxillis are more inclined to pay more because they know they will recoup their own money from hire car. Most dealers and insurances use them.

So my first instance was avoiding getting this car written off and not just for reason above. I lost my mum in 2023. She left me and my brother a huge inheritance that was meant to be for her new future but she never got chance. So that money was used to buy my house outright, and to treat myself to the car I've always wanted. So the car above all has huge sentimental value and I'll be dammed to see it go to scrap or broken down for parts.

 

[Diana1990]

Also from what I understand.... And I spoke directly to Admiral on Sunday, said Auxillis are dealing with it. They said okay, we've accepted liability, our client was at fault. We will wait til Auxillis sends us the bill for repair, cause essentially Auxillis pay out first and then get the money back. MB aren't paying a dime, they submitted the estimate to Auxillis, it was authorised within 3hrs for the repairs to go ahead. So as mentioned, I don't think 3rd party have any idea the cost

 

[markjay]

This sums it up nicely:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CarTalkUK/comments/1b9hadv/an_absolute_stress_of_a_situation_with_auxillis/

"...Fast forward a few months and I start to recieve letters from Auxillis informing me that the third party’s insurance are refusing to pay for the credit-hire vehicle costs. Again, I am made aware by Auxillis that to fulfil my end of the deal in order to incur no costs to myself, I must fully co-operate with Auxillis at every stage of the process. I filled out all paper work that was sent to me. Now this is where I started to get concerned.

I was sent a letter asking me in fine detail about my financial situation at the time of the accident and if I could have afforded to hire a car elsewhere without using Auxillis. If I answered no, then essentially they would inspect all of my finances (bank accounts, savings, credit cards) with a fine comb. I wasn’t happy about this. So I just filled out the form saying that I could have afforded a hire car at the time. Auxillis were clear in saying that this would not result in me having to pay any costs and that it was just a way of helping litigation.

A week or so later I was informed that I had been appointed solicitors from Breen Solicitors in recovering the costs of the claim from the third party. I was told that it’s possible but unlikely that this claim could end up in a County Court. I was sent some documents to sign that included “a statement of truth”. What I am unhappy about in this statement of truth is that it is worded to sound like I have gone out and hired a very expensive car for just over 2 weeks, and because of the high costs of this premium vehicle, the third party insurance are refusing to pay. I had planned to call the solicitors today to see if the statement of truth could be adjusted so that it doesn’t sound like I’ve gone out and hired an expensive vehicle off my own back. I think because it’s classed as a “credit-hire” vehicle and not a courtesy car this is where it sounds a bit dodgy.

I then decided to do some research on Auxillis and it seems a lot of people have been in this situation. It seems that Auxillis charge extortionate rates for a “credit -hire” vehicle, which in turn the third party insurance refuse (and rightly so) because it has been made clear that I could have a afforded a hire car elsewhere at a much cheaper rate. What’s really frustrating me here is that I’m being made to feel guilty for using Auxillis because I didn’t want to spunk any of my house deposit savings on a hire vehicle out of my own money because I wasn’t at fault. It’s also frustrating that I may have to go to court for all of this."

 

[markjay]

....Which is why many insurers tried to guide their customers to them when in clear cut no fault claim...

This is correct. If you are involved in a no-fault accident, then your own insurer will give you the option to either use them as your accident management firm, or opt for a dedicated accident management firm.

This is because you are not claiming on your own policy. In any event, your own insurer won't care that the accident management firm that you are using are going to 'slaughter' the other-party's insurer with their hire car costs.

But if you are talking to an insurer that you are actually making a claim against (be it your own insurer or the other-party's insurer), I doubt that this insurer will suggest that you use an accident management firm.

On fact, my experience is that the third party insurer was all over me trying to close a deal regarding repairs and a hire car quickly, before I had the chance to appoint an accident management firm....

 

[markjay]

...Could I afford my own hire car? Yes, should I pay for it as it was 3rd party fault... Then no. Why should I pay anything.

The question of affordability only arrises when the accident management firm takes the insurer to court for not repaying them the hire car costs.

As you mentioned, under the terms of yiur agreement with Auxillis, you are obliged to assist them to recover their costs from the insurer.

The insurer will claim that there were cheaper alternatives for hiring the same vehicle, and therefore they shouldn't be repaying the high daily rate that Auxillis charge.

The point is that Auxillis are offering you 'credit hire' - meaning that you don't need to pay anything upfront, and they will wait until the insurer pays them.

At this point the insurer will claim that it would only accept the bill for the expensive car hire if you can demonstrate that you had no option but to opt for Auxillis 'credit hire' because your financial situation was such that you were unable to afford to pay out of your own pocket for a cheaper car hire solution then wait to be reimbursed by the insurer.

But if you refuse to assist Auxillis by providing details of your financial circumstances to demonstrate that you had no choice but to use Auxillis 'credit hire', then the insurer will argue that this is 'claim inflation' because you had no reason or justification to opt for the more expensive car hire offer from Auxillis, and instead you could and should have paid yourself for a cheaper solution then wait to be reimbursed by them.

The whole thing is a charade, because in any event, in the end you won't be made to pay for the car hire, however you will need to endure lengthy legal shenanigans while being obliged to assist Auxillis with their court case (if it gets to that).

Of course, things don't always go wrong with accident management companies, and it might be plain sailing for you yet again.

But there's a risk there, that needs to be acknowledged rather than ignored.