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.

 

[fabes]

I have had professional dealings with Auxillis

The OP has had one good experience with them and may have another.
They provide a service which most insurers accept has a place and is necessary due to their own lack of investment in claims handling (and off shoring it has to be said)

In the cases we have had, our insurers paid almost all of the repair bill (they were under 2/3 the write off value though, the threshold the insurer has on all except EVs) but paid a small percentage of the hire car rates.

Auxillis either swallowed that as the insurer said, "see us in court" given that they can evidence their own hire car rates and those that joe public can get off the hire companies being 50% or more less than presented.
No self respecting claims handler or manager (or bot even) pays more than 'the rack rate'

Whether that leaves the Auxillis client footing the remainder I don't know and in the best possible way, is their problem. They are an adult.

Yes these companies do try to profit (don't all businesses) but the insurers have the measure of them and no longer are they an inflationary factor.
That's the motor manufacturers and EV tech and part delays - plus eejuts on their phones or drugs.

OP, if you took quite a whack this time, have you had to have any physio, the costs of which would be a genuine claim into the 3rd party insurer?

 

[Diana1990]

I have had professional dealings with Auxillis

The OP has had one good experience with them and may have another.
They provide a service which most insurers accept has a place and is necessary due to their own lack of investment in claims handling (and off shoring it has to be said)

In the cases we have had, our insurers paid almost all of the repair bill (they were under 2/3 the write off value though, the threshold the insurer has on all except EVs) but paid a small percentage of the hire car rates.

Auxillis either swallowed that as the insurer said, "see us in court" given that they can evidence their own hire car rates and those that joe public can get off the hire companies being 50% or more less than presented.
No self respecting claims handler or manager (or bot even) pays more than 'the rack rate'

Whether that leaves the Auxillis client footing the remainder I don't know and in the best possible way, is their problem. They are an adult.

Yes these companies do try to profit (don't all businesses) but the insurers have the measure of them and no longer are they an inflationary factor.
That's the motor manufacturers and EV tech and part delays - plus eejuts on their phones or drugs.

OP, if you took quite a whack this time, have you had to have any physio, the costs of which would be a genuine claim into the 3rd party insurer?

I suffered whiplash and concussion. But the concussion wasn't the result of the whack on my car. Upon exiting my car I whacked my head somewhere, I can't even remember. I suffered amnesia aswell. But I survived relatively unscathed. The police got involved as once info was exchanged, he drove off even though an SOS was made from my car resulting in police attending and they requested we both stay at the scene. I would love to understand the process of why the car was decided for repair as oppose to write off. I'm happy yes but curious because if the estimate is anything to go by it's literally just under my car value, but I'm aware the value of my car has creeped up over past few months but not enough to justify the repair bill. What I suspect is there are added costs involved that isn't actually included into the repair bill that will be sent to 3rd party. It's only explanation I can think of. Aswell as Auxillis are more inclined to pay more for repairs then standard 3rd party. Should there be monies outstanding, Auxillis will swallow them. As previously mentioned they will obsorb all costs so long as I have not been fraudulent.

 

[oldguy57]

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."

A classic example of what can go wrong. A recent reported case involved costs totalling above £70k on a vehicle worth £15k. The two Insurers didn't admit what the outcome was.

 

[TC350]

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."

Someone had problems with Auxillis, so anyone who uses them must be stupid?

I’ve seen waaay more complaints about Mercedes, so anyone who buys a Mercedes clearly needs sectioning and banished to Broadmoor.

 

[markjay]

Someone had problems with Auxillis, so anyone who uses them must be stupid?

I’ve seen waaay more complaints about Mercedes, so anyone who buys a Mercedes clearly needs sectioning and banished to Broadmoor.

You raise a valid point... see my post on the EV thread regarding the Hyundai customer service compared to MB. Broadmoor may be a stretch, but having owned MB cars for a total of 16 years, I have to say that, yes, there's an element of self-harming involved in buying and running a Mercedes Benz in the UK....

(Regarding Auxillis, social media channels are full of complaints about them, I chose the one that was most similar to the OP's situation. And, I did point out earlier in the thread, several times, that obviously not everyone gets stung, and the OP might very well have a good experience)

 

[Diana1990]

The problem is, most of the people in this country will review things when they have bad stuff to say. Me included. We're more likely to complain and point out the bad stuff then we are to sing praises. So course the negative side would get highlighted, but for every bad view... There could be hundreds of good views that we don't see. Yes you're totally right to point out the pros and cons, give everyone the chance to decide what they want to do. I for one absolutely ditest the price they charge for the hire car. It's totally unjustified. But I'm using them solely due to smooth process and fact MB are doing the repair so I know it'll be repaired like it's new.

I've had my MB since Oct and it was my first car from them. Take away the accident, Mercedes have been brilliant. The after sales and everything, absolutely flawless. It just unlucky the first one I have from them, I've had two accidents sadly. But Mercedes have updated my daily on the process as had Auxillis and I can't fault their customer services. They called me twice sine accident just to ask how I am doing and to make sure the injuries are healing. Every company has bad sides, you need to weigh up what you want and I would use them again much to many dismay here

 

[markjay]

... They called me twice sine accident just to ask how I am doing and to make sure the injuries are healing...

I think you're being a bit naive here.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

I think you're being a bit naive here.

@markjay are you suggesting that their margin in handling the claim for such injuries would give them an interest that goes beyond the caring nature of an accident management company?

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Aswell as Auxillis are more inclined to pay more for repairs then standard 3rd party. Should there be monies outstanding, Auxillis will swallow them.

Combined, and if true, those two sentences would make for an unsustainable business model for Auxills. Regularly taking a risk on approving a claim which exceeds the third-party insurers tolerance for write-off and passing on very high day rates would lead to a larger number of claims being challenged and refused by those insurers.

Doing so and losing would mean that their ability to swallow losses on a regular basis would not be sustainable. I suspect that third-party insurers will usually accept higher repair cost ratios unless truly ridiculous but won’t take that an unnecessary costs on inflated hire car costs. However, they have a secondary route to recover costs from their customer.

Recovery of costs for the hire car and/or repair and legal costs could amount to significant amounts of money, and could be much for most people to deal with. I’m sure it’s not common, but the impact if it does happen would incredibly stressful for most people.

I do worry about the motive for Auxillis asking their customers whether they could otherwise afford to hire the car should the cost not be covered.

 

[markjay]

...I do worry about the motive for Auxillis asking their customers whether they could otherwise afford to hire the car should the cost not be covered.

As per my earlier post on the matter, this appears to be a 'beggars can't be choosey' argument to justify the high daily rate for the car hire in the event that the third-party's insurer refuses to pay out.

The idea is that if you can't afford to pay for a hire car out of your own pocket and then wait to be reimbursed, then you have no choice but to accept a much more expensive alternative that is available on credit.

But if you say that you could have afforded to pay for the hire car, then the insurer will argue that there was no justification for you to opt for the more expensive credit option.

Ultimately it's a charade, because the accident management company aren't actually trying to make you pay, instead that are trying to make you help them get the court to rule in their favour.

 

[DSM10000]

As per my earlier post on the matter, this appears to be a 'beggars can't be choosey' argument to justify the high daily rate for the car hire in the event that the third-party's insurer refuses to pay out.

The idea is that if you can't afford to pay for a hire car out of your own pocket and then wait to be reimbursed, then you have no choice but to accept a much more expensive alternative that is available on credit.

But if you say that you could have afforded to pay for the hire car, then the insurer will argue that there was no justification for you to opt for the more expensive credit option.

Ultimately it's a charade, because the accident management company aren't actually trying to make you pay, instead that are trying to make you help them get the court to rule in their favour.

Relying on the gullible to fall for it!

 

[oldguy57]

Combined, and if true, those two sentences would make for an unsustainable business model for Auxills. Regularly taking a risk on approving a claim which exceeds the third-party insurers tolerance for write-off and passing on very high day rates would lead to a larger number of claims being challenged and refused by those insurers.

Doing so and losing would mean that their ability to swallow losses on a regular basis would not be sustainable. I suspect that third-party insurers will usually accept higher repair cost ratios unless truly ridiculous but won’t take that an unnecessary costs on inflated hire car costs. However, they have a secondary route to recover costs from their customer.

Recovery of costs for the hire car and/or repair and legal costs could amount to significant amounts of money, and could be much for most people to deal with. I’m sure it’s not common, but the impact if it does happen would incredibly stressful for most people.

I do worry about the motive for Auxillis asking their customers whether they could otherwise afford to hire the car should the cost not be covered.

When in the industry I dealt with many third parties appointed by an Insured. All of them (and I mean all) would inflate the claim beyond recognition even when they themselves employed sub contractors. Subbies got paid whatever was paid by Insurers so there was in reality no shortfall for anyone. I suspect that in most cases accident management companies will be the same and only in dodgy cases there will be an unrecoverable cost landed at the insured's door. Not the same with these no win no fee cases which are no such thing.

 

[ernie]

I've twice had dealings with Accident Management Companies. The first involved an uninsured driver from whom they had no chance of covering costs; he went back to jail as he was out on license.

The second was when an unattended car ran back and hit mine. In this case the 3rd Party immediately offered to repair my car etc. However, I opted for the AMC to look after everything, as the previous experience worked out well for me.

In the first case, my car was clearly a write-off and was not driveable, but I had their car until I got the insurance settlement. In the second, my car was driveable, but they gave me a hire car immediately, even though it took nearly two weeks before it got into the body shop. I could easily have continued to use the car while waiting it's 'turn'. The hire costs were clearly excessive and must have been horrendous.

Both of these events were initially managed by MB of Edinburgh who involved the AMC, although I signed the paperwork.

Now, this has taken a while to get to, but the paperwork included an insurance policy that absolved me of any costs should these not be met by AN Other, and the AMC Representative went to great pains to assure me that I would not be liable for costs.

Ernie