|
Good idea, I'd still be concerned with where the energy was dissipated to in my car, the momentum has to go somewhere, and I wouldn't like to think that it was in my chassis!
|
|
Take your point, entirely, but thinking more of minor pokes while parking etc. Don't think the Renault suffered any ill effects, although I'd agree that subtle twists could be put into a chassis that manifest themselves in weird ways.
|
Blue Oval
If the other guy is insured with direct line , let them deal with the repair. All their repairs are guaranteed for 3 years. Relatively no hassle , if you push you will also get a courtesey car.
|
Sorry, I can't believe I forgot to update you all!
We spoke to Direct Line who of course admitted full liability.
My dad told them that he wants the car repairing at the bodyshop which was recommended to us by a trusted friend, they said that wouldn't be a problem. I had the bodyshop on the phone yesterday saying that Direct Line had agreed verbally with the figures and now it's just a 1 - 2 day wait for the paperwork to come through. Then he can get the car in straight away, and we can have a courtesy car while the work is been carried out. :)
As the bodyshop regularly deals with Mercs up to around £100K I'm hoping to get a nice car, but I'll probably end up with a Micra/Corsa/Clio/Ka etc. :(
I have to say that I'm very pleased with the way that Direct Line are dealing with this, and it will make a strong case for me insuring the car with them next year at renewal time :)
Also, I spoke to Churchill as they were one of the cheapest quotes for me and they say that the accident won't affect my premiums at all! :)
So far things are going well. Touch wood!
|
Things not going quite so smoothly now :(
The bodyshop were meant to have the authorisation paperwork today. They didn't so I rang Direct Line.
The guy there said that there is just a "question of liability" to be sorted out. I asked him what he meant by this, as Direct Line have already admitted full liability for the accident. He said that there was just an "issue with the insured party's cover" that had arisen! :O
At first he said that he didn't know what this was about, but when I asked him to find out he said that he wasn't liable to disclose the information and that it wouldn't be possible to put a time frame on it.
What can any of this mean? Obviously the guy must have third party cover otherwise they would have noticed that straight away. So why are they on about this "question of liability" The accident was clearly the guy's fault.
Mark - Do you think they are trying to backpeddle and shift some of the blame onto myself? Unfortunately three were no witnesses to the accident. I'm wondering if he's gonna go down the "You rolled into me" route, which I know I didn't as the handbrake was on tightly at the time of the accident. Besides, he admitted liability already. I'm a bit worried now...
|
No need to worry. I've been rear-ended nine times in total (Driving Instructors Disease) and your antagonist has no chance. No insurance company, police officer or court will believe that old tale of "He reversed into me" unless there are independant witnesses to substanciate it.
Ring Direct Line again and threaten legal action if they don't get their fingers out.
|
|
Beware Direct Line! A mate of mine had a prang and was insured with them. Took weeks to sort out despite being fully comp. Their customer service is crap (allegedly, got to think of the libel lawyers!), it took no end of phone calls.
|
That's whats worrying me, I want it fixing yesterday! I think I'll ring our claims advisor tommorow morning and threaten legal action :)
We just rang the guy who hit me who says he isn't aware of any problem as Direct Line haven't spoken to him since we reported the claim!
|
|
|
Beware Direct Line! Their customer service is crap (allegedly)
Never had a problem with DL myself. When a hit & run motorcyclist side swiped my car, denting both doors and putting a deep scratch right down the whole side of the car. DL couldn't have been more helpful. Took details over phone, then sent forms out for me to complete. They offered to collect, fix and return car for me - I declined as local bodyshop down the road do an excellent job. Once the local bodyshop sent the estimate to them, in a matter of days the repair was authorised to go ahead.
|
DL were great for my one recent accident. I was rear ended travelling North on business, by the time I was on my way back they had the car booked in for repair the following day.
Their repairers weren't so hot (left the boot leaking etc) but a call or two to DL sorted them out pronto. The repairers seemed to want to bend over backwards to please DL so I guess they must get a substantial amount of business from them...
|
|
|
|
Strange and also quite difficult to knwo what is going on.
Firstly, the question of cover -
"the guy must have third party cover"
Not if he is not him (lied about his name or something) and not if the car is the wrong one.
The "question of liability" would only arise if he had told some bare-faced lie concerning the circumstances of the incident.
Did DL actually admit liability or did they say something along the lines of "that's ok Sir, we will repair your car" ? This may become important since admitting responsibility/liability for the incident on behalf of your insured person is a *big* no-no.
In fact, I would probably ignore what the DL guy said since he was probably struggling for something credible to say wihtout giving you the right or full reason.
What clearly has happened is that they were quite comfortable dealing with this until they saw his claim form. So we're talking non-disclosure of some form - history, illness, name, car, who knows.
If it was me, I would first speak to DL again. I would ask them if they were going to authorise it today, because if not I was going to a solicitor because you have to have the car repaired immed. If you don't get a yes, then ring the other guy and ask him whether he will pay cash or check since DL feel that he is not insured and therefore he will need to deal with it himself. Tell him that you assume that he will deal with it straight away snce your solicitor is pushing you to make it all official.
I know the second is not strictly (or even vaguely) true, but the combination of the two phone calls (and the subsequent ones he is likely to make to DL) will probably shift it along for you. Make sure you give him the name of the person you have spoken with at DL, just to make sure the message gets to the right place.
I have some sympathy since yesterday Adriana's car was crunched by a Turkish artic driven by a man who spoke no english. Given that the damage is considerable, you just know I am going to have fun getting money back from Turkey.
Oh well.
|
BTW, I wouldn't worry unduly, ths is just going to take a bit of time and effort. Perhaps a bit more than you want, but its not likely to be a permanent issue.
Just as a thought for the future - did the guy look like the sort of person who could afford the money to repair your car if you sued him for it ?
|
Not really :( I'd probably get £2 per week.
Thanks for the advice Mark. I've spoken to DL today, and their latest response is that they have just requested an engineer to call out to see the car and enable them to authorise the work. They said he would call within the next 5 working days.
I forgot to ask about the liability issue, or the issue with his cover so rang back. This time i got someone else and I explicitly asked him if there was any question of liability or any issues regarding the guy's cover. He said no, just that a request had been made for the engineer to call, but no other issues.
So, there you have it, a third totally different response!
HOWEVER! Tonight, the bodyshop rang to bring the car in on Monday morning first thing, and I'm pretty sure from my stunned and vauge memory that he said that they had authorised it!
So, without waitning for their "engineer" to call they have authorised the work. I think that they may have used the engineer as an excuse to buy them some time, because I asked to speak to our claims advisor, the girl said he was on another call, but after checking a couple of minutes went to see if he had finished and have a word with him. When she came back, she came up with this engineer excuse.
So (hopefully) my last question. If they repair the car, and we don't have to pay anything, then effectively they have admitted liability and so this won't affect my premiums, do I need to obtain any kind of written confirmation that thye have accepted the liability, or will my insurance company assume that they have, based on the fact that I paid no excess/had no uninsured losses?
|
You certainly don\'t need any written confirmation of liability acceptance.
It is unlikely that you would need proof of anything, but to be safe, and if it isn\'t too much work, then a letter (perhaps from the repairer) on headed paper confirming that the repair was paid for by DL would be totally sufficient.
When is your next policy renewal ?
|
|
The car's policy runs out in May 03, however, I won't be renewing it in it's current form, as I'm currently a named driver and want my own policy. So I'll likely be going with Churchill, Tesco, or..... deep breaths... Direct Line! Depending on how they handle the rest of this claim...
|
Are you a young driver on a parent's policy ? If so, its an iffy thing to do so you need to be careful with claim forms.
For people who having driving experience, but never having had a policy in their own names have no NCD, insurers usually offer an introdcutory discount. This is a similar scale to the NCD scale, is supposed to be reflective of the quality of the risk, and has a usual maximum of about 40%.
However, some insurers can be funny about giving an intro discount to someone who has had an accident, even when it was not their fault. If this happens, and it doesn't always, then the only way to combat it is to have solid proof that the losses were recovered from someone else in full.
I would suggest the same thing I always suggest. Ring up for quotes giving different details for different quotes to understand the impact. e.g. ring up a broker and give all the correct details except the accident, then ring up another and give all the correct details including the accident.
1) See if there is a difference
2) See what level of proof from the accident they require (if any)
3) etc.
And go from there.
|
How's the insurance iffy? Do you mean if I need to claim then they may not pay out because I'm the named driver?
I know that I'm missing out on NCB which is why I want my own insurance. But it's not as though I'm the only one that drives the car, at present my dad drives it regularly as well, that's something I'm hoping to change next year! :)
We did check the policy though and it says nothing about main drivers, just that the "policyholder and any other drivers including those under the age of 25" are insured to drive.
Anyway, like you suggested, I'm gonna ask the repairers for confirmation that DL paid for the entire repair and that I was not out of pocket in any way as a result of the accident. That should hopefully be proof enough!
|
Firstly, it doesn't matter what it says. If you look further you will find comments about disclosure and material facts. The main user not being the policyholder, if the main user is a higher risk, is a mterial fact. You have failed the policy conditions for that alone.
Normally if you have a trivial accident and they realise, they will simply deduct from the payout the additional premium they would have charged had they known. In fact, they may not even notice.
If you have a major claim then they will not only notice, they will look for things to notice. Should they choose they can recover all their expenses from your father - that could be *really* expensive.
|
Well, I put the Fiesta into the bodyshop this morning, apparently there's an engineer coming out tommorow to assess the damage. However, they still haven't authorised the work as they haven't establisehed that the accidnt was their driver's fault and they're waiting to confirm this with him.
In the meantime though, they've given me a courtesy car, it's a Mercedes A-Class 170CDi Elegance! :)
|
What a load of hassle I've had today.
I was expecting to have my nice A-Class for a week, so I'd put a tenners worth of Diesel in it, but I decided that I'd better let the bodyshop know that their car smelt like a petrol station forecourt so I rang them. Whilst I was on the phone the lady told me that DL's engineer had seen the car, said that he has agreed on the figures etc. but that he couldn't authorise it because of a discrepencie (which he hadn't been told much about) with the other driver's claim form.
So they asked me to return the courtesy car today as it could take a couple of days to sort out. Not very chuffed I returned it, and she explained that the engineer had said something about the other driver claiming that he had hit a W reg Fiesta, as our's is an 02 reg DL obviously thought that we were trying to pull a fast one.
Anyway, my dad rang them earlier and asked whether he had to sue them or the other driver for the damages, and they said that they would ring back. Fortunately they've rang back and said that they've now concluded their enquiries and are happy to authorise the work. They're letting the bodyshop know and will send a letter out to us confirming this, so I have to return the car to the bodyshop (hopefully) tommorow!
Yet more hassle in what should be the most straight-forward of claims! Never mind, at least it finally (hopefully) looks like it's coming to an end.
With any luck I'll be able to take a different A-Class tommorow as well, my back seat passengers felt sick today with the smell, so I really am happy to lose out on a few quids diesel if I can just take a clean car!
Just in case I've not worded the above correctly, I'm still very happy with the bodyshop so far, they had 4 Mercs in today :) Including a Merc Signature used car, getting ready for the forecourt! If it's good enough for them then it'll do fine for my Fiesta. :)
|
|
|
|
