Hastings a total loss

[Higsta]

Hi everyone,

 

I was informed on Tuesday that my much loved Renault Laguna sport tourer has been deemed a total loss. This is courtesy of some lummock who decided that he didn’t need to look left or right when he decided to pull out of a junction in front of me. Although I suppose I should be grateful that at least he admitted full liability in front of the police when they arrived.

 

Hastings policy states that in the event of a total loss they will value the vehicle on a like for like basis and also use the glasses guide.

 

They have offered me £2700 which is at the bottom end of the price bracket for my vehicle, I refused this saying I wanted £3500 which is the top end of the price bracket. I did this expecting them to come back with an offer somewhere between the two.

 

To my astonishment they told me there and then on the phone that they would not increase the offer unless I can prove the car was worth more.

I said that I could send them 5 or more printouts from the internet showing cars of same age, model and mileage at values around £3500, they said that was not acceptable. I asked how I could prove then that the car was worth more and they said the only way they will review the offer on my car was if I can prove it has a Full Renault Service History. I told them that it didn’t have that and that I did my own servicing and they said that wasn’t acceptable and the £2700 offer stands.

 

A few hours later I phoned them back, I said I was not accepting the offer of £2700 and that I wanted my car repaired and returned to me, I was told that was not an option as it would cost £4000, I said in that case they can go and buy me a replacement car on a like for like basis with the £2700, they said its not our policy to replace customers cars, I said then I want the offer increased and again I was told they would only review it if I can prove it has full Renault service history.

 

Today I contacted the legal cover I have on my insurance they are an independent law firm and not directly connected to Hastings, he said whilst there wasn’t anything he could do to make Hastings increase their offer he did think they should have accepted the internet printouts as proof of worth of my vehicle, he also stated that he could make a claim directly against the third party, he said that they would send an engineer of their own to assess the car and then make an offer but I would also get the car back as well because third party insurance payouts don’t want the vehicle after the claim is settled.

 

So at the end of the day for the pleasure of having my car written off by an idiot that didnt pay attention it looks like im going to end up around £800 out of pocket, and i also get a disgusting attitude from my insurance company that i feel should be doing everything possible to get me the best settlement but in fact are trying to settle at the lowest possible cost !!

 

Anyone else had these experiences or got any advice.

Edited July 11, 2008 by Higsta

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I take it that Hastings is your insurer.

 

The correct measure of indemnity for a written off car is the showroom price for a like for like vehicle including tax.

 

Assuming that you can demonstrate that you are competent to service your car, that you have receipts for oil and parts for the servicing you did, that you logged it etc you can ask Hastings to demonstrate why it is that not having the car serviced by a main dealer diminishes its value at this age.

 

Tell Hastings that you do not regard that they are offering you a full indemnity for your vehicle, that you believe they are paying too much attention to a trade guide where they need to be offering a retail value.

 

You can also tell them that you reserve your rights to pursue the negligent third party directly, without prejudice to your rights under your own policy and that in the event you obtain higher settlement from the third party insurers you will take that as de facto proof of the inadequate offer from your own insurers, breach of contract and will claim from them at liquidated damages rate of £15 per hour plus out of pocket expenses for pursuit of your claim againt the third party and Hastings.

[Helford]

Hi all,

 

Absolute rubbish to request a full service history from Renault Authorised Service Agents and contrary to European Legistlation under European 'Block Exemption' legislation. Basically, even to maintain a car manufacturer's warranty in full their is no need to have the car service and maintained by the car manufacturer's agents. As long as the manufacturer's protocols are utilised and manufacturers's parts are used, anyone can service the car. See here. Your tactics so far are fine, just keep at them!

 

 

Block Exemption for Cars Quick Facts - BERR

[Higsta]

Thanks for the advice here, i will get straight back at them and i think i will instruct the legal cover on my policy to persue the 3rd party for the cost of my vehicle.

 

A couple of new developments today ....

 

1 . Even thought i rejected their offer, i recieved a cheque this morning for £2700 and a letter stating they wanted all documentation of my vehicle within 7 days.

 

2 . I phoned nationwide repairs today (this is where my car was taken for assesment / repair) to ask about collecting personal stuff out of the vehicle and i was told that they had emptied my car into a box and i could collect it anytime i liked, but my car was no longer there as Hastings have had it collected for salvage.

 

Are they allowed to do this without my permission, surely the car is still my property until i agree a settlement. damn im getting so frustrated with these people.

[LemonTwist]

Who is the insurer of the policy? Hastings is just a broker, although they may have authority to deal with claims on the insurer's behalf.

[Higsta]

Hastings are the broker !! i never realised that i thought they were a insurance company in their own right.

 

Just read through all the paperwork that came when i took out the insurance and it says the insurer is ( as printed on paperwork )

 

Advantage Insurance Company Limited (regulated by the financial services commission of Gibraltar)

 

And i have just got off the phone with Hastings and they have basically said they dont care if i choose to go through my legal cover to recover the costs of my vehicle as they are confident i wont get a better offer.

 

Obviously it wasnt in that wording but that was the short of it after a 25min phone call.

[gyzmo]

The correct measure of indemnity for a written off car is the showroom price for a like for like vehicle including tax.

 

No it isnt!

 

Car showroom prices include profit, "freebies" amongst others. They are not insured on the policy and not part of the vehicle's value.

 

As others have said, the amount given to you should enable ou to buy a vehicle of similar age make etc. But what someone sells a car for and what it is actually worth are two entirely different things.

[LemonTwist]

Hastings are the broker !! i never realised that i thought they were a insurance company in their own right.

 

Just read through all the paperwork that came when i took out the insurance and it says the insurer is ( as printed on paperwork )

 

Advantage Insurance Company Limited (regulated by the financial services commission of Gibraltar)

 

And i have just got off the phone with Hastings and they have basically said they dont care if i choose to go through my legal cover to recover the costs of my vehicle as they are confident i wont get a better offer.

 

Obviously it wasnt in that wording but that was the short of it after a 25min phone call.

 

Hastings are a broker, but it seems that they only use 2 different underwriters (that's the impression I get from their website, anyway). I'd never heard of them before I looked at the Hastings website.

 

They are a Gibraltar company which always seems a bit shady to me - there's no telling who they're owned by, where the money goes, and I bet you wouldn't be allowed to go through the UK financial ombudsman service in the case of a dispute (although I'm not 100% sure about that). I personally think it's best to stick to well known companies for insurance.

 

It may be best to just go through your legal cover for now.

[Helford]

Hi

 

Hastings Direct and Advantage Insurance are both owned by Insurance Austrailia Group.

 

See here:-

 

Insurance Australia Group Limited (IAG)

 

'Advantage' trade out of Gibraltar and are fully regulated y the FSA under a European Economic Area 'Passport' as do many other European Insurance Companies. All totally legitimate.

 

H

[never shay die]

OK let's clear up a few things.

 

1) As gyzmo said, the like for like price is NOT showroom price with tax. You are entitled by the indemnity provided under the policy to be placed into the same financial position as you were in prior to the accident. This means, therefore, that the amount you should receive is how much it would cost to buy a vehicle exactly like yours on the market. This is NOT an exact science. If the vehicle was not under warranty, for example, the insurer would argue that it is within it's rights to offer private sale value.

 

2) In order to establish market value, the engineer should use glass's guide along with market research. It is highly unlikely that there will be another car on the market EXACTLY like yours, but by researching similar examples on the open market, along with the use of the guide, the engineer should then come up with a price which is reflective of how much your vehicle would have been worth on the open market.

 

3) If you disagree with the price, you are entitled to dispute your offer in any way you consider necessary. They cannot refuse adverts for similar vehicles because this is good evidence - it's what the engineer should have done anyway. They cannot demand only a full service history, and certainly not a dealer service history (as per per EU legislation previously mentioned).

 

4) Send them the adverts. If they refuse to acknowledge it, put in an official complaint. If they still don't budge, take them to the FOS. I can tell you that the FOS will take into account adverts for similar vehicles. It's the most standard form of dispute evidence across the entire industry. Any insurance company trading in England can be taken to the FOS.

 

5) They cannot take title of the vehicle until you accept settlement. However, the payment they sent you may be on an interim basis. This means that you can cash the cheque and it cannot (by law) prejudice your right to dispute the offer. Make sure you put it in writing that you are cashing the cheque withour prejudice on an interim basis only, and are continuing with your dispute. It is up to you whether you let them take ownership of the car now or after settlement is accepted; it should not affect your dispute.

 

A lot of info there, but hope it helps in some way.

Edited July 12, 2008 by never shay die

[Higsta]

Yes the cheque they sent stated it was an interim payment and without prejudice.

 

You have definatley given me somthing else to think about with that.

 

Thanks for the replies people, these forums are a blessing when at a loss and have no idea what to do next.

[Higsta]

Hi again, well i thought i was sorted, i knew exactly what my game plan was today.

 

1. I phone the legal cover on my insurance and instructed them to get the ball in motion on making a claim directly to the 3rd party's insurance.Told thats fine and the chap i spoke to would start the process and ring me shortly to confirm.

 

Phone call back from solicitor confirmed all was well and that all i needed to do now was to arrange a time and place for the engineer from the 3rd party's insurance to assess the vehicle. Also told to call hasting and cancel the claim and get my vehicle back from them.

 

2. I phone hastings told them i was persuing the claim though my legal cover and that i no longer wished to claim through them.

 

(so far so good)

 

Then i ask when will my vehicle be returned to me as i need to arrange for the new engineer to asses it. The reply i got was "im sorry sir but we can not do that as your car has either been destroyed or sold for salvage"

 

I told them they had no right to do this as i have never accepted their offer and there for the car still belongs to me. I was then told that when i made the claim on the insurance that it is then deemed that i am giving permission for Hasting to do whatever nessescary with the vehicle and as it was a total loss they got rid of it.

 

I found out later that they had arranged the for it to be sent for salvage on the 8th of July.

 

They phoned me at 4.30 on the 9th of July with the offer and as i was not at home i told them that i would need time to think it over.

 

The car was collected for salvage at 9am on the 10th July.

 

I called them on the 10th July at about 10am to reject the offer.

 

And all this after i told the woman on the phone on Saturday what i planned to do and she said that was ok... but she knew then my car wasnt available anymore !!!!

 

So as far as hastings are concerned its still tuff and unless i can prove the service history they still wont review the offer .... and as far as my car is concerned they said that i could write a letter of complaint and i might get compensation.

 

What i feel like doing is phoning the police and reporting my car stolen !

Edited July 14, 2008 by Higsta

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

The correct measure of indemnity for a written off car is the showroom price for a like for like vehicle including tax.

 

No it isnt!

 

Car showroom prices include profit, "freebies" amongst others. They are not insured on the policy and not part of the vehicle's value.

 

As others have said, the amount given to you should enable ou to buy a vehicle of similar age make etc. But what someone sells a car for and what it is actually worth are two entirely different things.

 

Dealers profit is part of the market price of the original vehicle and hence the value. This cannot be deducted from the indemnity. If there are demonstrable "freebies" they can be deducted from the deal

 

 

OK let's clear up a few things.

 

1) As gyzmo said, the like for like price is NOT showroom price with tax. You are entitled by the indemnity provided under the policy to be placed into the same financial position as you were in prior to the accident. This means, therefore, that the amount you should receive is how much it would cost to buy a vehicle exactly like yours on the market. This is NOT an exact science. If the vehicle was not under warranty, for example, the insurer would argue that it is within it's rights to offer private sale value.

 

And what I am saying is the showroom price plus tax does exactly that. OK any discount negotiated is for insurers benefit. By tax I mean VAT not RFL. If the showroom price plus tax is not the cost then I don't know what is.

 

The only circumstances where an insure may be within their rights to suggest a private deal is where the car destroyed was a recent private purchase. Out of warranty has nothing to do with it. Private sales are considerably more risky, inapplicability of consumer protection legislation and therefore redress being highly material.

 

2) In order to establish market value, the engineer should use glass's guide along with market research. It is highly unlikely that there will be another car on the market EXACTLY like yours, but by researching similar examples on the open market, along with the use of the guide, the engineer should then come up with a price which is reflective of how much your vehicle would have been worth on the open market.

 

"Should use Glass's guide" Why? It is a guide, a widely used one within the trade but no more compelling than any other. It may be a starting point but there is no compulsion to it. The fact that it is not generally available to the public is a compelling argument against it.

 

The point that I was trying to make is that the measure of indemnity is retail price not trade and it is trade that I feel the OP is being fobbed off with.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

What i feel like doing is phoning the police and reporting my car stolen !

 

I believe (but am happy to be corrected) that the offence they appear to have committed is "conversion".

 

I would phone them up, ask for a manager, explain what has happened, explain that it was clear that you had not accepted their offer of settlement and therefore title of the vehicle had not passed to them.

 

Give them 48 hour to justify in full their settlement offer - by identifying replacement vehicles for that price or ask them to pay the advertised price of the vehicles you have identified (tell them you will permit them to negotiate on the price and take the benefit of the discount). Tell them that if they fail to do so you will refer the matter to the police as you belive they may have committed a criminal offence.

 

Note that going to the police will delay the whole settlement quite a lot

[gyzmo]

Dealers profit is part of the market price of the original vehicle and hence the value. This cannot be deducted from the indemnity. If there are demonstrable "freebies" they can be deducted from the deal

.

 

You show me someone who has been legitimately paid a forecourt price for their car and I will publicly eat my hat. It is nonsense. a profit is not part of the value of the vehicle - which is the thing insured. Unlewss of course the chartered Insurance Institute have been getting it wrong for a number of years....

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

You show me someone who has been legitimately paid a forecourt price for their car and I will publicly eat my hat. It is nonsense. a profit is not part of the value of the vehicle - which is the thing insured. Unlewss of course the chartered Insurance Institute have been getting it wrong for a number of years....

 

I never said getting "paid a forecourt price" I was talking about a measure of indemnity. Insurers will be reluctant to pay cash to the policyholder without a discount. However, where the insured identifies a "suitable replacement" which has a specifc price and the insurers settle with the dealer, the settlement will include tax and dealer profit.

 

It is perfectly normal, for example, when a brand new car is insured, if it is written off in the first say six months to a year (usual max) for it to be replaced with a brand new one. Granted not all policies do this but the better ones do. Granted also that insurers get a big discount but the dealers or manufacturers are not doing this for no profit.

 

Further, say I conclude a deal for a second-hand car at £5,000. I arrange a comprehensive policy and declare £5,000 as the price paid. Whilst leaving the dealers it is written-off in an accident. Are you really suggesting that the settlement will deduct the profit that the dealer just made on the sale? That would be a perverse view of indemnity.

 

What cannot be insured on a motor policy is the profit that I hope to make on the sale of a car eg say I buy a car £1,000 and reckon I can shift it for £1,500 (without adding value). To get this cover you need Business Interruption cover but even this would not apply on a single vehicle basis. It would cover loss of profit if say the show-room burned down!

 

Speaking personally, I have negotiated a number of claims for written off cars where I have found an appropriate "closest match" at a dealer. Have justified it as such and got the insurer to pay the price negotiated with the dealer. OK not the price that was on the windscreen originally but I'll join you in the hat-eating meal if you can show me a dealer who is happy to sell a car at a loss!

 

If you still have your CII text books - go look it up. In my day it was in both the Principles and Practices exam and Motor!

Edited July 15, 2008 by Bernie_the_Bolt

[Higsta]

It is perfectly normal, for example, when a brand new car is insured, if it is written off in the first say six months to a year (usual max) for it to be replaced with a brand new one. Granted not all policies do this but the better ones do. Granted also that insurers get a big discount but the dealers or manufacturers are not doing this for no profit.

 

This is actual policy on my hastings insurance .... shame i didnt have a brand new car.

 

now i just dont have a car at all

 

progress update is that i found the complaints phone number last night for hastings ( monday 14th july ) and lodged my complaint was told usual blah blah from a call center monkey that someone will call you back (not holding my breath).

 

Have just finished my letter of complaint and also included 4 adverts from the autotrader website of which 2 vehicles are the same model and approx mileage but are 1 year older priced at £3500, and 2 vehicles which are same registration year and approx mileage but are the model spec below mine and they are priced also at £3500, so i think i am being fair in asking for that figure and using these vehicle as comparison, but then im probably biased towards myself.

 

I also told them i thought that they were possibly in breach of contract, and quoted 2 statements from theire documentation ...

 

policy booklet states in section 2 “IF YOUR CAR IS A TOTAL LOSS, WE MAY PUT IT IN FREE AND SAFE STORAGE UNTIL WE SETTLE YOUR CLAIM.”

 

and also a document titled “Need to make a claim? Your questions answered”

 

4) What happens if my vehicle is deemed a total loss?

 

“The qualified engineer who inspected your vehicle will provide us with a written report. We will then make you an offer based on the market value of your vehicle as per the policy booklet. In the meantime, your vehicle may be removed from the garage and placed in secure storage whilst your claim is settled.”

 

What do you guys think?

[gyzmo]

 

Further, say I conclude a deal for a second-hand car at £5,000. I arrange a comprehensive policy and declare £5,000 as the price paid. Whilst leaving the dealers it is written-off in an accident. Are you really suggesting that the settlement will deduct the profit that the dealer just made on the sale? That would be a perverse view of indemnity.

 

Yes I am. Firstly, the figure given on a quote is not definitive of the vehicles value, or even used when determining payment in case of a total loss, otherwise we'd all be saying the 1989 fiesta 1.1 is worth, oooh, £20,000 quid easily.

 

Secondly, what a vehicle is purchased for and what it is worth are two separate things. One can indeed pay £20k for the above car. That's a persons choice. It still does not make its value more than a couple of hundred quid.

 

Indemnity anyway is a bit of a joke and does not work in practice.

[Gryff]

Hi Higsta

 

For my 2peneth worth. As you have sent proof of increasing the value of your vehicle this should now be sent to the Engineer for review and if what you have sent is the same make model, similar mileage and spec as your car then you should have a revised offer.

 

Cashing the chq you have received should not effect you situation as long as the covering letter advised it was an interim and with out predjudice not full and final settlement.

 

Insurance companies remove vehicles to their suppliers salvage and storage yard due to the expensive charges incurred otherwise

 

I should add that as your have inititated a solicitor they should now take over the handling (thats what they are paid for) and it's them you need to hassle.

 

Good luck

[never shay die]

Bernie, FOS guidelines dictate that insurers should be using Glass's Guide. Every engineer's report I have seen, be it from insurers, credit hire companies, accident management companies etc all use the Glass's Guide to assist with the valuation. They may use other guides too, but the Glass's Guide is the constant. Glass's Guide is used predominantly as evidence in court when valuation is being contested.

 

Furthermore, I would say that establishing pre-accident valuation is not an exact science. But it is clear that the pre-accident value is just that - the value the vehicle would have fetched on the open market immediately prior to the accident. It is not the cost of purchasing a replacement from a forecourt. However, there are situations (such as with a newer vehicle or a vehicle recently purchased from a forecourt) when it would be unreasonable for an insurer not to pay forecourt price.

 

Higsta. I doubt that you're vehilce has been disposed of, unless it was a category A or B salvage. Their policy is clear in that they will hold the car in free storage until the claim is settled. Find out who took your car, call them and chances are they will still have it in storage and it can still be inspected.

[daviet1976]

 

The correct measure of indemnity for a written off car is the showroom price for a like for like vehicle including tax.

 

 

This is not quite true.

 

The correct term is market value. Without tax, as tax is claimed back from the DVLA.

 

I am very surprised Hastings did not accept your offer of autotrader printouts. However, they should have used autotrader to do your valuation!

 

Glass's guide and Parkers guides are just that- GUIDES!

 

They make no allowance for regional variation.

 

Contact Hastings and ask to speak to a technical claims manager. Be sure to ask for TECHNICAL as opposed to just a manager a this is not a customer service issue.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

OK I accept market value is the better notation.

My point still stands that it is the market price that dealers sell for that is relevant not the market price that dealers buy at nor private sales.

The tax I was talking about is VAT not VED

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Bernie, FOS guidelines dictate that insurers should be using Glass's Guide.

They may do but they are not law.

Every engineer's report I have seen, be it from insurers, credit hire companies, accident management companies etc all use the Glass's Guide to assist with the valuation. They may use other guides too, but the Glass's Guide is the constant. Glass's Guide is used predominantly as evidence in court when valuation is being contested.

I don't disagree one jot. The crucial word you use is "assist". My beef is when they are slavishly followed and particularly when people are fobbed off with trade-in value.

 

Furthermore, I would say that establishing pre-accident valuation is not an exact science.

Agree, which is one reason why maintaining decent service/repair/spare parts records is so important as can be using a consistent garage for repairs and servicing

But it is clear that the pre-accident value is just that - the value the vehicle would have fetched on the open market immediately prior to the accident. It is not the cost of purchasing a replacement from a forecourt.

Here I disagree. The time when I would agree with you is if the loss occurred when the car was for sale. When a car is not for sale, to put the policyholder into the same financial position they enjoyed immediately prior to the loss, they must have, with a cash settlement, a sum of money that allows them to replace the vehicle on a like for like basis (if you accept the premis that sale price and purchase price are different). To do so differently is not an indemnity and that is what the contract is for.

However, there are situations (such as with a newer vehicle or a vehicle recently purchased from a forecourt) when it would be unreasonable for an insurer not to pay forecourt price.

Agreed, per my examples. The main issue here is that insurers are often providing something in excess of a true indemnity - reflecting the fact that there may well not be a demonstrable market or big enough market to establish the value.

 

Higsta. I doubt that you're vehilce has been disposed of, unless it was a category A or B salvage. Their policy is clear in that they will hold the car in free storage until the claim is settled. Find out who took your car, call them and chances are they will still have it in storage and it can still be inspected.

 

One final point in response to the issue of "just because you paid x does not mean that is what it is worth". There is a simple market rule that an item is worth the price that two people are prepared to do a deal at. The market also changes at an inconsistent rate. If insurers want to allege a bad bargain then they really do need to produce compelling evidence to support their case.

[gyzmo]

If insurers want to allege a bad bargain then they really do need to produce compelling evidence to support their case.

 

It is the insured who needs to demonstrate the value of the vehicle. If someone wants to pay an exhorbitant price, that is their fault. the law does not protect from a bad bargain. In my example, I doubt it would be difficult to produce compelling evidence!

[daviet1976]

Policy wordings state "market value"

 

The market consists of trade and retail value.

 

When I valued, I would start off at a figure between the two and use regional variants (such as autotrader) to gauge the correct figure.

 

It's not a science (as stated above) but it can be predicted. Just like the weather.

 

If the value is not felt to be correct, the onus is ALWAYS on the Insured to substantiate the claimed amount.

Edited July 18, 2008 by daviet1976
Fat Finger Disease.