Hastings a total loss

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Regarding the market value issue. I rather wish I'd thought to see what the financial ombudsman has to say on the matter earlier. I found this:

 

issue 22 November - motor insurance

 

And I quote:

 

Most policyholders assume that their insurance policy will enable them to replace with a similar vehicle a car that has been stolen or damaged beyond repair. Our approach mirrors this. We want to see firms making a reasonable assessment of the car’s ‘market value’ – and then paying this amount. The ‘market value’ is the likely cost to the customer of buying a car as near as possibly identical to the one that has been stolen or damaged beyond economic repair.

 

IE cost to but not to sell.

 

Of course there can be genuine debates about what represents a fair market value. Our starting point is to consider the approach the firm has taken. We would expect it to have consulted the normal trade guides and to have allowed for any difference from the norm in the car’s mileage or condition. In most cases, the firm should have assessed the market value as equivalent to the ‘guide retail price’ (the price that a member of the public might reasonably expect to pay at a dealership).

 

IE including VAT and profit.

 

Sure there may be times when the evidence suggests that another approach is required but I have read nothing to indicate that this applies here.

 

It rather looks like that what I said in my first post on this thread is supported by the ombudsman!

 

Who wants to argue now?

 

Higsta, my suggestion is that you print the page from the ombudsman's site and send it to Hastings and ask them why they feel that these principles should be disapplied in your claim.

[Higsta]

Thanks for that Bernie have printed it

 

No new developments yet, phoned hastings tonight and was told that the people dealing with my complaint had left for the evening and that a note would be placed asking for someone to ring me

 

Havent managed to find any legal advice yet, contacted communtity legal advice but they said its an area of law they dont deal with, they put me on to the law society who gave me a list of solicitors to ring in my area, noe of which were much help as they were all unsure of what area of law this would fall into !!! (" THEFT " hes screams)

 

I also found out today that anyone can apply for a V5 registration document for any vehicle without proof of ownership, when first told i thought that can never be true!

 

Contacted DVLA tonight and apparantly this is correct .... and guess what someone has applied for a V5 for my car, i told the story so far and was told to fax all the details to department VC14 in the DVLA which i have done, all the operator said was that a note would go against the record of my vehicle but he didnt think it would stop the V5 being issued.

 

Anyone got any ideas where i can get legal advice on this, im really struggling to find anything at the moment.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Are you a member of the AA or RAC etc?

[daviet1976]

And I quote

 

"Sometimes the firm will argue that it would be fairer to use the ‘guide trade value’ (the price that a motor trader might pay). Normally this will be less than the market price that the policyholder will have to pay to replace the car. However, the trade value may be a useful indicator where the car was not in ‘guide retail’ condition or where there is evidence that the customer intended to buy a replacement privately.

 

And I go on.....

 

Other sources of reference may be relevant when making or assessing a valuation. For example, we would expect the firm to look at the price guides available to the general public, especially where these suggest significantly different results from the trade guides.

 

Customers who dispute the firm’s assessment of a car’s market value often draw our attention to ‘forecourt prices’ advertised in local papers, and – increasingly – to prices quoted on internet sites. Generally we place little weight on such evidence. Advertised prices for cars are widely understood to be a starting point for negotiation, rather than a fixed price.

 

Which is why I always used all three when completing valuations.

 

In Higsta's case, the lack of a proven service history has cost dearly. If he can prove that the car was serviced regularly, then the valuation should be increased.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

And I quote

 

"Sometimes the firm will argue that it would be fairer to use the ‘guide trade value’ (the price that a motor trader might pay). Normally this will be less than the market price that the policyholder will have to pay to replace the car. However, the trade value may be a useful indicator where the car was not in ‘guide retail’ condition or where there is evidence that the customer intended to buy a replacement privately.

 

And I go on.....

 

Other sources of reference may be relevant when making or assessing a valuation. For example, we would expect the firm to look at the price guides available to the general public, especially where these suggest significantly different results from the trade guides.

 

Customers who dispute the firm’s assessment of a car’s market value often draw our attention to ‘forecourt prices’ advertised in local papers, and – increasingly – to prices quoted on internet sites. Generally we place little weight on such evidence. Advertised prices for cars are widely understood to be a starting point for negotiation, rather than a fixed price.

 

Which is why I always used all three when completing valuations.

 

All of which is perfectly true but are supplemental points to the basic issue that the ‘market value’ is the likely cost to the customer of buying a car as near as possibly identical to the one that has been stolen or damaged beyond economic repair.

 

That is the starting point, it is what I said in post no 2, it is what others have contradicted me on and the onus is on insurers to explain why they are not offering this as the value. Not to do so is to breach the obligation to "treat the customer fairly" - a regulatory obligation imposed by the FSA.

 

In Higsta's case, the lack of a proven service history has cost dearly. If he can prove that the car was serviced regularly, then the valuation should be increased.

 

Pretty much what I said in post no 3, but call me cynical but I have a hunch that the bulk of the difference arises from Hastings using the commpon ploy of preying on the prevalant ignorance (as displayed on this thread) that "market value" is something other than the cost to replace from a dealer!

[Higsta]

Are you a member of the AA or RAC etc?

 

 

 

No unfortunately not, i even contacted barclaycard as this is the method i used to pay for the insurance in full over the internet but they they no longer provide a legal advice service.

[daviet1976]

Bernie, I think you and I are arguing, pretty much, FOR the same thing.

 

All I am trying to state is that Hastings have valused the vehicle correctly and that the onus is now on Higsta to provide evidence suggesting the valuation should be increased.

 

I agree with the majority of your comments, however.

[Higsta]

Well i finally got it all sorted today.

 

Contacted the complaints investigator that had been put in charge of my complaint, he said he hadn't reviewed my case yet but would reply to me within 4 weeks as per thier procedures.

 

I then explained to him the urgency i felt was needed as someone had applied for a registration document for my vehicle and i then explained the events of my claim to him. He didnt seem very happy by the time i finished and said he would look in to imediately and phone me back within 15 mins.

 

15 mins later i was contacted and was told:-

 

firstlly that he had found that my car had not only been sold to a salvage firm but somone had purchased it from the salvage firm aswell, he then admited they (hastings) had no right to sell my car.

 

Secondly the offer i had recieved of £2700 had been a mistake and that the report that had come in from the engineer had been mixed up with someone else and that although it had my name on the report it was for a Ford Mondeo and not my Renault Laguna Sport Tourer, he then told me the assesor had spotted the mistake and resubmitted the report with the correct ammount which was £3200 but no one had bothered to inform me of this. he apologised for the way i had been treated and for their mistakes and said he needed to meet with the heads of the claims department after lunch to get some answers and he would call me back this afternoon.

 

He called me back around 4pm and again apologised and said that they have now revised my offer and due to the circumstances were offering me a settlement of £3800 which is top price in the glasses guide for my car.

 

I accepted the apology and the Settlement and he assured me there would still be a full investigation into my complaint to which i will get the result of when its concluded

 

Thanks again to all of you for your advice and posts

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

What a c0ck-up!

But the settlement is great news! I'm very happy for you.

[daviet1976]

Patience and a friendly smile always worked for me!

 

There was nothing worse than someone on the phone making demands.

 

Well done!

[Higsta]

Patience and a friendly smile always worked for me!

 

There was nothing worse than someone on the phone making demands.

 

 

Yup i totally agree, but it works both ways when i spoke to the claims people i got a terrible response and attitude which in turn wound me up till i got frustrated, then on the other hand all the people i spoke to in the customer services were completely different and would actually talk to you like a human being. Its almost like they were 2 different companies.

[daviet1976]

They're also like that to each other most of the time!