What will happen if I don’t attend?

[Happy988]

I was in a car accident almost 2 years ago. My insurance put it down as no fault and then I was paid out the value of my car. As my car was written off my insurance put me in touch with legal company who offered a private hire vehicle till I was paid out

Third party are disputing the hire car costs. For months now I have been sending the solicitors evidence, forms, etc.

They want me to attend court and give evidence. I have anxiety and don’t do well with crowds, new people and speaking to a group. I’m a single parent and have no childcare to get there . Really panicking about this. The solicitors asked the court if the hearing could be made online but they have only just made the decision this morning that I need to attend in person. They said my medical evidence of anxiety isn’t enough to warrant it being made online.

The court they want me to attend is a 60 mile round trip from where I live. I have a no vehicle currently as it’s in for repair, I have no funds for taxis for a journey that long, no childcare available. I just don’t know what to do. what happens if I don’t attend? Will I be liable for the costs? I feel as though im going to have some kind of panic attack about this

I don't disagree that it's completely unjustifiable but they get away with it because it's "credit" hire.

Car hire companies won't hire a car to someone without it being paid for upfront. If you aren't able to fund it yourself, even knowing you'll definitely get the money back later from the insurance company, you're stuck.

That's where the AMC comes in with the offer of 'Credit Hire' (CH). They fund a hire car upfront but then they absolutely take the piss with passing on the costs.

They wouldn't really have a business if everyone could afford to go to Enterprise (etc.) and stump up £1,000 up front for a few weeks of hire, damage waiver, etc., while not knowing whether their own car would actually be fixed by that point meaning they might have to find more money to extend the hire.

There is actually an agreed limit between the big insurers, AMCs and the ombudsman around what can reasonably be charged for CH but as I understand it the level is so high it still results in court cases like this.

I can see that now @SomethingUniqueThisTime I was just posting quickly in good faith.

@WatchandWaitorNot
No, never 🙏🏻😂
I have lots of industry experience, though! My proudest work related moment was undoubtedly identifying ‘Kev the Senior Claims Handler’ at Acme Insurance as the waste paper bin where the awkward claims went to moulder. After that my stuff got fast tracked 😉
I am no apologist for insurers; they are a necessary evil but some are better than others, even nice!

I know. I defend legal claims for them for a living, but not consumer lines. The motor insurers are very much at fault here though.

Latest significant case law if anyone’s really bored https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/credit-hire-ruling-brings-much-needed-transparency-/5115666.article

I don’t disagree and I’d add that there’s been absolutely no government appetite for regulating the car hire or claims management companies for decades. Money talks. A pox on all of them 🤬🤬

This is interesting:

Nick Kelsall, head of motor claims at Allianz Commercial, said Holt will bring much needed transparency to the process by requiring credit hire organisations to show evidence of impecuniosity. He said: ‘Personal injury claims have seen significant reform in the last decade, but credit hire remains a relatively unregulated field where opportunistic practices have added significant expense to motor claims and ultimately to motor insurance premiums in recent years.’

Allianz are speaking here from the perspective of being the insurer of the party at fault, who are being asked to reimburse credit hire costs incurred by the other driver whose car was damaged by the actions of Allianz’s Insured. I wonder what Allianz’s own practice is regarding encouraging the use of credit hire companies when the boot is on the other foot?

It's not your insurer that's going to be paying, though.

Take OP's case: someone crashes into OP (not her fault) and she contacts her insurer. The insurer assesses the situation and decides it's going to be the other insurer paying for it all. OP's insurer isn't going to provide a car - if they do that OP will have to pay her excess because it will be a claim on her own insurance until months down the line when it's all finally settled.

So OP's insurer give her details to an AMC who can sort her out a hire car, her insurer effectively taking themselves out of the picture.

So in terms of "insurers not explaining it properly" it would need to be the 3rd party insurer getting involved now as it's their claim, not OP's insurer. But at this stage the 3rd party insurer doesn't even know they're about to get shafted by an AMC because one of their customers has crashed into OP.

In an ideal situation, OP would have contacted tue 3rd party insurer directly and they'd have gladly sorted out a car for her and got hers fixed in quick time to avoid all this expense.

So OP's insurer give her details to an AMC who can sort her out a hire car, her insurer effectively taking themselves out of the picture.

This is the point. They do this and do not explain to people that they are “taking themselves out of the picture”

The consumer hears “my insurance are sorting a hire car for me” and doesn’t question the arrangement because they are not familiar with the process.

Also, I don’t believe it is ever appropriate for someone in OP’s position to make direct contact with the third party’s insurer. You contact your own insurer and let them do that.

Also, I don’t believe it is ever appropriate for someone in OP’s position to make direct contact with the third party’s insurer. You contact your own insurer and let them do that.

You can not believe it if you so choose, but there's absolutely no reason to not go directly to the 3rd party insurer if their driver has crashed into you.

Worst case, they say they're not going to help you because they don't know the details if the other driver hasn't reported it, or they don't believe it's their driver's fault, in which case you go to your own insurer then.

You get better service and less pushback on things like your own choice of repairer.

People do it every day.

Agree with this.

When I pay my insurance, if an accident occurred I'd expect it to be dealt with from start to finish by the company I pay my insurance monies to, no where in my policy does it mention any third party being involved so therefore I'd assume it was a one company see to all.

Nick Kelsall, head of motor claims at Allianz Commercial, said Holt will bring much needed transparency to the process by requiring credit hire organisations to show evidence of impecuniosity. He said: ‘Personal injury claims have seen significant reform in the last decade, but credit hire remains a relatively unregulated field where opportunistic practices have added significant expense to motor claims and ultimately to motor insurance premiums in recent years.’

This is very interesting and is what will hopefully get the credit hire company to drop their claim in my case. I could absolutely have afforded to hire a car for the week it took to actually fix my car if I was paying regular spot rates. At no point was it explained that the rates were being racked up due to the car being provided on credit. I was simply told that getting the car I did would mean that I wouldn't have to pay the excess.

And as it happens that was a lie anyway because they didn't fix my car, so I had to get the insurance company to do it and I had to pay the excess. It was definitely implied that I was speaking to the claims department and I'm sure they didn't use the words but they implied that it was a courtesy car.

I don't want to have to go to court but I genuinely don't think they'd put me before a judge because I really can't see how the claims management company could possibly win given everything that went on in my case.
£18000 for a car that they kept delaying the return on, when they didn't even fix my own car that's worth about £3k. And I could have paid. They just didn't explain.

I really do wish for everyone who pays motor insurance sakes that this ridiculous practice could be made completely illegal.

Happy988 apologies if it's already been suggested but have you asked them if you can join virtually? It is possible.

Also, not letting your child come with you - they should be able to aslong as you have someone who can watch them whilst your in court but I can see you dont have anyone to childmind

Just to be clear, the Holt judgment didn’t introduce a new requirement for the claimant to demonstrate that they could not have afforded to hire a car (aka “impecuniosity”).

That was always necessary for the claim to succeed.

What the judgment is saying is that evidence of impecuniosity must now be put forward “pre-issue”, in other words, before the claim goes to court. What was happening was that claimant credit hire companies were bluffing and stalling on this so that the claims would settle, and only answering the questions very late in the day after lots of expenses had been incurred. Exactly as happened with OP, only being asked to give evidence for the first time at a strike-out application.

I've got anxiety, and much as I understand how you might be feeling, this is one where you're going to have to bite the bullet.

Anxiety creates avoiding behaviours, but it can become a habit to avoid things we don't want to do.

Then something like this comes along, and we feel like a worm wriggling on a hook.

Set yourself the smallest possible target. Just aim to get there, even if you can't say anything. Aim to turn up, sit there, and insist your solicitor does all the talking, with you just saying yes or no.

If you can bring down your expectations of what you're required to so, it might help you get there.

You may even feel proud of yourself for confronting it.

Hope this helps, sorry if not, and hope it goes okay. It almost certainly won't be as bad as you're picturing.

I've just seen that you went and it worked out. 💪 well done 👏

I'm still curious about who told you that you couldn't take a child into the courtroom. Was it an official of the courts?

Go, take your daughter. They can choose not to see you because she is there but they can’t dispute you showed up. Explain you will
also be claiming for costs to travel.

Your daughter being there will actually help you because it proves the need for a larger car instead of say a Clio. Therefore the value of what is being claimed is correct.

I think it was the Court. I didn’t speak to them direct beforehand but I got in touch with the Claims Management Company and said I’m struggling for childcare and their response was ‘As no one will be available to look after your child during the hearing, unfortunately you will not be able to bring her’. I think they had spoke to the Court and they had refused

@Happy988 I'm glad it worked out ok for you. So stressful, and looking for childcare at short notice too. But at least now it's over. If you hadn't turned up it might have been struck out.

I think they made that up.
Not a credible response at all.

Go to the Citizen's Advice Bureau. They usually have limited access to a free solicitor once a week. Find out what is necessary first. Will it cost you more financially to attend or not to attend. That is your priority. Secondly, for heavens sake, make friends with your children's friend's parents. Invite your childrens friends to your house on a regular basis and get to know their parents - or more importantly get to be known as a "safe reliable parent". Your children's friends' parents are your core group of people, going through exactly the same stages as you, as a parent, who you can rely on for childcare and sleepovers.

i had to comment, as I spent 14 years working in insurance claims and specifically with credit hire which is exactly what you had.
It’s going to court because the fees are extortionate as you’ve stated, and rightly so the insurers are contesting just how much they are being asked to pay. This is a huge contribution as to why peoples premiums are going up. You’ve stated here you tried to give the car back early; if you didn’t need it they shouldn’t be claiming for it, only supporting the other sides argument even further.
Unfortunately this is common, your insurers have probably received some sort of kick back as well for essentially selling your details to this hire company in the first place.
Your solicitors need to evidence that you couldn’t afford to basically walk to enterprise and hire yourself a car, that the car you had was of similar spec and size to what you had (this impacts cost) and that you didn’t have it longer than you needed it. ALL of this is supposed to be explained to you by the hire company before they even give you a car, 99.99% of the time it isn’t, they get you to sign legal docs electronically without you even knowing what they state. At this stage I’d say you have to attend court to save yourself being liable for any costs, you also need to be 100% honest. Insurers have been trying to battle against car hire companies for years for this very reason often seeing invoices for thousands and thousands of pounds but they are on a back foot because how could they possibly prove you didn’t need that car when only you and the hire company were party to that conversation. The hire company are only there to make money out of your claim and ultimately we’re all paying for it in our premiums. The system is a mess.

@Confusednoodle1

OP has been to court and it's all sorted out.

I thought the advice is not to deal directly with the other party's insurance but to go through your own?