To think that a courtesy car should not be a hidden credit hire car

[whydoieven]

I was involved in a road traffic accident just over week ago (Wednesday 13th) where I was at no fault.

The garage (through the insurance) couldn't pick up till Tuesday (19th). I have cover where I get a courtesy car. When I phoned to update the insurance on Thursday (14th) to say I will need a courtesy car on the Tuesday(19th) they practically threw the car at me to take it the next day (15th). I said my car was still drivable (hardly any damage) and I didn't need it, but in the end I relented.

Because it was such an odd conversation, I started investigating. It turns out that I didn't get a courtesy car, I got a credit hire car, which the "courtesy car" company confirmed yesterday.

I had no idea that my contract is with the hire company. This means that if the other party's insurance objects to the money they have to pay out because of my costs, I am liable for the hire costs if they decide to pursue it. The credit hire means that the hire car can cost £££ per day and it all mounts up. Especially, as I didn't get given a compact car like I expected and my own car is expected to take 3 weeks. I feel like my insurance company, the car hire company and the garage are making money from this, but ultimately I am liable.

AIBU - you should know that courtesy cars can be credit hire cars.
YANBU - it's a racket

@whydoieven - This is exactly the type of topic that Watchdog or Martin Lewis would get their collective teeth into. Have you thought about writing out your timeline so far and emailing them to get their input on how the insurance companies/claims handlers/car rentals are running this system, along with any solicitors or anyone else who has their finger in this pie, and you're wondering if this might have an impact on the annual costs of car insurance. It must do, surely?

Haven't RTFT, but there's a way of doing this for yourself, online & for a small fee. The database will have both sides' details as long as both parties reported it to their insurers, & it can be searched using the reg no of the other car & the date of the incident IIRC.

Can't quite comment now but I will add my name to this list
My companies were achl and spectra
Avoid!!!
But op you can also cancel the contract within a time period, can't recall either 10 or 14 days
Do it if you are still in this window of time!

But op you can also cancel the contract within a time period, can't recall either 10 or 14 days

That only applies if the contract is valid. If it isn't valid, you don't need to cancel it as it's void anyway.

I suggest that the lack of transparency the OP has been subject to (which is obviously deliberate) means they cannot be considered fully informed. Therefore no contract.

@whydoieven Well done for fighting!

Car insurance is such a scam, and it's so unfair because it's a legal requirement to have.

I don't understand why the government hasn't sorted this out before. Or why Panorama/ Watchdog/ Martin Lewis/ BBC etc aren't investigating and exposing it. Afterall, it affects all of us and people working at all these places must have come across these issues.

I had 2 accidents in one year a couple of years ago. I think the first one I was passed over to auxillis. They did tell me they would seek to cover all costs form the faulty driver. I was bit like hmmm is this all legit. It was all fine though. To be honest it was a very black and white case as person pulled out infront of me at a roundabout. So from where the damage was to both cars it was clearly them at fault. I had that car for ages! I can only imagine the bill. It was early November and I had it until January sometime. Then my own car was back for 2 wks before someone else hit it 🙈

I wasn't even in the car it was parked outside my house. That time his insurance company sent a text saying he was at fault and if I would like a replacement vehicle once mine was picked up to contact them. So I did and they arranged a car for me.

Can someone explain why the unsurance company would rather write off a car and have copper tow it, even if it can be repaired and is drivable?

It's a racket.
Financial ombudsman takes a dim view of people being unknowingly put into credit hire.
Put in a complaint to your insurers saying that you did not consent to it and want the courtesy car available under policy, or a car provided by the responsible insurers.

Because they're "on the hook" for all the ongoing expenses during the repair, i.e. car hire, etc. As with most things these days, there are shortages of parts and labour, so even a "simple" repair can take several weeks, all the while, they're paying a few hundred per week for the hire car! Then there are the "unexpected" additional costs, i.e. where the body shop discovers something else that needs repairing/replacing, so the insurance firm have to build in a contingency. And of course, insurance approved body shops charge more because they can in the same way that tradesmen charge more for insurance jobs.

Because a car is repaired to the same standard regardless of age and so costs substantially more to repair than the garage down the road. Your 300 quid Peugeot 106 may not need to be fixed to the same standard as a 30000 BMW but the insurance treats them equally. Therefore, they will say it's simply not worth paying those prices to repair the Peugeot and so it becomes an economic write off. Likely a CAT N with no structural damage that the garage down the road can T-cut. That's why some people don't go through their insurance.

Agreed

But belt and braces

This way you have put in writing that you no longer accept the document