My car was involved in a no fault accident (the 3rd party admitted liability). This happened on March 6. My car will be ready for collection from repairs on Wednesday (May 7). I will also be claiming for loss of earnings as my car is a taxi, and I have had no income for 2 months.

I don't know how long it will be before the loss of earnings element is settled but for the car just to be repaired it has taken 1 day short of 9 weeks. The insurers code says claims should be "settled fairly and promptly". My question is this;

Is 8 weeks 6 days, prompt?? Personally I don't think so. Yes, they've supplied a courtesy car (not a taxi) so I can get about, but I have had no income in all this time. Should I be complaining to a higher body about this or do I just accept this?

I would think maybe it depends whether you were entitled to "courtesy car" or "replacement car" Is it insured as a taxi? if so then I have no knowledge of this type policy, you would need to read the small print. Would it not have been possible to rent a taxi and claim the cost from 3rd party? Perhaps look on the bright side-you've had 9 weeks holiday.

---

Circumstances alters cases!!

You will need to prove your loss going by previous months income etc trust me its not a quick process expect a year or so

Unfortunately,you may have some difficulty in claiming your loss of earnings. You are under a duty to 'mitigate your losses' which in simple terms means reducing your claim to the minimum possible.As someone else pointed out,why didn't you hire an alternative vehicle capable of carrying on your taxi business? In this way,you wouldn't have sufferred the loss of earnings but would have been able to reclaim the hire charges while your own vehicle was being repaired.Assuming of course that the daily rental was less than your loss of earnings.

The claim for loss of earnings will have to be presented to the third parties insurers rather than your own,as this is an uninsured loss.I would expect them to put up a battle over your claim.If you have legal prtoection on your policy it may be worth invoking it and utilising a solicitor.

Good luck.

For sure you can claim all your loss of earnings as the Third Party only supplied an unsuitable vehicle to replace your own?

In any event, the law is often misquoted as saying you must keep your losses to the minimum...this is beyond the reasonable measure of mitigation!

Get the advise of an Independant Claims Professional

Roly:

For sure you can claim all your loss of earnings as the Third Party only supplied an unsuitable vehicle to replace your own?

Yes if that were the case.I think you will find that the OP's insurance has supplied the courtesy car under his own insurance.Someone else asked the question whether he had declared that it was to be used for taxi driving.

In any event, the law is often misquoted as saying you must keep your losses to the minimum...this is beyond the reasonable measure of mitigation!

A judge would ultimately decide this issue.I don't think asking somone to to mitigate their losses by hiring an alternative vehicle is unreasonable at all.It goes on daily.An exception might be a modified vehicle suitable for carrying disabled persons.Maybe there could be a delay involved in properly registering it for taxi use during which loss of earnings could be claimable.

Get the advise of an Independant Claims Professional.

That's why I suggested he use his Legal Protection policy. From experience,I was just pointing out the obstacles that the third party's insurers would likely present.

Hi Backfoot, I was only seeking to share my own experiences from handling thousands of claims over the last 15 years or so from the consumer's protection angle as most common phrases are so often misunderstood and trus claims values reduced through ignorance of the facts as it were.

However from claims handling experiences...I would say that courts award daily hire charges that in Taxi Claims cases that are often in excess of the net daily earnings of Taxi Drivers as, it never a reasonable argument that someone must stop their business to save the wrongdoer from the known consequences of their negligent driving ie the losses of the claimant's business and income...hence way back in 1993 the courts measured it reasonable for hire vehicles to be supplied on credit so that the cost could be recovered from the at fault drivers insurers at a later date. Hence the start of a consumer led business of Credit Hire that has now progressed into Claims Management. In short, it was the insurers that created a £multi-million industry from their poor treatment of the customers to their businesses?

Turning to the matter of Legal Protection. Again, only from my experience this is often 'up-sold' by insurers in addition to the basic policy as it helps to generate income for the selling insurer. It can be sold using advises such as 'it'll pay for your court costs if you cause an accident'. Of course, the reality is that Motor Insurers always fund any defence as it is in their favour to Defend all claims for their financial protection as they are the party that actually pays. Also, unlike Claims Professionals the Legal Expense/Insurer often fail to inform the customer that their claim under the limited cover of the policy is sold to a bidder for the work albeit the customer is advised 'the legal firm will take the case on'....However again, in any split liability or non-fault incident, no-win no-fee solicitors will often act from an introduction from a Claims Management Professional thereby ensuring the customer is protected, from any liability for costs etc ..Given that virtually no Legal Expense insurers detail any behind the scenes agreements they are party to with insurers they can often limit the policyholder/purchaser to using the solicitors that the Legal Protection Company has a cosy arrangement with (that in reality can be call centre operatives following screen directions!).

Therefore, Independent Claims Professionals generally work solely with the customers best interests in mind without the influence of behind the scene considerations.

In my experience Judges generally rely upon deciding matters from the facts or evidence presented. Therefore, the need for a replacement Hire Taxi while not self proving (as the Claimant may only be a weekend or occasional taxi operator) is generally regarded as needed as the claimant only owns a Taxi as they own and operate a Taxi business?

Insurers will of course frustrate most claims with detailed but ultimately irrelevant arguments. Hence, best always to get evidence and issue County Court Proceedings as soon as possible to get the process out of the delaying insurance claims office. Then at least judgment will be within 9 months usuall albeit at additional costs to the insurers than had they acted more reasonably in the first instance?

Also, using Independent Claims Professionals’ will often enable the consumer's best claims value to be generated as the professioanls will be aware of matters that the Claimant is ignorant of and hence, the Claimant will ultimately recover more money at the end of the day.

After all that is all the insurance industry is all about?

R

Roly:

Hi Backfoot, I was only seeking to share my own experiences from handling thousands of claims over the last 15 years or so from the consumer's protection angle as most common phrases are so often misunderstood and trus claims values reduced through ignorance of the facts as it were.

Hi Roly,I don't want to be combative but I am not confused at all by the need for a claimant's duty to mitigate their losses.

However from claims handling experiences...I would say that courts award daily hire charges that in Taxi Claims cases that are often in excess of the net daily earnings of Taxi Drivers as, it never a reasonable argument that someone must stop their business to save the wrongdoer from the known consequences of their negligent driving ie the losses of the claimant's business and income...hence way back in 1993 the courts measured it reasonable for hire vehicles to be supplied on credit so that the cost could be recovered from the at fault drivers insurers at a later date. Hence the start of a consumer led business of Credit Hire that has now progressed into Claims Management. In short, it was the insurers that created a £multi-million industry from their poor treatment of the customers to their businesses?

I am confused by this,however.Your previous advice was that the OP could claim his full loss of earnings while his vehicle was off the road.Now you are saying that he would be awarded the full costs of hiring an alternative vehicle irrespective of the relative amounts involved under each scenario.

Turning to the matter of Legal Protection. Again, only from my experience this is often 'up-sold' by insurers in addition to the basic policy as it helps to generate income for the selling insurer. It can be sold using advises such as 'it'll pay for your court costs if you cause an accident'. Of course, the reality is that Motor Insurers always fund any defence as it is in their favour to Defend all claims for their financial protection as they are the party that actually pays. Also, unlike Claims Professionals the Legal Expense/Insurer often fail to inform the customer that their claim under the limited cover of the policy is sold to a bidder for the work albeit the customer is advised 'the legal firm will take the case on'....However again, in any split liability or non-fault incident, no-win no-fee solicitors will often act from an introduction from a Claims Management Professional thereby ensuring the customer is protected, from any liability for costs etc ..Given that virtually no Legal Expense insurers detail any behind the scenes agreements they are party to with insurers they can often limit the policyholder/purchaser to using the solicitors that the Legal Protection Company has a cosy arrangement with (that in reality can be call centre operatives following screen directions!).

Therefore, Independent Claims Professionals generally work solely with the customers best interests in mind without the influence of behind the scene considerations.

Would it be fair to say that you work as an Independant Claims Professional? Nearly all your posts suggest appointing one to resolve insurance problems.

In my experience Judges generally rely upon deciding matters from the facts or evidence presented. Therefore, the need for a replacement Hire Taxi while not self proving (as the Claimant may only be a weekend or occasional taxi operator) is generally regarded as needed as the claimant only owns a Taxi as they own and operate a Taxi business?

I think that was my advice albeit too late for the OP.

Insurers will of course frustrate most claims with detailed but ultimately irrelevant arguments. Hence, best always to get evidence and issue County Court Proceedings as soon as possible to get the process out of the delaying insurance claims office. Then at least judgment will be within 9 months usuall albeit at additional costs to the insurers than had they acted more reasonably in the first instance?

Not much point going to Court with a totally weak case and wasting your legal costs.If the claim is too high a partial award may be the best you might acheive and probably lose your legal costs. If you haven't mitigated your losses I think you will be on a sticky wicket whoever represents you.

Also, using Independent Claims Professionals’ will often enable the consumer's best claims value to be generated as the professioanls will be aware of matters that the Claimant is ignorant of and hence, the Claimant will ultimately recover more money at the end of the day.

True if their advice is totally reliable.Presumably they charge for this advice? What are the typical rates?

After all that is all the insurance industry is all about?

Mmmmmm.

.R

Not sure where the OP has gone. Disappointing given the advice volunteered by a number of posters.

Hi,

I think most here sing from the same hymn sheet.

I of course accept after 15 years of dealing with the practices of insurers I may be a little more alert to the general terms and phrases that are said at claimants/consumers/victims etc when the amounts more often than not that are recovered from insurers in respect of full and fair payments will nearly always be far higher than an insurer will offer.

The FSA have confirmed that they are investigating the complicated interactions between the various commercial outfits that work together within the practice of Claims Capping and Third Party Capture. It may well end up with the OFT given the behind the scene contracts and instructions to car body repairers about how not to direct consumers to independent advisors?

It is widely hoped that the FSA will order the independent review of all claims where insurers dealt with claimants using third party capture techniques which may well have in effect and reality, bypassed the regulations that are in place to ensure consumer protection from the conflicts of interests that were not disclosed to consumers.

Insurer’s agents and any misadvise from them in many cases amount to losses to consumers of £10,000.00s especially in personal injury cases.

Of course the tax payer picks up the tab for the needs of those misadvised and under-compensated.

I hope my comments are open and without reference to whom to seek out for advise.

R

R

Roly,

I don't wish to be disrepectful but you have completely lost me with the above.

The original thread concerned repair delays and the consequential effects on a taxi hire business.It's quite an interesting case of uninsured losses and what can or cannot be claimed.

I don't see the relevance of what you have you have posted to that issue,but perhaps I have just misunderstood what you are saying.

Cheers.

My sincere apologise for any irrelevance within my post/advises,

Being new to the site I was following what I had read on other threads on other matters.

Hence, I tried to deal with the points raised within the replies and comments to what I had originally posted.

Of course, the subsequent wider or background points do not read well with the initial enquiry.

Anyhow, no worries.

R