I rang my Insurance Company (Budget) and told them that Drive Assist was trying to con me and that they had a lot of complaints on the web site. My Insurers just said that I shouldn't believe everything I see on the internet. However, both my insurers and their legal team are looking into my written complaint although, like you, they have said this could take 28 days to resolve. I don't understand why the insurers keep using this company when it is obvious to all that they are scam artists. All I can advise is to keep fighting. If need be, we can all get together and contact Watchdog again. I hope you begin to feel better soon, don't let them get to you, I am sure we can fight this. Take care. Regards Dot

Search the web for accident management companies....the Claims Standards Council website has some...

I thank you for your compliment but assure you I know notheing more than what all those advising in claims should.

Unfortunately, it would appear most companies appointed by insurers as with insurance claims office staff are rarely trained in respect of the statutory rights of consumers...it would appear it would get in the way of profit generation from claims....

It is unlikely but it was hoped the FSA's Banking review would stop the Claims Capping activities associated with the conduct of Bank owned Insurers......the courts will remain the place where such conduct is shown for what it is.....in one matter my offices have discovered one less than swift company used 3 seperate reports to reduce the value of a customer's repairs....leaving more and more parts off from a repair.....the engineer for slow, slow and slower insurer is due to give evidence upon this fact.....cant wait to hear of his awareness of FSA regs and MoJ regs as to conduct to injured parties....it is always so easy to take money of injured folks....

R

ps as ever no spelt checks

Right Guys,

Firstly I would like to congratulate Roly on his hard work and all the research he has done, obviously a very educated man who has the right morals.

I too work for a Claims Management/ Accident Management/ Credit Hire Company. Many people call us many different names.

I was working today and had a customer call who advised he had an accident Friday morning and he had been referred to drive assist by his own insurance. He explained to me how he searched the company online and read this forum and decided to search for other Accident Management companies and settled on ours as the one he wished to use.

I was intrigued by these reports so took a look and was surprised to see the amount of post's all in regard to one company and that stretches for nearly a whole year on people commenting so would like to add my bit and help you all stay safe when involved in a non-fault accident.

The first thing to say to anyone wishing to make a claim directly from a negligent party's insurer is to use a first tier Credit Hire Company (CHO) who subscribe to the ABI GTA. These are a set of guidelines set out between insurance companies and CHO's as to how claims should be handled. You can obtain a list of these companies and their contact details by visiting www.abi.org.uk/tphire. Click on First Tier Hirers and you will find a list of these companies.

Also on this website, you will the General terms of agreement which is available for everyone to read. you will also find the maximum billing rates which the CHO's can charge an insurer for a replacement vehicle.

This then leads on to Collision Damage Waivers (CDW's) offered by hire company's. These are not compulsory to take and many ways a con. Say a CDW costs typically £5/day for a customer to have and an average claim takes 21 days to settle, that’s £110 per customer. Now the ABI GTA states that First Tier Credit Hire company's may only charge an excess of up to £50 or that equal to the customers own excess but no more. Now if you are involved in an accident in the replacement vehicle, the hire company may only charge up to that excess. Now would you rather pay £50 for an accident that you have had in the car or £110 for an accident that may never happen. SIMPLE!

Secondly, CDW's are not a recoverable loss from the negligent party's insurer. Just so you are all clear, the law state's the negligent driver's insurer must put you in a position you were before the accident happened. Now one simple factor here, did you have a CDW on your own vehicle whilst it was insured. NO! No insurer offers a collision damage waiver on any policy brought in the UK and if you have an accident in your own vehicle then you will have to pay your excess. Therefore, if you have an accident in a hire vehicle then you will have to pay the excess specified by that company. If you have chosen to pay extra for a CDW, then that is your choice and you are not able to recover this loss from the negligent insurer.

Now we move onto commission payments between CHO's/Insurer's & Body shops/Personal Injury Solicitors. This is well known to happen in the industry and unfortunately there is not allot that can be done however a few tips will help you here.

Body shops will always refer customers to CHO's are the CHO's will supplement repair work to the b/shops, either on their own hire vehicles or for other local customers referred in other ways. You are not obliged to use that CHO nor that garage. Also when it comes to getting your car repaired, your insurer will try to send you to their approved repairer. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE THEM. The law states you may choose whichever repairer you wish to repair the vehicle. Some insurers do not like this but its tough. Customers have the right to nominate their own repairer as it is THEIR car.

Solicitors famously pay 'Marketing & Administration' charges to work referrers i.e. Insurer's/CHO's. These are no more then incentives for people to pass them work. People may choose whichever independent solicitor they wish to pursue there claim on a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA). Many solicitors will explain what this means to you but in the worst case, your Legal Expense Insurer will pick up any costs. My advise is to make sure the solicitor is registered with www.lawsociety.org.uk.

Lastly, I would advise you to visit the main trade body association website's www.nacho.org.uk and www.amassociation.co.uk. If the company is not represented by one of these bodies, my advise would be not to use them.

And just so you are aware, I work for a competitor of Drive Assist and our company prides itself on Customer Service and has seen us through 15 years of business with loyal partnerships made from day 1 of business. I do not wish to 'slag' Drive Assist off as it is morally wrong, I just want to send you all in the right direction and any queries you may have with Credit Hire Companies such as Drive Assist/Helphire/Angel Assistance to name a few.

Regards

Rob

Note: This post has been moderated email removed. Please ensure you read the moneysupermarket.com Community Standards and Terms of Service before posting. Thanks

While the compliments are appreciated Rob you fail to follow the facts of case law that confirm CDW's are recoverable as but for the negligence of the at-fault party they would not have been required which of course they are within the terms of a hire agreement.

Also, you fail to appreciate the ABI-GTA is what is says; a closed agreement between insurers and hire companies in order to ensure their profit targets etc are maintained. Of course the Historically the, ABI-GTA, Nacho, AMA operate with members not authorised in law by the FSA to actually conduct the business they do, perhaps the FSA's record on Bank governance and compliance speaks more than I can in this regard.

In any event, consumers face misadvise and underpaid claims when there is no adherance to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Directive 2008 and the FSA Claims Handling Regulations etc etc.

Sorry to be truthful but all you said is from a 'traders' and 'insurers' point of view and perhaps why the OFT declined to grant the ABI-GTA the exemption from the anti-cartel legislation the ABI sought??? Hence, the OFT record that it is their budgetry limits that has prevented them investigating the matter further.....perhaps a double failure allows such anti-consumer agreements to evade the prosecution of the signatories???

The main probelm with Credit Hire is the lack of regulatory compliance by the operators and the insurers concerned....complaints are hence, often ignored and perhaps this is why the FOS reported that insurers complaint shandling was 'dire'.

Hence, consumers are best served by avoiding companies that operate with behind the scene agreements that are rarely disclosed and insurer appointed bodyshops who now routinely use non-genuine parts and second hand parts in the repair of customer's vehicles.....but that's another subject for another time....

Ro

ps as usual no spelling checks etc

Hi Roly,

Thanx for the response. Firstly, I personally am not aware of any case law which says CDW's are a recoverable loss but if you are able to provide with the defendant, plaintiff, court and judge etc I would be very interested to read into the reasons as to why.

Secondly, I am speaking from a traders point of view but not an insurer. As you are most likely aware, many CHO's are unwilling to deal with the requests from insurers to deal with their claimants and most CHO's seek their work from other providers such as Recovery company's and Bodyshops.

The CPUTD you are quoting is irrelevant due to the face that CHO's SHOULD be explaining to consumers that they are entering a credit hire agreement and what that means. This is always laid out in the paperwork signed by the hirer. This is no different from a consumer hiring a car themselves from a local company and then claiming back the cost directly from the at fault insurer. However this is costly and most people cannot affors to act this way hence the need for CHO's.

Also, I would like to say the majority if not all CHO's within the ABI GTA are FSA regulated and have to sit mandatory FSA regulation exams every six months to make sure they are compliant with current guidelines and law.

Please note I do not wish to argue the fact with you of who is right/wrong etc, you are here fighting for Mr Joe Public and I too am offering advise to everyone on how to protect their best interest when it comes to dealing with CHO's.

Regards

Rob

Hi Rob,

While I agree CHO's do 'advise upon the performance of a non-investment insurance contract' ie Motor Claim there can be no credibility for NACHO, AMA, ABI-GTA where key players operate outside the statutory requirement for such conduct to beby duly authorised and regulated individuals and companies.

A search of case law databases will discover many cases where the higher courts have decided matter quite differently to the requiremens dictated to the signatories of the ABI-GTA.

Bodyshops and Vehicle Recovery operators who are commercially linked to the providers of regulated services are also required to be registered upon the managing agents FSA Register entry as Appointed Representatives in order to ensure regulatory compliance for the protectionof consumers.

It would appear many 'CHOs' operate along the lines of the known practices of back street motor traders and scond-hand car salesman selling cut and shunt motors in respect of their regard to Regulations and Consumer Protection. Not my words, just these blogs?

While I agree there are no issues between us as I blog from my own knowledge and experiences but you should be aware, there are no FSA Exams to sit, pass, fail or study for whatsoever, or ever has been.

The FSA accepts compliance requirements are met by the Responsible Individual within each and every Authorised company. As so many 'CHOs' have no authority in law there is no legal compliance etc etc whatsoever in place for consumer protection within the requirements to become a signatory to the ABI-GTA . Hence, in effet and operation consumer's are not considered within their statutory rights.

In any event, until there is some joined up regulation between the OFT, FSA and MoJ, Claims Management Regulator there will be litlle chance of consumers not being misled, misadvised and charged for heads of claim that insurers are legally liable to pay.

Nevertheless, there we have it.

R

I agree with most of the post's here, and now I have first hand experience of these scumbags.

I have spent this afternoon cancelling my credit card, speaking to the FOS / Trading Standards / Consumer Direct and my Insurance company, ref. a telephone call earlier - the usual : a scratch on the paint work, you MUST pay !

No I won't, I dispute that and I would love to have a fight with them.

The car was dirty, nearly out of fuel and had marks on it.

Anybody got any ideas how long a dispute usually lasts ?

I'm thinking on my losses, not them

Best advise cridt card company mob=ney taken withiut your authority for goods/services not agreed or received.

Email or write a short line in these terms;

Dear....your preferred title for the provider, or Sirs,

Regarding agreement.......vehicle reg etc

I wish to register a formal complaint under your FSA, Complaints Handling Prceedures which I understand are regulated under the DISP Regulations.

Your comapny has taken money from my credit card without any authority.in respect of services not received.

I look forward to your prompt reply acknowledging my complaint.

Yours

etc

If you did not receive a letter from the FSA Registered com[any titled Letter of Compliance you sould also write to the FOS immediately as the FSA recently fined a company £30,000.00 for this basic regulatory failing.

Also, if you receive no reply the FOS will certainly consider the mater swiftly.

Also, also if the Company is also regulated by the MoJ, Claims Management Regulator they will consider the matters that have caused you such concern.

Happy hunting....remeber....normally anything that an insurer arranges that sounds like good service usually never complies with the statutory regulations...if it did...the insurer would write advising you to seek independent advise....but then again....standards are greed based it would seem these recent times?

all the best

R

Many thanks Roly, I have had previous experience with FOS - they have helped a great deal in the past.

Will keep informed

hi shelly, i have had an invoice off them for £230.00 for a mark pon a wheel trim, which i know i haven't done, what did you put in your letter to them , i have complained to the financial ombudsman, what else do i need to do, thanks?

without telling you my company name etc...But, my companies opertae replacement vehicles wich we often add to with sub-contracted vehicles from car hire companies.....we receveived a bill for £176.00 this morening to remove a few 'easypeel' stickers we place upon vehicles....

I assure you all.....charging for actual or made up damage is a massive profit opportunity for hire companies.....

Part of the modern motor trade.....charge all you can and see what some fool agrees to pay to avoid the argumements.......

We always allow wheel trim and road rash which is not damage as all vehicles incurr this during normal use...it is not abuse....if I am wrong...look at any Police car which is a few months/years old......and of course the Police are perfect drivers and regard all incidents/damage as crimes ??? Of course noT...its normal wear and tear!!

All decent folks know if they damage a vehicle and as the CDW is recoverable from the at fault insurers...consumer protection should ensure it is provided within the charges for the car....hence ABI-GTA is anti-consumer as insurers and hire companies agre top make money from the vehicle user etc etc..

Ro

Thank you for help, i was told by Drive assist that the CDW was non-recoverable from the at fault insurers, i had a VW PASSAT from drive assist, on delivering the vehicle i was told to have a look at the paintwork, and that was it he was gone, on collection the chap said he could see damage to a wheel trim, i couldn't see it i had to physically kneel down and feel for it, hence an invoice for £230.00 in the post which i disputed, have contacted the financial ombudsman, who were brilliant and are taking it up for me, today, is there anything else i should be doing.help!

Also on the paperwork i have received, my signature has been printed on the bottom of various letters which i hadn't even seen before!

The misuse of Data in order to mane a financial gain is widespread within Insurers and their operatives...no letters can be written for and on your behalf in a matter without you being sent a copy....all part of ICOBS Regulations.

Would suggest you contact FSA and write a letetr of complaint to MoJ, Claims Management Regulator....remeber Drive Assist ARE preferred by insurers.....no doubt you can guess what side of the fence they seem to appear to fall regarding Consumer's Rights and Insurers Gains?

£230.00 is a fabricated price and part of the wrong advices given to consumers in order to mislead for profit gains.....Wheel cover damage is all part of normal wear and tear....not damage....if I am wrong...look at any car with more than 10,000 miles on the clock and tell me it remains in showroom condition???....

Try writing to local trading standards...avoid consumer direct they are call centre kids without any clout....more clots...allege extortion and fabricated costs along with misuse of data...make formal complaint to DA's Data Controller regarding the misuse of the data they have of yours...ie your sig being used all over?

R

I think its really about time someone contacted Watchdog TV programme about all this.

hi shelly you are 100% right.i worked for drive assist.its the worst comp i have every worked for.thay do tell lies.and rip you off.the hand held comp were allways going down.the jobs came though and you had 10mins to get to the house most of the time it was 10miles in to london which took sometimes 1hr.when i worked for them i was at the house for 30mins to 1hr i allways made the people look round the car in and out 2 times.any problems i was happy to help.not all the drivers are like that.you should read the contracts before signing it.the 4.99 perday ins you can have only covers the out side of the car. thay dont tell you that.i had to pick up a car from a lady who had 3 kids the in side was very ditry.it had cholate on the sits.she got a bill for £200.she didnt sign the comp when i picked it up.because i told her not to.thay looked in to it and because she didnt sign she never had to pay.be carefull.and allways ask.if your not happy when thay pick it up please dont sign.and look first what you are signing for.that may say their is no damage you sign with out looking you will get a bill good luck all