40.Cheating by car insurers

A month after our collision we were informed, that the other side have admitted liability for the accident. The justice of my case was obvious, and although we were quite shaken, we did obtain the particulars of the other driver and of two independent witnesses. Taking this step had been absolutely essential. But we did not record the details of the police who had attended - and they did not point out the need to do so for filling the subsequent claim form. That was very unkind of them: we had no experience of such an accident situation in almost 50 years of driving. Luckily, Ilford Police were later able to supply the details from their computer record.
Combined with my detailed description and sketch of the event, this favourable result, of the other side's admission of liability, was to be expected. So we have no excess to pay the insurers, and our no-claim bonus is unaffected. That leaves the question of the value of our damaged car - and the dishonesty of our insurers.

We were informed, that the value of our 11 year old car was less than the cost of its repairs as estimated by the engineer from the repair garage. Therefore the car was a 'total loss'. I asked, whether the repairs could be done more cheaply with non-Toyota parts, thus avoiding this total loss situation. Our insurers replied that by the terms of my policy they were not allowed to do this. Later I discovered from my policy, that this was a lie: If a car is more than 3 years old, they can decide to repair it with parts which have not been made by Toyota.

So why lie? Our friend the car engineer later explained to us the reason for this insurers' scam: They will remove my car 'to scrap', but actually repair the car much more cheaply, using non-Toyota parts, re-register it, and sell it to an unsuspecting new customer, while I lose out and have to buy a new car.

Next we discovered that my insurer's 'Total Loss Handler' was trying to cheat us. He wrote that my car 'has been valued' at £900. But I had been warned by half a dozen friends not to accept the first valuation. So I sent him particulars of 5 cars, similar to mine in make, model, age and mileage. All were priced higher by £300 or more. The 'Total Loss Handler' replied that I might have falsified the data that I had submitted: he required copies of actual advertisements. He claimed that the pre-accident value of my car 'had been professionally calculated'. So I in turn requested proof of his 'professional calculations'. I had not lied - but he probably had.

Three weeks later he had not replied with proof of his valuation. I sent him the required copies of five actual advertisements, again at least £300 dearer than his valuation of my car. I suspect that the insurance's 'Total Loss Handler' actually benefits from cheating me. Either he pockets part of the underpaid compensation, or it helps his promotion and bonuses from the company.

I only hope that I shall have no future use of the experience that I have gained in dealing with these crooks after my accident.