Armitages of Ferrybridge, A Frame and Smart Car Fire.

[locksmith]

Well here I am again to update the few people who have emailed me for an update of my Claim. http://www.motorhomefun.co.uk/motorhome-chat/34983-smart-car-catches-fire.html

I'm not sure what has happened today to prompt my insurers to call this morning but Armitages are still not answering my insurers questions and my insurers said " I'm sorry but we can't get anything from them and we are going to close the claim" I have replied, in that case I will go to the ombudsman. This afternoon I have had two calls to say they are getting in contact with my witnesses, Fire brigade, Highways Agency, Police and the lorry driver who pulled me over. At last

[locksmith]

oops!

[jhorsf]

I hope you get proper compensation for the disgraceful treatment by Armitage and I hope they get all they deserve also

[spospe]

Locksmith

 

Thanks for the update, please keep us posted.

 

Happy New Year (may it be better for you than 2011).

[Brian Kirby]

locksmith - 2012-01-06 6:28 PM

 

Well here I am again to update the few people who have emailed me for an update of my Claim. http://www.motorhomefun.co.uk/motorhome-chat/34983-smart-car-catches-fire.html

I'm not sure what has happened today to prompt my insurers to call this morning but Armitages are still not answering my insurers questions and my insurers said " I'm sorry but we can't get anything from them and we are going to close the claim" I have replied, in that case I will go to the ombudsman. This afternoon I have had two calls to say they are getting in contact with my witnesses, Fire brigade, Highways Agency, Police and the lorry driver who pulled me over. At last

I've lost the thread on this somewhat, but have your insurers paid out to you yet? If they haven't, they should, and whether or not they get answers from the A frame supplier should have no bearing at all on that.

 

The only question, surely, is whether they can recover their costs from the A frame supplier, or their insurer. If they can, your NCD should be maintained, if not you will lose whatever proportion your insurance contract says.

 

I assume it must be the A frame supplier's insurers they are talking to, not the supplier direct? These matters are usually dealt with between insurers.

 

If the only problem is that the supplier denies liability and has refused to claim against his insurance, possibly by merely notifying them of a claim arising through a client's insurer, but stating they absolutely deny liability, the question of liability can only be determined through the courts. Then, if your insurer is not sufficiently satisfied that the supplier is liable, so is not prepared to pursue them legally on your behalf (unlikely), you would have to sue privately to establish their liability. That would force them to pay you your losses, or more probably to notify their insurer they accept liability, enabling them to pay your insurer.

 

The question then, presumably, would be the value of your actual losses, which would presumably amount to the value of the loss of NCD over the period until it is reinstated back to (presumably) maximum. Unless the insurance was on very unfavourable terms, that would surely be only a matter of a few hundred pounds, for which sum I doubt it is worth suing, because it is always possible you could be held part liable.

 

It seems, from a distance, that your insurer should accept liability under your insurances, and pay out, and after that it might be better to just move on and put the whole issue behind you?

[WhiteCheyenneMan]

Am I correct in thinking that an earlier thread of yours on another Forum was deleted, possibly because Armitages advertise on it?  Should we be naming names?

With the benefit of perfect hindsight, this is an argument for having legal cover on insurance............... or do you have that?

Anyway, good luck. I hope you get satisfaction and the money and maybe at least one set of their */$$ocks!

[locksmith]

WhiteCheyenneMan - 2012-01-06 7:47 PM

Am I correct in thinking that an earlier thread of yours on another Forum was deleted, possibly because Armitages advertise on it?  Should we be naming names?

With the benefit of perfect hindsight, this is an argument for having legal cover on insurance............... or do you have that?

Anyway, good luck. I hope you get satisfaction and the money and maybe at least one set of their */$$ocks!

several threads were deleted from this forum.I agree, I paid extra on my insurance for legal assistance, I said to my insurers you have not assisted me and I will go to the ombudsman if you don't pursue my case, suddenly things are starting to happen. I will go to court! Armitages have admitted liability in front of others and they could see and pointed out their fault and I only know what the fault was because they told me, they also said they would loan me a courtesy car and pay for my losses, when I called them a couple of days later their tune was different, I couldn't speak to the manager who hid behind his receptionist and her answer was deal with our insurers. They are an absolute disgrace.

[Brian Kirby]

locksmith - 2012-01-06 11:47 PM

WhiteCheyenneMan - 2012-01-06 7:47 PM

Am I correct in thinking that an earlier thread of yours on another Forum was deleted, possibly because Armitages advertise on it?  Should we be naming names?

With the benefit of perfect hindsight, this is an argument for having legal cover on insurance............... or do you have that?

Anyway, good luck. I hope you get satisfaction and the money and maybe at least one set of their */$$ocks!

several threads were deleted from this forum.I agree, I paid extra on my insurance for legal assistance, I said to my insurers you have not assisted me and I will go to the ombudsman if you don't pursue my case, suddenly things are starting to happen. I will go to court! Armitages have admitted liability in front of others and they could see and pointed out their fault and I only know what the fault was because they told me, they also said they would loan me a courtesy car and pay for my losses, when I called them a couple of days later their tune was different, I couldn't speak to the manager who hid behind his receptionist and her answer was deal with our insurers. They are an absolute disgrace.

Don't understand. Has your insurer yet paid you the value of your Smart? If so, your remaining losses are presumably not that great. If not, why haven't they paid? Your car was burned out, so total loss. Fire is basic, so surely must have been covered?

[locksmith]

Brian Kirby - 2012-01-07 12:14 AM

locksmith - 2012-01-06 11:47 PM

WhiteCheyenneMan - 2012-01-06 7:47 PM

Am I correct in thinking that an earlier thread of yours on another Forum was deleted, possibly because Armitages advertise on it?  Should we be naming names?

With the benefit of perfect hindsight, this is an argument for having legal cover on insurance............... or do you have that?

Anyway, good luck. I hope you get satisfaction and the money and maybe at least one set of their */$$ocks!

several threads were deleted from this forum.I agree, I paid extra on my insurance for legal assistance, I said to my insurers you have not assisted me and I will go to the ombudsman if you don't pursue my case, suddenly things are starting to happen. I will go to court! Armitages have admitted liability in front of others and they could see and pointed out their fault and I only know what the fault was because they told me, they also said they would loan me a courtesy car and pay for my losses, when I called them a couple of days later their tune was different, I couldn't speak to the manager who hid behind his receptionist and her answer was deal with our insurers. They are an absolute disgrace.

Don't understand. Has your insurer yet paid you the value of your Smart? If so, your remaining losses are presumably not that great. If not, why haven't they paid? Your car was burned out, so total loss. Fire is basic, so surely must have been covered?

Hello Brian, yes they paid out on the car almost instantly but I have made a claim also for my losses. ie the work Armitages did etc. I'm also paying very high premiums on my other vehicles now as a result of this.

[Brian Kirby]

locksmith - 2012-01-07 6:52 AM.............................Hello Brian, yes they paid out on the car almost instantly but I have made a claim also for my losses. ie the work Armitages did etc. I'm also paying very high premiums on my other vehicles now as a result of this.

Ah! So does your car policy include uninsured loss recovery? I gather from what you have said to date that it includes legal assistance.

 

Assuming your insurer was advised of the fitting of the A frame, and of its value, surely that cost should also have been paid by them as part of the settlement on the car?

 

That would seem to leave mainly the additional premium costs, plus presumably fitting a towbar and electrics. Presumably, the increased premiums are due to loss of NCD, mainly because your insurer has not recovered his costs? However, I think it might be wise to enquire whether there is an additional premium loading being applied.

 

If there is, I think you should definitely challenge that with the insurer. These loadings are usually applied on the basis that your "profile" has altered: their perception of how safe a driver you are, for example following an RTA where some blame attaches to you as a driver. Since your claim was of such a unique nature, applying such a loading would be completely unreasonable, IMO. After all, how many Smart cars are you likely to have catch fire while towing them?

 

The lost NCD should be reinstated if your insurer recovers their costs. It would be wise to enquire if there is a time limit for this, as progress is in their hands, and they don't seem to have been pushing very hard. It is not unknown for insurers to let the time limit pass, and then say "too late" when the delays have been due to their lethargy. The legal side should be keeping you informed of progress. You may not be paying their fees directly, but you have paid for their service via your premium, so you, and not the insurer, are IMO their client. I do just wonder if they think they are awaiting some direction or instruction from you, albeit they seem not to have said so?

 

The whole issue hangs on liability: on whose fault was the loss. You say it was the supplier's fault, he seems simply to be denying liability, but not to have made a counter allegation that it was your fault. It seems to me that boil needs lancing, and the only way to do that is to sue for your calculable losses, since you are the one who is out of pocket. If that succeeds it will establish liability as having been the supplier's, and the insurer will then also be able to recover. I'm no legal expert, but I would imagine that case would need to be brought by both of you jointly in some way.

 

Faced with court action, the supplier's insurer (presumably) will then either admit liability, or present some defence - I would imagine along the lines that you tampered with the installation between leaving the supplier's premises and the fire. The problem then is how to prove you did not. They would, presumably, seek to discount any admission of liability by the supplier, on the ground that he had not then appreciated the full circumstances, and had not considered the possibility that you might have interfered.

 

The problem with a court case becomes one not of right or wrong, of who was at fault, but simply of liabilities and risks. That is where your lawyers should be advising you. There is a total liability to be calculated. That is to say how much might it cost the supplier's insurer if he totally loses the case (fairly unusual, but not impossible) and has all costs, including interest, awarded against him. Your insurer will somewhere, presumably, already have made that calculation. Each will then look at how good they think their respective cases are, and so what the most likely outcome might be. If they think the likely settlement would be 60% against the supplier, 40% against you, with costs awarded in your favour, they will simply consider whether that liability is higher than simply admitting liability and paying out. Sorry if I seem to be trying to teach granny to suck eggs, but what I am saying is that such cases tend to turn merely on who thinks they can escape with the least financial damage. This is where I think your lawyers should be giving guidance.

 

Perceptions of fairness or justice simply don't enter into the equation. It is just about money, whose money, and how much they might have to pay. I have seen this process at work, involving one of the most prestigious firms of London solicitors against the Crown, up to the level of briefing barristers. The defence was a complete fabrication, but was sufficiently factually based as to be plausible, and therefore good enough to make a 100% award to the Crown unlikely. The barrister's (in fact, a QC) advice was that 60/40 was about where most such cases get settled, so it was decided that it was cheaper to pay the claim than to risk the much higher costs of the court case plus 60% of the claim. A real eye opener for me, and not at all pretty!

 

I'm not trying to put you off, quite the opposite in fact, but just to point out just how calculatingly cynical the damages process can be, in the hope it gives some idea of where this may go. I would just add that you will need to take control of this, and drive it forward, making phone calls, and more importantly writing letters, to set timescales and to check and discipline progress. If you don't, I fear that no-one else will, and the whole issue will just be left to grow hair until all relevant time limits have passed. Whatever you decide to do, I wish you luck with your claim.

[Robinhood]

Brian Kirby - 2012-01-07 12:50 PM

 

Perceptions of fairness or justice simply don't enter into the equation. It is just about money, whose money, and how much they might have to pay. I have seen this process at work, involving one of the most prestigious firms of London solicitors against the Crown, up to the level of briefing barristers. The defence was a complete fabrication, but was sufficiently factually based as to be plausible, and therefore good enough to make a 100% award to the Crown unlikely. The barrister's (in fact, a QC) advice was that 60/40 was about where most such cases get settled, so it was decided that it was cheaper to pay the claim than to risk the much higher costs of the court case plus 60% of the claim.

 

...indeed, and I have been (ultimately not to my detriment) on the receiving end of this.

 

Many years ago, I had a "tangle" with a motorcyclist in a queue of traffic as I changed lanes (the first I saw of him was as he and his motorcycle came past me, but separately :-S ).

 

I had both checked the lane I was moving into, and signalled, before pulling out well in front of the car I could see coming in my destination lane to the left. As I was accelerating away, I was hit on the nearside rear quarter by something (subsequently determined to be said motorcyclist).

 

The police were called (and I was breathalysed, at 09:00 - clear of course). The attending PC said that as I was the one changing lanes I might be held responsible, BUT, he would advise a review of the motorcyclists speed!

 

Anyway, next I heard was that the motorcyclist was taking action for injuries (only slight, thank goodness) and loss of earnings for being subsequently off work (he delighted in telling me so in threatening phone calls).

 

My insurance was initially going to settle, but as I was adamant I had checked carefully before the manouevre, I wasn't happy about that. I couldn't get them to budge, until they found out that the motorcyclist was in fact uninsured (it didn't surprise me, a youngish lad riding a 650cc bike). An interesting approach, since, of course, being uninsured had little bearing on actual liability.

 

Anyway, it appeared that he had managed to get legal aid for the action via a solicitor, on the flimsy basis of a single deposition from a driver allegedly three cars behind that I had pulled out without signalling. As I knew I had signalled, that got me going.

 

Via effective reconstructions, we "proved" that someone in a static queue three cars behind me would have found it impossible to see me signal (since in fact, I was turning into a lane on my LEFT, the opposite side from a normal RHD driver). In addition, we also finally managed to get a (initially reluctant) deposition from the driver in the left lane that I had deemed it safe to pull out in front of, that in fact the motorcyclist had overtaken him between the two lines of traffic, at somewhere around 60mph - in a 30 limit, just after I had started my manouevre.

 

Game, set and match, thought I (it entirely fitted my genuine view of events).

 

So, I was duly sent off to see a barrister, we briefed each other ;-) , and that is when the actualities of the legal system struck home.

 

The barrister's view was that we had a watertight case, and there was no chance of losing IF it went to court. However, as the other party had succeeded, on rather flimsy grounds, in obtaining legal aid, there was no chance of recovering costs against the other party( the then ruling applying to legal-aided cases), and the claim was relatively low. Hence, it would be unlikely to go to court, and the insurance would probably settle out of court on a purely financial basis.

 

This is in fact what happened, but at least by holding my ground my insurance record was left "clean".

 

In (civil) legal cases, money definitely talks louder than "justice" (whatever that is). :-S

[WhiteCheyenneMan]

The only experience that I've had with legal cover is when my wife was hit amidships by a car pulling out of a drive on her left. The culprit admitted liability at the scene, but then denied it to his insurers, saying that my wife had swerved into the layby from which his drive emerged. We were contacted by our insurers solicitors, we agreed that we would fight it and, from then on there was no stopping them. A court hearing was set and when my wife got cold feet and wanted to avoid giving evidence in a court, the solicitors got quite agressive, saying that we would have to meet their costs to date. But, to be fair, they also stressed that such cases rarely get to court, tending to settle at the very last minute. On the day of the court hearing, the culprit admitted liability through his insurers and the case was settled.

So you do have to be sure that you will go through with any action but, in my limited experience, it can work out well.

Having said that, our premiums did rise (it seems to vary from underwriter to underwriter) because my wife was deemed to be 'more likely to have an accident! They were right, some six months later a woman drove straight out of a fish and chip shop car park, recreating the previous crash!

Which Insurers are you with locksmith?

[Rosbotham]

Brian Kirby - 2012-01-07 12:50 PM

 

If there is, I think you should definitely challenge that with the insurer. These loadings are usually applied on the basis that your "profile" has altered: their perception of how safe a driver you are, for example following an RTA where some blame attaches to you as a driver. Since your claim was of such a unique nature, applying such a loading would be completely unreasonable, IMO. After all, how many Smart cars are you likely to have catch fire while towing them?

 

The lost NCD should be reinstated if your insurer recovers their costs. .

 

Couple of points you're missing here Brian.

 

Firstly, on loading the policy, it's not solely about what Locksmith's Smart insurer thinks, but also what all his other insurers think and anyone that he may consider getting cover from in the next 3-5 years (depending upon insurer). If his insurers don't pursue the claim with the A-frame supplier and settle themselves, then it will go down as an "at fault" claim because the costs weren't recovered from a 3rd party. This means it will need to be declared when seeking all future quotes and insurers can't really deal with narrative descriptions, it'll need to come from one of the standard "at fault" reasons (probably "fire"). That will bump up the base premium on all of Locksmiths policies (i.e. the Smart, the motorhome, his car, any car on which he's named). I speak from bitter experience on this after being hit by something that fell off the back of a lorry : this will run to £thousands

 

Secondly, if it does go down as an "at fault" claim, that will impact the NCD on the Smart, unless protected. Locksmith's insurer *may* be able to make that go away on a goodwill basis, I don't think they can make the "at fault" aspect do so.

[Brian Kirby]

Thank you for that. I was unaware that a fire would result in an "at fault" designation. I think if I were the OP I'd still be inclined to query that with his insurer, because aspects of his insurer's performance seem a bit less than I would have hoped for.