Motor Insurance Battle - Avoid AA Insurance

[W124]

Folks

Part vent, part question - any informed responses would be appreciated.

On 29th December 2022, my wife was driving my eldest sons car (2007 Mini Cooper D) on which both she and i are named drivers.
She was approx 1/2 mile from home, having ventured out to collect son plus two friends from a local restaurant.

At the bottom of our lane is a single track bridge over the Leeds/Liverpool canal, with priority in my wife's direction (North) and clear Give Way sign plus road markings in the Southerly direction.

My wife approached the apex of the bridge at appx 20mph when a car came at speed in the other direction without slowing or observing the give way signs.

My wife tried to brake as quickly as possible, but the two vehicles collided head-on at maybe 25-30mph.

My wife, two sons and their friend were shaken and bruised, and the front of the Mini was extensively damaged.
The other driver was shaken, but uninjured - neither vehicle had airbags deployed.

The other driver apologised profusely, admitting she had been talking on the 'phone at the time (Handsfree, we presume).

I was able to bend the bodywork back from the wheel arch, the drivers exchanged details and I was able to crawl the Mini on the half mile to home.

The Mini is insured with AA, and that's where the trouble began.

After several lengthy 'phone waits, we were finally able to request a courtesy car, and get a claim case reference.

As requested, we uploaded the dashcam footage from the Mini, which shows clearly the other driver proceeding over the blind bridge at speed, not having slowed at the give way.

After two weeks of chasing, the AA informed us that they couldn't find an engineer to inspect the Mini, and could we 'find a local guy to take a look !'
We had to spend several hours phoning round to find a local garage who would give us a written statement about the frontal damage, and then had to drive a damaged vehicle there and back.


AA went quiet for another month, and in late February we received an email stating that they had reviewed the dashcam footage, and agreed to settle 50/50 with the other party. They have simply ignored the fact that the other party was on the 'phone.

This left us incredulous, and very angry - AA also informed us that they would not support any injury claims, and we would have to take the other party to the small-claims court.

The issue here is that my son has carefully built up 5 years protected NCD, and he now has a claim on his record which will inevitably hike his premium at renewal.

AA have just paid out on the scrap value of the car, and have sent an email asking if we would care to rate their service - really ?
We have written to AA to request a formal case review, but don't hold out much hope of a fair outcome.


Now that the red-mist has settled, I need to understand our options to ideally force AA to reconsider, and then go to court to reclaim the costs of my son's increased premium, plus the soft tissue injuries that my wife plus three passengers suffered.

I can share the dash-can plus detailed images if appropriate.


Any experiences or practical advice would be greatly appreciated - thanks in advance.

[SydR]

Only thing I can share is my last experience with AA insurance.

I was driving home from a nightshift, many years ago, and reached a giveway where I stopped. A car coming over a rise to my right, at speed, lot control and the back end swung out and collided with my stationary car.

I had a colleague in my car who was willing to act as a witness for me as well as a driver who had been behind the speeding vehicle and a pedestrian on the opposite footpath.

I submitted my claim for damage to my car and waited. A little later I was contacted by the AA as the other driver was blaming me. They shared details of the alleged damage to their car in the incident. My passenger had seen the car two weeks after the crash and informed me that there was additional damage to the vehicle that had not been there following the crash. I reported this to the AA and ensured they had details of all the witnesses.

Two weeks later they contacted me again to say they has settled in full with the third party having found me 100% at fault! At no time did they make contact with any witnesses or give me an explanation for their findings.

They have not gotten a penny from me since.

Avoid at all costs.

[adrianw]

If you feel they are wrong sue them

[tixntox]

The AA are merely "brokers" for insurance companies, who are fronted by the AA. They will always settle "knock for knock" when possible as it is the cheapest option (for them)!

[ODP]

I had an irritating experience with AVIVA. I was parked in the works car park (NHS) when a Porter came to my department to find out who owned the car he’d just run a heavy equipment cage into.
My bumper was caved in in one corner but no major damage.
NHS Property Services admitted full liability and I passed on all the details to AVIVA who said it was a no fault claim and I would not be disadvantaged in any way.
Six months later I had forgotten all about until I got a letter from AVIVA staying that after an extensive investigation they had been unable to ascertain who had damaged my vehicle and therefore I was liable and my insurance had paid up.
I contacted NHS Property Services who replied that they had written to AVIVA twice asking how they could make payment but were ignored.
I was not amused that I had to sort it out and I insisted on a letter being sent to me stating that I was not at fault and would not be penalised in any way.
I honestly don’t know how they can run a business so incompetently.
It sounds like AA is much the same.

[Christian]

I never knew companies like this would be so quick to settle knock-for-knock or accept liability when they shouldn’t. Would the main insurance companies…Admiral, Churchill etc be the same?

[Onelasttime]

The car insurance business in this country is a total scandal and not fit for purpose.

I got hit from behind in July last year, the 3rd party accepted full responsibility, the no-fault claim was only just settled last Friday.

I made an official complaint and suggested the least they could do was refund me the premium.

They got back in touch with an offer of full refund and the same again in compensation. I've received the compensation payment but not the refund so I've had to chase them again.

We're legally obliged to pay hundreds of pounds to these companies every year for a service that they can't actually offer. Isn't that fraud?

Here's an idea, if they can't provide the service why aren't they forced to lower the prices?

EDIT: I forgot to wish the OP luck. AA sound even worse than 1st Central.

[Chris_in_the_UK]

Part of the issue (probably in this case) is the seller of the insurance is not the actual insurer - they sell stuff 'underwritten by' a number of companies and will push you to the one they feel is the mot appropriate for the circumstances.

Makes the actual mechanics of sorting stuff out often difficult.

[ralphy]

Part of the issue (probably in this case) is the seller of the insurance is not the actual insurer - they sell stuff 'underwritten by' a number of companies and will push you to the one they feel is the mot appropriate for the circumstances.

This.

The AA Insurance Services run a panel of insurers including LV, Allianz, CIS, Zenith, Zurich amongst other underwriters.

R

[Rob s]

All insurance companies are the same.
My wifes car was hit recently. She was stationary and another car going too fast skidded on ice and hit her. They then bounced off and into a tree.
Insurance company aren't interested and have said they will settle 50/50.
Damage was so minor to our car it's not worth fixing. Their car was new, expensive they needed a hire car so God knows what the total claim cost will be

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Christian]

I drive with front and rear dashcams but after reading this I’m starting to wonder if they are actually useful in the event of proving liability or whether even when presented with proof, insurance companies will settle knock-for-knock rather than fight any dispute.

[Kingstepper]

Presumably any driver can personally claim against another w/o involving insurer though no doubt cost would probably be prohibitive.

[JonRA]

My car was stationary at a junction when hit from behind. The driver admitted she was at fault (though normally that's the case in such shunts). LV sorted as no fault for me without any hassles. So knock for knock is not a given (or at least wasn't in 2016)

[aa388]

The insurance companies take the easy option from the start as it’s like an old boys club, if you kick off and stand your ground and not accept a 50/50 liability they could well change there mind.


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[Chris_in_the_UK]

In general, people want to pay the least amount of money for insurance (often by broker/third party routes) yet somehow expect maximum service?

[hilly10]

One reason I always have a dashcam 80% of the insurance companies just want to settle knock for knock. If you have footage showing you are right take it all the way.

[reggie747]

In general, people want to pay the least amount of money for insurance (often by broker/third party routes) yet somehow expect maximum service?

In this case, motor insurance, how about people want to pay what's market fair and agreeable and expect a fair and reasonable service if/when they have to call upon it ?

Do you personally look away from better priced quotes in search of something higher (WTF ?) or do you look at what's offered in the policy and perhaps do a little background digging on the underwriter and reviews of the company ?

I think your "general" shout ain't necessarily correct.

Everybody everywhere has a not so great tale about motor insurance and it surely can't be because they've ALL chosen the one that cost the least amount of money....

[Chris_in_the_UK]

In this case, motor insurance, how about people want to pay what's market fair and agreeable and expect a fair and reasonable service if/when they have to call upon it ?

Do you personally look away from better priced quotes in search of something higher (WTF ?) or do you look at what's offered in the policy and perhaps do a little background digging on the underwriter and reviews of the company ?

I think your "general" shout ain't necessarily correct.

Everybody everywhere has a not so great tale about motor insurance and it surely can't be because they've ALL chosen the one that cost the least amount of money....

I look at reviews, prefer low/zero excess and, like others, make a personal choice. It's pointless exercise saving £100 if it ends up being a nightmare should you have to claim. For sure the time that this becomes obvious is when the claims process is triggered.

Market fair? Good luck defining that one.

[stiglet]

I posted earlier, but took it down because it was too long.

Suffice to say that my first experience of a significant insurance claim is illuminating

As I am obliged to do, I advised my own insurers of the circumstances of the accident but stressed that I was not making a claim, would handle the whole thing myself and wanted no input from them whatsoever which they acknowledged,

Very shortly thereafter, and before I intimated a formal claim against the party at fault, I received persistent unsolicited calls (several) on my private mobile from a vehicle repairer and a claims handling company. I can only assume that the insurers "sold" my details.

Some may conclude that whole industry is corrupt and flounces the GDPR at every turn - but I couldn't possibly comment.

[reggie747]

I look at reviews, prefer low/zero excess and, like others, make a personal choice. It's pointless exercise saving £100 if it ends up being a nightmare should you have to claim. For sure the time that this becomes obvious is when the claims process is triggered.

Market fair? Good luck defining that one.

But Chris, further up, you just said that "in general, people want to pay the least amount of money" so are you "others" or are you "general" or was your comment and conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning ?

[Chris_in_the_UK]

But Chris, further up, you just said that "in general, people want to pay the least amount of money" so are you "others" or are you "general" or was your comment and conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning ?

Evidence on here (over the years) suggests people generally want the best deal they can - what the definition of 'best' is depends on your assessment/priorities. For some, best = cheapest, others may differ.

I vowed to never use the comparison site best prices and always deal direct due to a previous naff experience (including unsolicited calls from 'accident management companies').

[reggie747]

Evidence on here (over the years) suggests people generally want the best deal they can - what the definition of 'best' is depends on your assessment/priorities. For some, best = cheapest, others may differ.

I vowed to never use the comparison site best prices and always deal direct due to a previous naff experience (including unsolicited calls from 'accident management companies').

So basically, you were just generalising with your comment then ?
I'm not sure this forum represents the global market for car insurance, but Hey.....we're all entitled to an opinion I guess (even if it's not necessarily so across the board).

[Chris_in_the_UK]

https://www.gfk.com/blog/2014/08/how...research-phase

https://www.gfk.com/blog/2014/08/how...e-of-the-brand

https://www.gfk.com/blog/2014/08/how...renewers-loyal

[Christian]

I doubt any of the insurance companies, big brand or not, employ different tactics when it comes to claims. From reading this thread, I suspect you are OK if the third party puts their hands up and says it was their fault but it seems that anyone faced with a third party that doesn’t admit liability might have their insurer settle knock-for-knock even if evidence might suggest otherwise. I guess it stands to reason, they are acting in their best interests economically by not fighting a claim….no legal costs, much reduced admin costs…just pay out and recoup that amount by hiking your customers future premiums.

I suspect thinking you might get a better outcome by paying a big brand might be a false sense of security.

[reggie747]

https://www.gfk.com/blog/2014/08/how...research-phase

https://www.gfk.com/blog/2014/08/how...e-of-the-brand

https://www.gfk.com/blog/2014/08/how...renewers-loyal

You been up all night looking for that Chris ??

Well done....

Evidence on here (over the years)

And you moved the goalposts too

[Chris_in_the_UK]

You been up all night looking for that Chris ??

Well done....

Go and pick a fight with somebody else.

[reggie747]

Go and pick a fight with somebody else.

Not at all looking to start a fight with anyone Chris.
I was just picking up on YOUR opinion which you rounded out with SOMEONE ELSE'S and also moved the target in the meantime.
Try and stay on track man !!!

[Brian]

Insurance companies.............sigh

I have been to the ombudsman on two occasions on behalf of my son - and won.

One for car value - got another 800£ on the value of the write off and once where he was at fault...ish but it was so low speed that the other persons car wasn't damaged - they found in our favour :-)

Wear them down. Recorded delivery Letters only after one or two emails max. No phone calls.

Copy warning emails to the CEO and CC a claim file (yours) - They depersonalise you as a corporate technique along with their customer service call centres where you never get to speak to the same person twice and their use case analysis is often lamentable so you must adopt the same tactics but stress that you are a lone lay person fighting for your rights against a large impersonal corporate body that fails to grasp your predicament.
'your company' etc etc. Start out from this perspective and you get yourself on an equal footing

Good luck !

B

[Onelasttime]

In general, people want to pay the least amount of money for insurance (often by broker/third party routes) yet somehow expect maximum service?

Or just any service?

Only the car insurance industry could happily get away with keeping customers waiting for 8 months to resolve a really basic claim (not forgetting that claims is actually what they're supposed to frigging do). Then charge the customer more every year for the next 8 years for having the cheek to use the service they were paying stupid prices for in the first place.

The whole set up is a scam and the customer has no choice but to bend over and take it. The insane car hire charges, the insane repair quotes, the insane 'computer says no' model. All of it needs cracking down on.