Reply With QuoteDon’t accept their answer
Push them and tell them you will only accept a new car
If they don’t give it to you take it to the Ombudsman
Their excuse is nonsense and nothing other than a tactic to hope you accept
I was involved in an accident recently and the third party's insurance company has accepted full liability. As my car was under 12 months old, my insurers initially said they would work on a New Car Replacement. However, they have phoned me today to say that since my car is a Polestar, which is available to order online only (rather than being able to be purchased at a showroom), they would not be able to offer me a New Car Replacement and instead, will pay out the current market value of my car. The car was on finance, and there is a 8-9k gap between what they've offered, and what I owe the finance company, so I'm on negative equity. I stupidly didn't take out gap insurance at the time of purchase.
1) I don't really understand why the fact that you can only order a Polestar online, would prevent the insurance company from doing a new car replacement. Does anyone know the reason?
2) I'm guessing that the shortfall is a loss that I just have to swallow myself.
So I've been left with no car, an 8-9k debt, and personal injuries. Hardly seems fair, especially when the third party has accepted 100% liability.
Any advice would be very welcome.
Don’t accept their answer
Push them and tell them you will only accept a new car
If they don’t give it to you take it to the Ombudsman
Their excuse is nonsense and nothing other than a tactic to hope you accept
They're taking the proverbial.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Hold out for a new car is my advice.
I'd be asking them to identify just whereabout in their supplied T&C’s you would have been able to see such a clause?
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Agree with the above. The only reason is because they can’t use their own service and buying power to realise a hefty discount on the new car. However, your policy is for new car replacement. Check your small print to see if this is only linked if they can supply the car via their own suppliers. Otherwise they haven’t got a leg to stand on and should fight third party insurance company to cover the fully cost.
I was in a similar situation before Christmas but with an old car which I had only owned for 6 months. I thought I would receive a much lower trade value but fair play to the insurer they paid out the full retail which covered my full purchase price of the car.
Sounds like nonsense from your insurer there, especially as the other parties insurer will be paying if they’ve said their client is fully liable?
They should be paying you the cost of ordering a new Polestar, and that’s that. More and more cars are direct order only, I’m guessing this is one of those ‘vertical integration’ insurance things where they’d be able to order you a replacement car themselves and trouser the discount.
With a new car from Polestar, the negative equity thing is then moot, as the new car title can be assigned to the finance company instead of your written off one.
your first stop should be the T&Cs on your policy, them that nobody reads !there will be a section on new car replacement , see what it says?
2nd do your own research on the pre accident value of your car, seek autotrader, car wow etc for a like for like car, not one newer or one with lower mileage but as close as you can to your own to support any increase in p.a.v.
yes you may have to swallow any short fall from your own insurer, insurance is a waste of money till you need it !
however two points 1. argue, any insurance is supposed to reinstate you as if the loss had not occurred, and 2. have you approached the t/p insurer who may deal more favourably with your claim than your own insurer( but wont replace your car)
Thank you all for your kind advice. I have checked my policy and it says "if a car is not available, we will pay the market price". There is nothing else in the policy that excludes cars that are ordered online, so I'm challenging this. Interestingly as well, I had a look at a Ombudsmen case study, and the definition of "unavailable" is mainly applicable to cars that are out of production, hence an insurance company cannot reasonably be expected to source a new one. My car is a current model, so I'm going to fight for a New Replacement Car.
It sounds like you are well prepared for the fight with precedent on your side compared to their rather shaky and arguably self-serving definition of availability. Good luck :)Originally Posted by amii21
Surely you can take money and buy a new Polestar online.
The insurance cover should put you back into the same situation you were in before the accident.
i.e. with a new car (or repaired car) on 9k of finance.
But I agree, the insurance company should be the ones spending time to source the replacement car, arrange delivery, make payment.
Edit: if the finance contract ends at termination of the car ownership your 9k loss makes more sense.
The insurance company would need to source the new car and transfer your status back to where you were before the incident.
Last edited by Reeny; 13th January 2024 at 09:23.
I think the issue here is that the “New for Old” is an extra on your policy; it’s not a cost that they can pass on to the third party insurer.
You could possibly insist on a new vehicle as a replacement but your insurer would not be able to recover that in full. That would then go down as a claim on your insurance and a loss of no claims.
I think your best option would be to talk directly to the third party insurer (or via a claims management company) to see if you can get them to settle the finance and then look at starting again.
Unfortunately, the current situation doesn’t help; the car is worth £9k less than the outstanding finance and someone has to cover it. Both insurance companies can rightly say that it’s your responsibility as you are the one who has had beneficial use of the vehicle during this time.
I hope I’m wrong though and you can minimise your losses.
You've assessed this correctly I think.
Also bear in mind that Insurance policies have to be worded so that the lay person (insured) can understand the policy and if there is any ambiguity - the ombudsman will side with the insured on the basis that the underwriter has a duty to make it non-ambiguous.
You didn’t own a new car. Why can’t you buy used with cash offered and you’ll be no worse off?
Because the car under 12 months old is supposed to be replaced by a new one as per his insurance policy?
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Do we know this?
The OPs insurance policy, not the third party’s. The claim will ultimately be settled by the third party insurer and, to put the op back into the position he was in before the accident, they only need to give him a car worth £9k less than he owes as that was the position he was in pre accident.
How old was the car at the time of the accident and how many miles did it have on it. As others have said, if you get a new car now, you’re in a better position than you were at the time of the incident.
Also, given that the car is on finance, don’t the insurers pay off the finance with whatever the finally settlement figure is rather than supply a new car?
If they supplied a new car, the finance company wouldn’t have any lien over it as it’s not the same car they financed at the beginning of the finance agreement.
Dave, are you saying the OP would get a new car (as per his policy) if he was responsible for the accident, but because it's the other party's insurer he won't? I don't think it works like that. The OP's insurance will invoice the other party whatever it is the contract they have with the OP says he should have (and that could also include an equivalent complimentary car during the time it takes to get the car fixed/exchanged). If he ends up better off the other insurance may spit feathers but if it's what the contract the OP purchased says he should have, he can have it.
Think of all the home insurances that replace a broken appliance with a new one. It happened when my daughter broke her phone as she was directed to Curry's to pick up her new one.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
No, generally insurers will pay out for what the car is worth at the time it is written off, so ‘market value’, but that value can be lower than that required to settle the finance agreement. The fact you financed it and it may be worth less than the settlement is not the insurers problem and is why gap insurance is a good idea.
Lien can be transferred to the replacement car, it’s not unusual for that to happen given the number of cars on the road that are financed in some shape or form, HP or PCP.
And we haven't seen that...
As for 'new for old' that's certain policies sold as such, not all are.
I’m no expert Marc, it’s just an alternative view and you could well be right.
With regards to home insurance and new for old policies, in that instance you’d be claiming against your own policy rather than a third party’s so is not really applicable to this scenario.
Just to update on this - I told my insurers there was nothing in my insurance t&c's that excluded online-ordered cars, and they agreed to pay me in full for a new polestar 2. Literally a couple of emails, quite painless process. They fully settled the outstanding finance, and paid the remaining balance (the difference between list price of a new car, minus the finance settlement) into my account. The new car price has actually gone up by 3k from when I purchased mine last year.
Last edited by amii21; 1st February 2024 at 22:14.
There ya go!
Well done! They will always chance it with a non-litigous put down initially.
That is good news and feels like the sensible / fair outcome. I am surprised it was resolved in a relatively pain free manner. I bet they will update their T&Cs next year to include online-ordered vehicles!
Great result and well done using their T&Cs back at them.
Surely it couldn’t be resolved any other way? They couldn’t take the car off you and leave you in an £8-£9k hole? How would that ever be right….?
Pressed reply to quick, a micro second further thought, and I remember insurance companies aren’t there to do the best by you, but to settle out the cheapest way possible to pay their shareholders….
Posting Permissions
