Impecuniosity

[Stokes]

It means being without money/penniless.

A long story short but I was hit by an uninsured driver, required a hire car which I had for a few months.

The claim was taking ages to settle and so Kindertons asked if they could have the hire car back, I agreed and bought another car.

A few months later I have now had a letter asking me to help Kindertons say I was impecunious before the claim, as they go through the courts trying to recover the costs from the third party.

They have stated in the letter that they will not charge me but require my bank statements and wage slips 3 months prior to the accident.

It was over 6 months ago now and I can't remember what funds I had, I probably could of bought another car straight away though and can see this backfiring on me.

Anyone else had this sort of trouble, after a claim?

 

[b16 mini]

You have the right to keep the hire car untill the claim is settled regardless of your financial situation,

Just tell them you finances are private.

 

[si8pny]

You have the right to keep the hire car untill the claim is settled regardless of your financial situation,

Just tell them you finances are private.

Wrong.

If the case goes to court the other side can request your financial history and if you fail to provide it you won’t be able to rely on impecunious arguments.

The court can also make an order for you to provide the documents.

When you took the hire car Kindertons should have explained to you that if you have the funds available to replace your vehicle then you should do that instead of hiring a car and increasing the cost of your claim.

You would have had to sign a mitigation statement saying why you need the hire car and cant use the Bus etc.

You must always mitigate your loss. Its unfair for you to sit in a hire car if you had able funds available to replace or repair your car.

Unfortunately you have to provide those documents to Kindertons.

 

[b16 mini]

What's unfair is being hit by an uninsured driver and having to pay for a new car out of your own pocket,

I've known some of our customers have a hire car over 6 months due to insurance company's dragging out proceedings

In my opinion It's the insurances duty to sort it, it's what you pay them for, but I gues that's just my opinion

 

[Stokes]

Wrong.

If the case goes to court the other side can request your financial history and if you fail to provide it you won’t be able to rely on impecunious arguments.

The court can also make an order for you to provide the documents.

When you took the hire car Kindertons should have explained to you that if you have the funds available to replace your vehicle then you should do that instead of hiring a car and increasing the cost of your claim.

You would have had to sign a mitigation statement saying why you need the hire car and cant use the Bus etc.

You must always mitigate your loss. Its unfair for you to sit in a hire car if you had able funds available to replace or repair your car.

Unfortunately you have to provide those documents to Kindertons.

I thought so.

These are their exact words "I can confirm that irrespective of the outcome of your case, no costs will be sought from you directly." from the letter.

I'm not sure where I stand with that.

 

[jesse888]

So the hire company want you to say you where poor at the time?
Not you saying you where poor at the time?
Basically the hire company are trying to screw the insurance?

 

[si8pny]

What's unfair is being hit by an uninsured driver and having to pay for a new car out of your own pocket,

I've known some of our customers have a hire car over 6 months due to insurance company's dragging out proceedings

In my opinion It's the insurances duty to sort it, it's what you pay them for, but I gues that's just my opinion

In this case if he was hit by an uninsured driver and the insurers still have to provide RTA cover. Otherwise Kindertons wouldnt have touched the case.

The OP has admitted to having enough money to replace his car sooner.
Kindertons should have told him about mitigating his loss

I thought so.

These are their exact words "I can confirm that irrespective of the outcome of your case, no costs will be sought from you directly." from the letter.

I'm not sure where I stand with that.

Thats good news for you then, If they lose they will swallow the cost. They were obviously trying to milk your claim for all its worth with the insurer.

So the hire company want you to say you where poor at the time?
Not you saying you where poor at the time?
Basically the hire company are trying to screw the insurance?

Yep! People moan at insurers screwing people over for prices yet have no clue at how broken the system is.

Hire companies charing silly money for a hire car, People claiming injury when they are absolutley fine etc etc.

 

[Stokes]

So the hire company want you to say you where poor at the time?
Not you saying you where poor at the time?
Basically the hire company are trying to screw the insurance?

I'm not really sure, this is their reasoning from the letter.

As part of the legal proceedings, the other side may attempt to pay a reduced amount for the hire if it can be shown that you could have paid cash for the hire from a ‘high street' hire company such as Avis or Hertz, but chose not to. The solicitors instructed to deal with the claim on your behalf can argue that this would have been an "unreasonable sacrifice", however they will need some financial documentation from yourself to show this.

 

[b16 mini]

In this case if he was hit by an uninsured driver and the insurers still have to provide RTA cover. Otherwise Kindertons wouldnt have touched the case.

Sorry, I missunderstood, I thought kindertons were the insurance company, didn't realise they were a typical money skimming 3rd party company

 

[si8pny]

Sorry, I missunderstood, I thought kindertons were the insurance company, didn't realise they were a typical money skimming 3rd party company

Yep huge accident management company, out to make as much money as possible.