Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - This could be interesting.

ENTERPRISE INSURANCE COMPANY...
Fensure's stance on the Enterprise Insurance Company (EIC) situation (they went into liquidation on 22nd July) is as per the FSCS:

"All EIC Insurance policies in the UK remain valid and in force at the current time and remain subject to all existing policy terms and conditions.

All EIC Insurance policies in the UK are protected by the FSCS (Financial Services Compensation Scheme). Compensation is 100% where a claim comprises TP liability under the terms of the Road Traffic Act and 90% with no upper limit for a claim which occurs under any other operative section of the policy. Cover is also provided against unused premium if a policyholder wishes to cancel the policy mid-term.

The FSCS will only pay compensation claims once they are satisfied that an Insurer cannot meet their financial obligations."

I wonder how this will be dealt with now?

The claim is nearly 3 years old. I would have thought that it would be settled before now.

Is this likely to come back on you?

On November 19 2013 one of our drivers, it just happens to be my ex wife, was driving a vehicle that we had on hire whilst ours was in for repairs. She had a small accident whereby she ran into the back of another vehicle. Not to much of a problem you would think but no! we have had a letter from Irwin Mitchell solicitors stating that they have been unable to reach a settlement with the insurers. I automatically thought there was a spurious claim for injuries but oh no, it is a claim for the vehicle. It was an old vehicle that was hit and was beyound economical repair so it was written off. The total claim including all the court fees etc is for £2,050.99, the car was £1,430. Now I would have thought that such a claim would have been settled quite quickly but for some reason the insurance company wouldn't settel. Now I have had a letter asking me to forward the court papers to the insurer. Now with it being a hire car I had no idea who the insurers were but after making several phone call it would seem that the insurer was .............................................ENTERPRISE!!!
I wonder how this will be dealt with now?

I would have thought the TP insurers would be listed as creditors of Enterprise and have to settle for whatever they get back I wonder if this is an attempt to get the money from someone else so they don't lose out ? Strange how after 3 years this has come out of the blue just after Enterprise went into liquidation

I'd suggest you return the letter as "not known at this address". You are unlikely to have any CCJs against you unless the case goes to court, the defendant fails to pay, and the bailiffs fail to collect. don't be alarmed by what you think might happen.

roythebus wrote:

The case is going to court. It is County Court papers that have been served. You say it is not our problem but it has been made our problem because the insurance company has not settled the claim.

grandad wrote:

roythebus wrote:

The case is going to court. It is County Court papers that have been served. You say it is not our problem but it has been made our problem because the insurance company has not settled the claim.

There has to be more to this than what you know Or what you are telling us.

Who do Irwin Mitchell represent?

Author:	grandad [ Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:00 am ]
Post subject:	This could be interesting.
On November 19 2013 one of our drivers, it just happens to be my ex wife, was driving a vehicle that we had on hire whilst ours was in for repairs. She had a small accident whereby she ran into the back of another vehicle. Not to much of a problem you would think but no! we have had a letter from Irwin Mitchell solicitors stating that they have been unable to reach a settlement with the insurers. I automatically thought there was a spurious claim for injuries but oh no, it is a claim for the vehicle. It was an old vehicle that was hit and was beyound economical repair so it was written off. The total claim including all the court fees etc is for £2,050.99, the car was £1,430. Now I would have thought that such a claim would have been settled quite quickly but for some reason the insurance company wouldn't settel. Now I have had a letter asking me to forward the court papers to the insurer. Now with it being a hire car I had no idea who the insurers were but after making several phone call it would seem that the insurer was .............................................ENTERPRISE!!! I wonder how this will be dealt with now?

Author:	toots [ Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: This could be interesting.
Quote: ENTERPRISE INSURANCE COMPANY... Fensure's stance on the Enterprise Insurance Company (EIC) situation (they went into liquidation on 22nd July) is as per the FSCS: "All EIC Insurance policies in the UK remain valid and in force at the current time and remain subject to all existing policy terms and conditions. All EIC Insurance policies in the UK are protected by the FSCS (Financial Services Compensation Scheme). Compensation is 100% where a claim comprises TP liability under the terms of the Road Traffic Act and 90% with no upper limit for a claim which occurs under any other operative section of the policy. Cover is also provided against unused premium if a policyholder wishes to cancel the policy mid-term. The FSCS will only pay compensation claims once they are satisfied that an Insurer cannot meet their financial obligations." Perhaps that helps

Author:	Cabby John 1 [ Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: This could be interesting.
Quote: I wonder how this will be dealt with now? Probably a MIB job, more than likely the reason as to why the Ins company have failed to reach a settlement - they can probably smell MORE money coming from a MIB pot of money. Or.....maybe as Toots says.

Author:	grandad [ Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:28 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: This could be interesting.
The claim is nearly 3 years old. I would have thought that it would be settled before now.

Author:	cabby john [ Tue Aug 02, 2016 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: This could be interesting.
grandad wrote: The claim is nearly 3 years old. I would have thought that it would be settled before now. Probably stuck in someone's to do tray! Whatever happens, then I think that it is fair to claim that it is negligent of the Ins companies, to not have sorted this out. Is this likely to come back on you?

Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

This could be interesting. http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29613	Page 1 of 3

Author:	grandad [ Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: This could be interesting.
cabby john wrote: Is this likely to come back on you? I have no idea. It is my ex wife's name on the summons . I have asked Irwin Mitchell to confirm who the insurers are so that I can forward the court papers to them.

Author:	wannabeeahack [ Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: This could be interesting.
grandad wrote: On November 19 2013 one of our drivers, it just happens to be my ex wife, was driving a vehicle that we had on hire whilst ours was in for repairs. She had a small accident whereby she ran into the back of another vehicle. Not to much of a problem you would think but no! we have had a letter from Irwin Mitchell solicitors stating that they have been unable to reach a settlement with the insurers. I automatically thought there was a spurious claim for injuries but oh no, it is a claim for the vehicle. It was an old vehicle that was hit and was beyound economical repair so it was written off. The total claim including all the court fees etc is for £2,050.99, the car was £1,430. Now I would have thought that such a claim would have been settled quite quickly but for some reason the insurance company wouldn't settel. Now I have had a letter asking me to forward the court papers to the insurer. Now with it being a hire car I had no idea who the insurers were but after making several phone call it would seem that the insurer was .............................................ENTERPRISE!!! I wonder how this will be dealt with now? slowly

Author:	edders23 [ Wed Aug 03, 2016 6:29 am ]
Post subject:	Re: This could be interesting.
I would have thought the TP insurers would be listed as creditors of Enterprise and have to settle for whatever they get back I wonder if this is an attempt to get the money from someone else so they don't lose out ? Strange how after 3 years this has come out of the blue just after Enterprise went into liquidation

Author:	grandad [ Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: This could be interesting.
edders23 wrote: I would have thought the TP insurers would be listed as creditors of Enterprise and have to settle for whatever they get back I wonder if this is an attempt to get the money from someone else so they don't lose out ? Strange how after 3 years this has come out of the blue just after Enterprise went into liquidation I am at a bit of a loss as what to do. It is a court summons in my ex wife's name with my address. She hasn't lived here for 19 years but it is the address that we run the taxis from. If I do as the first letter says and forward the summons to the insurers,what chance is there that they will respond within the statutory time limit? Could my ex wife end up with a ccj simply because the insurance company are playing silly buggers? Could it compromise my own and my current wifes credit rating due to it being our address? There is no contact telephone number for Irwin Mitchell on the letter. I sent them an email yesterday morning but I have not received a reply yet. To top it all off I fly to Spain this afternoon.

Author:	roythebus [ Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:37 am ]
Post subject:	Re: This could be interesting.
I'd suggest you return the letter as "not known at this address". You are unlikely to have any CCJs against you unless the case goes to court, the defendant fails to pay, and the bailiffs fail to collect. don't be alarmed by what you think might happen. I suggest you post this on the Pepipoo forum and ask the question there. As the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident and presumably you informed the insurers, it is not really your problem that the solicitors cannot reach a settlement with them. You insured it in accordance with the Road Traffic Act. Unless your ex said it was her fault at the time of the accident (sometimes sorry is enough to admit guilt), then the liability is firmly with the insurers. It's not your problem they've gone broke. You have done all you are required to do to deal with the matter in accordance with the law.

Author:	grandad [ Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:08 am ]
Post subject:	Re: This could be interesting.
roythebus wrote: I'd suggest you return the letter as "not known at this address". You are unlikely to have any CCJs against you unless the case goes to court, the defendant fails to pay, and the bailiffs fail to collect. don't be alarmed by what you think might happen. The case is going to court. It is County Court papers that have been served. You say it is not our problem but it has been made our problem because the insurance company has not settled the claim.

Author:	Cabby John 1 [ Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:52 am ]
Post subject:	Re: This could be interesting.
grandad wrote: roythebus wrote: I'd suggest you return the letter as "not known at this address". You are unlikely to have any CCJs against you unless the case goes to court, the defendant fails to pay, and the bailiffs fail to collect. don't be alarmed by what you think might happen. The case is going to court. It is County Court papers that have been served. You say it is not our problem but it has been made our problem because the insurance company has not settled the claim. There has to be more to this than what you know Or what you are telling us.

Author:	grandad [ Wed Aug 03, 2016 12:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: This could be interesting.
Cabby John 1 wrote: grandad wrote: roythebus wrote: I'd suggest you return the letter as "not known at this address". You are unlikely to have any CCJs against you unless the case goes to court, the defendant fails to pay, and the bailiffs fail to collect. don't be alarmed by what you think might happen. The case is going to court. It is County Court papers that have been served. You say it is not our problem but it has been made our problem because the insurance company has not settled the claim. There has to be more to this than what you know Or what you are telling us. I have spoken to Irwin Mitchell but they will only give information to the person named on the summons which is my ex wife. They could not even confirm which insurance company it was. Although they did say that they only received instructions to issue court proceedings last week and they also sent papers to the insurer and are waiting for them to respond which would seem to confirm that it must be enterprise and they now know that they wont be getting a settlement anytime soon so they are trying to pass the buck back to us. I have managed to contact the company who supplied the hire car and they have confirmed the details of our claim but understandably they have no details about the 3rd part claim. They have asked us to forward all the paperwork to them so hopefully they will be able to deal with it.

Author:	Cabby John 1 [ Wed Aug 03, 2016 12:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: This could be interesting.
Who do Irwin Mitchell represent?

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	grandad [ Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:40 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: This could be interesting.
Cabby John 1 wrote: Who do Irwin Mitchell represent? The woman whose car our driver hit. Although our driver was carefull not to admit liability in any way it should have been a simple cut and dry case. Our driver hit the other car from behind. The claim isn't even for neck injury it is just for the damage to the vehicle (write off due to age) I simply can't understand why it wasn't settled at the time.