Betterment - ?

[I like Skol]

you are entitled to be placed in the same position you were in before the accident.

I would argue that you had a XXXequipped bike of XXXstyle then and are entitled to be placed in the same position now.

It is irrelevant what bike cost back when you bought it. It is what is would cost to replace it with an equivalent bike now that you are entitled to in compensation

So, should they wish to try, they can supply a secondhand bike of similar spec, quality and condition (which is going to be nigh on impossible in this case) or stump up and buy a new replacement? Does this mean that simply saying 'In our opinion your bike was worth £xx, here's some cash. Now f'off and good luck trying to get a replacement for that much' is acceptable?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I'm in the process of working through the expenses / compensation claim for my RTA in April. Obviously I'm claiming for a replacement cycle as mine was written off. The steed in question was a GT Bravado with Reynolds 631 frame. Said bike is long out of production. The GT cost me nearly £950 in 1999 which to me was a LOT of money. The reason for this was that I knew that a Reynolds 631 frame would last a very long time. It had served me well for nineteen years up to the RTA and I'm confident it would have otherwise carried on for a good many years.
The nearest equivalent with a Reynolds 631 frame is the Jamis Aurora Elite @ £1,400. However, according to my claims adviser ( Cycle UK ), I can only claim the cost of the original cycle, £950. To claim more is known as betterment, which seems a trifle unjust considering the current cost of buying an equivalent quality / spec cycle.
Do I have a point - ?

I think you have a point, you should not settle for a bike of inferior quality or specification.

As a Cycle UK member myself, I'm troubled that a claims handler would be trying to limit my claim against the 3rd party's insurer. It's for that insurer to accept/decline a claim made on your behalf, not the people (supposedly) representing you. I'd be telling the adviser that's what I'm claiming for, submit it!

 

[Drago]

What if you'd paid nothing for the bike? Does that mean they can only pay you nothing now? Of course not.

Regardless of what claims handlers might try and tell you, you're entitled to be restored to the position you enjoyed prior to the incident. If that position was atop a 531 hand made bike, then that's what they have to provide, or the wherewithall for you to provide for yourself. The fact that Hand made 531 bikes of comparable spec now cost £400 more than when you bought it really is their problem, not yours.

 

[Milkfloat]

I would put the ball fully in their court by telling them to put me in the same position that I was in before, i.e. on a 631 frame with all the bells and whistles. I would be helpful and list the Jamis as a suitable replacement. It will cost them a lot more to argue than to just pay up. Simply stick to your guns and keep saying no. Plus, as @glasgowcyclist says, I would be very unimpressed that the person who is supposed to be representing me is doing such a bad job. Just to check by Cycle UK do you mean Cycling UK?

 

[Milkfloat]

[QUOTE 5283965, member: 45"]Surely putting him back to the position he was in before the collision would mean giving him a 19 year old bike of the same spec, not a new one?[/QUOTE]

If they can find exactly the same in the same condition then sure - go ahead.

 

[Milkfloat]

[QUOTE 5283973, member: 45"]Of they can't, can they then discharge their duty by offering financial compensation to the value of the bike at the time of the collision?[/QUOTE]
I don't think they can demand you take the cash, you have to accept their offer. If the offer is not putting you back in the situation you were in before (i.e. that bike), then it is up to you if accept cash as an alternative.

 

[fossyant]

They will look at value, rather than replacement - so my £1,400 fixed gear bike wouldn't be worth much after my accident as it was 7 years old (as it turned out there was nothing more than a scratch). What has happened is my purchase of a full suspension MTB of similar value has gone into the claim - whether I get it or not will depend on the third party insurer. The change of bike was to allow me to continue cycling without the spinal shock.

You can compare both specs and just be prepared to take a loss if you do get the replacement.

 

[vickster]

@simongt can you take it up with the solicitor in charge of the case or even the partner in charge of the solicitor directly, as opposed to dealing with the claims handler who'll just be following SOP. Ask to speak to them by phone. The aforementioned should better know what the law, precedent and judicial regs and review actually say on the matter

 

[spen666]

So, should they wish to try, they can supply a secondhand bike of similar spec, quality and condition (which is going to be nigh on impossible in this case) or stump up and buy a new replacement? Does this mean that simply saying 'In our opinion your bike was worth £xx, here's some cash. Now f'off and good luck trying to get a replacement for that much' is acceptable?

To give a lawyers answer - it depends

If bike you are looking to replace is a bog standard "supermarket bike" then its harder to argue against that.

If its an antique bike which can't now be bought, then its harder for insurance company to say its value is £X. It becomes a negotiation with the partly liable having to put you in the position you were in before accident. That may not be exactly comparable and this is where negotiation comes in.

I am sure you can buy all the individual components and claim bike is therefore worth a huge sum.



The fact insurance company may want to look at value, is only part of it. What is the value of a bike that is no longer made. how does that put you in the position you were in before the accident?


Insurance companies want to bully/ pressurise you, but remember the legal basis of compensation is to put you in the position you were in before the incident


Its not a simple answer

 

[glasgowcyclist]

If they can find exactly the same in the same condition then sure - go ahead.

A friend had a similar situation with his car: a 1990 Sierra Sapphire. He'd owned it from new, it was immaculately kept, had a full service history and very low mileage. When someone ran into the back of it, causing minor damage that would cost about £350 to fix, the other party's insurers claimed it was more than the car's book value so wanted to write it off and give him £200 instead.
(Similar cars were selling in Ford enthusiasts' clubs for £3,000-£4,000)

When he rejected that they offered him a used Sapphire that was rough as feck but, they claimed, was worth the same as his car.

He told them he'd accept a replacement car if they could find him a red Sapphire, with one owner, full service history and the same or lower mileage and in the same showroom condition.
They paid for the full repair.

 

[spen666]

There is a discrepancy between accident solicitors claiming against third party insurance and a claim on your own house or bike insurance.

....

There is a huge difference.

claiming on your insurance policy is a contractual matter.


Claiming against another party ( even if their insurers settle claim) is a matter of tort law. The damages you are entitled to under tort are set according to legal principles & guidance. The sum due under your own insurance policy are set by the terms of your contract with your insurance company.

As far as 3rd party insurers are concerned, you do not have a contract with them and therefore the terms of contract between 3rd party and his insurers are irrelevant

 

[I like Skol]

There is a huge difference.

claiming on your insurance policy is a contractual matter.


Claiming against another party ( even if their insurers settle claim) is a matter of tort law. The damages you are entitled to under tort are set according to legal principles & guidance. The sum due under your own insurance policy are set by the terms of your contract with your insurance company.

As far as 3rd party insurers are concerned, you do not have a contract with them and therefore the terms of contract between 3rd party and his insurers are irrelevant

Yeah, what I said but much wordier. Are you in the legal profession by any chance?

 

[Crankarm]

On the several occasions I have had to sue a driver who knocked me down for personal injury and damage to my bike and kit, my bike and kit replacement costs have always beed reimbursed in full. In one case the other side tried to get the cost down in the way you describe, but I refused to accept as my bike was considerably upgraded and immaculate. They put forward some half arsed off the shelf alternatives of considerably lower spec, but I stuck to my guns and refused their counter offer. They paid my claim in full. It simply isn't worth them arguing and should it have gone to court it would have cost them a huge amount of cash on top to argue over a few hundred pounds. Stick to your guns. I would not deal with a claims handler. Everything else everyone else has said about putting you back into the position you were prior to the accident is correct. It doesn't matter if your bike was old but immaculate. Insist it is properly repaired to what it was before.

Please clarify whether the claims handler is linked to CyclingUK (the old CTC) in anyway or some other cowboy claims handling outfit? If CyclingUK this is troubling as they should be representing YOU getting the best deal for you not trying to devalue your claim by doing the work of the other side.

 

[spen666]

Yeah, what I said but much wordier. Are you in the legal profession by any chance?

I can neither confirm nor deny the information you are seeking from me at this instant in time



I wasn't disagreeing with your post, I was just highlighting one of the common misconceptions people have about the basis for settling claims and the role of insurance companies

 

[roadrash]

I can neither confirm nor deny the information you are seeking from me at this instant in time

That's a yes then