Liability of Recovery Companies - Any experience?

[Scooblitz]

Evening

This hardly constitutes banter but I am debating entering a claim against the recovery company who handled my car after it's crash.

They have 'perjured' themselves in regards to 3 separate points, in writing where, I have clear evidence which contradicts their staff's version of events, as well as indepdent witness, to their fibbing.

Arguably, the damage caused by them will cost me more than the damage I was responsible for.
All whilst being paid £565 for their 'services'.

Any experience or thoughts are very welcome. Do recovery teams have any liability for further damages?

Don't want to waste time chasing a cat up a tree.

Stevie

 

[t-tony]

So, are you saying that the recovery service caused more damage to your car than was caused in the original accident? If you can prove that Stevie it's worth following up.
My late father-in-law was a recovery specialist and I used to go help him sometimes and he often told me he was responsible for not causing any more damage during recovery.

Tony.

 

[Duncodin]

I'd expect the insurance to cover the whole episode including the recovery.

Think of firemen soaking a house and its contents and smashing windows to rescue anyone. The insurance can't just pay for the fire damage and make you pay for water damage. The insurance pay for the whole thing.

 

[Scooblitz]

Hi Tony

I had a feeling you would be along shortly. Much appreciated.

I think I can prove it. I took photos of the car immediately after the crash. Almost full 360 of the vehicle as it sat awaiting recovery.

My claim would be that whilst I have damaged the car, causing frontal damage, I will be further out of pocket with damages caused whilst in their possesion.

It's a long saga but from the outset I was in contact with the company and clearly stated that my car was going to be bought back and not to be forklifted. Taking care to be kind and courteous throughout my contact.

After a few emails back and forth I can prove damages post accident. Exhaust, rear bumper and underside damage are the key issues.

After inspection, one could surmise the car has been moved by the rear and dumped on the back of the recovery truck as well as probably being lifted off the truck when receiving after the crash.

Exhaust:

The company is claiming the exhaust was hanging off the car when it was removed off the truck at their depot, after the crash. As in, It was my doing.

I have a photo of the car from the rear being driven onto the truck, smoke coming out the exhaust, rear lights on, exhaust in its correct position and being driven by their employee. Also pics from before they arrived.

They would need OJ Simpson's lawyer for that one...

Bumper:

It's got some chunky gouges that will need filled in instead of simply "buffed out". They are very noticeable and horrific. It's like a lion has used it as a scratching post.

I have photos of this before they picked up the vehicle without any such damage. The motorway services truck is right behind me and illuminating the photo, which helps the clarity.

Perhaps in their error, have sent me a photo of the car with exhaust 'hanging off' when it was being collected by my transport guy 2 weeks later. This photo is taken from. The rear and clearly shows the damage to the bumper and paint.

I'll probably submit their own photo (sent to absolving their liability in regards to the exhaust) as evidence as it is pictured in their depot, within their gates. Silly billies.

Underside:

Extensive forklift dent where the car's weight has been put on the floorpan as its been lifted up. It's need knocked back down but irrevercibly damaged.
They have said in the email 'after investigation' the car has never been lifted by a forklift but the guy I employed from shipley to collect it witnessed exactly this.

OJs lawyer might also needed for this one too...


Perhaps they retain the right to move vehicles as they see fit and any damages are at the liability of the owner...


I am a poor man's Columbo.

 

[Scooblitz]

I'd expect the insurance to cover the whole episode including the recovery.

Think of firemen soaking a house and its contents and smashing windows to rescue anyone. The insurance can't just pay for the fire damage and make you pay for water damage. The insurance pay for the whole thing.

The insurance company were a bunch of eels about this. They said because the car wasn't in their possession, they can't account for the additional damages caused by an unassociated recovery company. Not our fault.

Either way, the car was classed as a total loss. I'd guess they payout on the claim was already at the ceiling. I might have got a slightly cheaper buy back cost but it'd have been a few hundred quids worth of squabbling.

Act XVII, scene III of the saga needed an ending.

 

[Richard29]

I would suggest that they have a duty to recover the car and deliver it to the destination in the same condition it was in without adding further damage due to their neglect.
If you xan evidence this the claim for it to recover your loss.