Six Weeks of Silence After Motorway Crash
A self-employed tradesman from Buckhaven in Fife faced a complete work stoppage after his van was violently struck from behind on a motorway. The incident, caused by a speeding driver who failed to stop, sent his vehicle spinning across the carriageway, hitting barriers on both sides before bursting into flames. The driver, who we are calling SJ, fortunately escaped with only a minor head injury.
He immediately reported the collision to his insurance provider, Autonet, expecting a straightforward claims process. However, six weeks passed without any communication from the insurer. His livelihood was paralysed as his essential trade tools remained locked inside the damaged van, which was being held at a secure compound.
A Vicious Cycle of Calls and Mounting Costs
The storage compound refused SJ access to his own property without explicit permission from Autonet. This triggered a frustrating cycle where every phone call saw him passed between a broker, an underwriter, and a claims management firm, with no resolution. The only consistent contact he received was from the compound, demanding £25 per day in storage fees, a bill that grew steadily alongside his stress levels.
When the Guardian's Consumer Champions column intervened at the end of June, Autonet admitted it had "fallen short with our communication and responsiveness." Despite this admission in early July, the chaos continued. Autonet even requested accident details that SJ had already submitted two months prior, indicating his claim had not been properly processed.
Broken Promises and a Costly Courtesy Van Trap
After significant pressure, Autonet reunited SJ with his tools, though they were too damaged to use. The insurer also promised compensation for his ordeal and to cover his expenses, including 11 days of lost work. However, a month later, he was still waiting for an offer for his van's market value and the promised remuneration.
Autonet initially offered only half of his £6,750 expenses claim, even with receipts provided. After further questioning, it agreed to pay the remainder but insisted this sum included the previously promised compensation. The ordeal reached a new low in September when SJ was told to surrender his courtesy van immediately because the claim was taking too long.
It was then revealed he had unknowingly signed a credit hire agreement, not a standard courtesy car deal. This legally liable him for the hire costs if the third-party insurer refused to pay. Autonet stated he should have read the small print, while SJ maintains the significance was not explained. Left without transport, he was forced to spend money he couldn't afford on an inferior replacement vehicle.
Under continued pressure, the underwriter finally proposed £1,835 for the written-off van. Yet more weeks passed without payment. It appeared the insurer was only then, over four months after the accident, seeking to establish third-party liability. The payment finally arrived on the last day of October, a full 169 days after the initial crash.
This nightmare may not be over. If the at-fault driver's insurer refuses to pay for the hire van, SJ might be required to assist Autonet in any subsequent legal action, prolonging a dispute that has already consumed nearly half a year.
