[Sabbah kosar]

Hi all,

My vehicle was stolen a month ago and has not been recovered. RSA Motability have therefore put the claim down as an ‘at fault’ claim on my part even though I did nothing wrong. They informed me that as there is no third party to claim against I would be held liable and so they would need to put me down as being at fault.

Motability Operations have sent me a pro-rata refund and stated that as I have used the car for several months prior to the theft I will only receive a pro-rata refund. I was unaware that this was the policy and called MO to ask where this was stated in their contract. I was told it is not stated anywhere in the contract or their policy and that someone from customer relations would call me to discuss this further.

I received a call back and was told that the refund of the advance payment was a goodwill gesture on their part and that they are not legally obliged to make that refund. They then proceeded to tell me that unless RSA were to change the status from ‘at fault’ to ‘not at fault’ I would not receive the full advance payment. Furthermore, I had paid for a panoramic roof as an extra and have lost out on that too. I also paid the £100 excess required to start a claim with RSA.

Can they do this to me, do I have any grounds to appeal this? I can’t even afford to get the same car again now because the price has changed. Any advice is appreciated.

 

Topic

[Rhodgie]

It’s very difficult to steal a modern car without the keys so without knowing how they managed to get your car can’t say more, if they done it with the true key then possible that’s why they are saying you are ‘at fault’ ?‍♂️

And before anybody goes on about them copying the transponder signal I know about that too…. however it is very very rare and tends to be for high value cars that are getting shipped abroad ?

Yes you should only get a pro-rata refund, you’ve had use of the vehicle for a period of time, only right that is paid for? Imagine it was stolen a month before changing over…. would you expect to be fully refunded the deposit ?

If you’ve ever read this forum you should know that any extras you pay for are at your own risk, unfortunately you lost out on the roof, sorry ?

My advice would be take your refund and go order another car, you’ve been unlucky this time, hopefully it won’t happen twice ?

[BigDave]

Sabbah kosar wrote:

Hi all, My vehicle was stolen a month ago and has not been recovered. RSA Motability have therefore put the claim down as an ‘at fault’ claim on my part even though I did nothing wrong. They informed me that as there is no third party to claim against I would be held liable and so they would need to put me down as being at fault. Motability Operations have sent me a pro-rata refund and stated that as I have used the car for several months prior to the theft I will only receive a pro-rata refund. I was unaware that this was the policy and called MO to ask where this was stated in their contract. I was told it is not stated anywhere in the contract or their policy and that someone from customer relations would call me to discuss this further. I received a call back and was told that the refund of the advance payment was a goodwill gesture on their part and that they are not legally obliged to make that refund. They then proceeded to tell me that unless RSA were to change the status from ‘at fault’ to ‘not at fault’ I would not receive the full advance payment. Furthermore, I had paid for a panoramic roof as an extra and have lost out on that too. I also paid the £100 excess required to start a claim with RSA. Can they do this to me, do I have any grounds to appeal this? I can’t even afford to get the same car again now because the price has changed. Any advice is appreciated.

Sadly, that is the position not only Motability customers, but other lease and often PCP customers find themselves in (often they don’t get anything back or could still owe money to the finance company).

Although it is a personal decision, one could take out and pay privately for ‘uninsured loss’ insurance or ‘GAP insurance’ privately which generally covers such as this.

It is rather like the fact RSA do not cover personal possessions in the vehicle, but one can often tack this onto one’s household insurance or take out sperate possessions cover or ‘all risks’ possessions cover.

The good part of the scheme though, is that if you do get another vehicle on the scheme, RSA do not (in fact, cannot) increase the cost of the insurance to offset a previously classed ‘at fault’ claim (unless too many separate claims are made then they can increase the excess or decline the scheme to you).

So, it is a bit ‘swings and roundabouts’.

[Kev]

Would any of us be covered if the cat. converter was stolen, as a lot at the moment are being stolen even in daylight as they jack up car cut either side in exhaust pipe and away all in a flash to sell for precious metal inside worth a lot of money

[BigDave]

Kev wrote:

Would any of us be covered if the cat. converter was stolen, as a lot at the moment are being stolen even in daylight as they jack up car cut either side in exhaust pipe and away all in a flash to sell for precious metal inside worth a lot of money

Yes, it would be covered by RSA as that is part of the standard equipment of the vehicle.

You would have to pay the excess as a claim though.

[Kev]

Thanks

[D.]

Did this get sorted out S.K. . And was the vehicle ever found and recovered. Did you manage to get a new vehicle on the same scheme. Not a nice situation at all, hope it got resolved with out causing you too much trouble.

[RogerWilko]

The AP pro eats return has been that way for many years. When I changed my car after 12 months due to change of need, that was pro TATA ap return.

I always keep my keys in signal blocker pouches and have an an apple air tag secreted in everyone of our cars.

worth doing those two things to stop opportunist theft. We even have a krooklick on each car

[Author]

Replies