On 4 July I was told by a parking attendant that someone had smashed into my parked car. The attendant had written down the details and had CCTV footage capturing the incident. I advised my insurance company, Churchill. It had the car repaired but told me I would have to pay the excess of £200. Given the evidence available, I was optimistic that I would recover this.
By the end of August I had heard nothing and discovered that Churchill had not shared any of the information, or the CCTV footage, with the other driver’s insurer.
When I complained to Churchill I received a standard reply saying it had instructed a law firm to handle claims “to increase our capacity whilst we implement and integrate our new computer operating system for claims which will derive great benefits for our business and our customers in the future”.
I was told not to contact the firm as it may not yet have reviewed my claim. I have no confidence that I will see my £200 again, since Churchill seems to be saying it doesn’t have the capacity to deal with my claim, but forbids me to contact the company it passed it on to. HT, Bristol
Churchill, having assured me it handled everything by the book, suddenly discovers it was caught napping. “The customer made us aware of CCTV footage which could help prove liability, but unfortunately we didn’t request this until 21 August. We have offered HT £50 by way of apology.”
As it turned out, the footage proved inconclusive since it didn’t show your car, but the third-party insurer has accepted liability and costs, so your £200 and no-claims bonus will be reinstated. The company insists that three months is a perfectly usual timescale for establishing liability, but admits “we have delayed matters unnecessarily”.
If you need help email Anna Tims at your.problems@observer.co.uk or write to Your Problems, The Observer, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Include an address and phone number.
