Just had a look at that letter from Egg again, think things may not be as they first seemed! If you remember in an earlier post I said I was suspicious of Egg as Egg are underwritten by UK Insurance limited and UK Insurance Limited underwrite Renault. Feel as though their is a conflict of interest there!.
I'm not sure what you mean by "underwrite Renault". If you mean they are their insurers, I don't think it matters. Your contract is with Egg. Renault aren't paying you anything here that can be construed as making up for your distress or uninsured losses. I take it you had to pay the excess up front, no?
Looking at my letter from Egg it states -
"I am pleased to advise that Egg Insurance has agreed to cover the cost for the new bonnet catch on this occasion ... and can confirm that I have arranged a cheque in the sum of £59.57 to be sent to you. This would represent full reimbursement of the cost you incurred in relation to the faulty part ... If we do not hear from you within 8 weeks, we will assume that we have concluded this matter to your satisfaction..
Which company's letterhead? Why are they writing in the third person singular instead of the first person plural? But it may just be somebody's style of writing in which case no worries. They are specifying that the amount they are enclosing is for the faulty part that they had previously contended should be paid by you, i.e., the bonnet catch; nothing more and nothing less. But if you are worried about this, the best advice you can get is from your solicitor who is chasing Renault for you; simply ask him if this has any bearing on your rights of redress. If your insurer picked up the tab for fixing your car, you can only sue Renault for your uninsured losses and your distress which your lawyer will have to quantify for you.
Today I receive a cheque not from Egg but from UK Insurance! Do you think I am being paranoid about what they are trying to do here or agree that they seem to be trying to get me to settle for £59.57!
I think it is irrelevant who signed the cheque as it is the purpose for which it is paid that matters, i.e., to cover your disbursement of £59.57p for one bonnet catch. ( I am understanding of course, that they have paid the rest of the repair bill directly to the repairer, and you had to £59.57p out of your own pocket on top of your excess.)
The letter does clearly state that the bonnet clip was faulty though so in a way that has strengthened my case. With insurance companies I have never heard of them just to give money back when it has not been asked for..
In most cases insurers will choose to take the least costly way out of a claim; in this case it is cheaper to pay you £59.57p than it is to enter into legthy correspondence that might involve having to take legal advice.
This is really what you asked them for I think... for them to state in writing that they hadn't paid you initially because the lock was faulty to start with. I suppose they might argue that by concluding to your satisfaction
they no longer need to finance you to sue Renault. But it would be a very loose argument that may be worth mentioning to your solicitor.
My question would be: are Renault going to say that because the catch was faulty, it wasn't working the way it was meant to, therefore you should have had it fixed or replaced? Or can it be said that it was faulty by way of design and materials used in its manufacture and fitting? What first? Chicken or egg?
Going to do a bit more digging on UK Insurance I think.
I believe that one line read is one line learned. No research you do can ever be a waste of time.
That's only my layman's opinion but I hope others agree.