Thanks for the quick response. I was very uncomfortable about the whole situation and felt they were trying to pull the wool over their eyes. Before I go back to them Ill give you a bit more info...
- Accident occurs 31st Dec.
- Contacted insurance who offered a hire car same spec as our own at no extra cost. We accepted.
- Insurance passed us to "Kindertons" to manage the repair of the car.
- Car picked up & hire car delivered. My wife signed for the hire car which later appears to be a "credit agreement". A condition says we must allow Kindertons to act on our behalf to recover money from 3rd party.
- Lawyer for Kindertons gets in touch & asks my wife for a signature so they can take 3rd party to court for the hire car costs they wont pay. She agreed.
- Lawyer then wants our bank details to prove "we had to take a hire agreement or we couldnt afford the hire car...."
- My wife gave them her bank statement but we stopped them when they asked for our joint account information.
- The lawyer tells us that there was a letter sent from the 3rd party offering a cheaper car...we didnt receive it and they didnt specify who the letter was sent to.
Thats where we're at now... here's the last email from the lawyer..
Dear Mr Porteous,
We refer to your previous correspondence dated 24th June 2014. Your case handler has now returned to the office.
The reason why we require your joint financial information is to show that your wife was not able to afford a hire car at the time of the accident. Your joint accounts shows funds that you, together, had saved for your wedding. If you wife had used these funds to purchase a hire car then you would have not been able to pay for your wedding.
The issue comes done to your wife's duty to mitigate her losses. Your wife had a duty to conduct her affairs to ensure that she suffered minimal loss as a result of the other side's negligence. We would argue that she did that by accepting the credit hire agreement as the other option was to cancel her wedding.
The reason why we require the joint account beyond the accident date is to show that those funds had a specific purpose, that they were effectively 'spent' at the time of the accident.
The reason why we are at this point is because the other side are arguing that your wife did not mitigate her loss by accepting the credit hire agreement. This stems from a letter sent to Kindertons offering a hire car at a lesser rate than the car you were using. Unfortunately, because the agreement is between your wife and Kindertons, she is legally liable for the cost, hence Kindertons have to sue the third party for the costs under your wife's name. This also means that we must show that the credit hire agreement was the reasonable option for your wife.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you wish to discuss this further.
How would I best respond to this? Thanks