2 hearsl time wested. avoid
Total time wested. I had an non fault accident in juky 23. My vehicle was sold forn7k.night before I had accident. Injury made me disabled. This useless.componey took the 50/50 blame without my concent and pocketed the money for vehicle Even though I has 2 solid witness and cctv. Which they never went to retrieve and never approach the witnesses for a year. When I asked for update they were clue lessk about the case.yet they took the vehicle payments.wihtout notifying me. Avoid this ideots. Their ppl cost me my business. Time and money. They stop answering my phones. And in the end still holding payments from insurance and not giving back so we can reopen th case from diff claim componey.
This are inexperience and money grabbers. I would every one to avoid this componey.
I jave made complains to FCA.
Reply from Vintage Claims Management Group
Thank you for your review. Dear Readers,
From the outset, this claim was accepted and actively managed by our team for approximately one year. At the time of instruction, there was no supporting documentary evidence available, aside from alleged witnesses. The client was requested multiple times to assist in obtaining witness statements and other supporting evidence, including CCTV footage. Despite repeated follow-ups and updates from our side, the client failed to provide any witness statements or timely responses, which significantly delayed the progression of the claim.
Throughout the handling of the matter, the third-party insurer strongly disputed liability. Nevertheless, our team continued to pursue the claim diligently, and after extensive correspondence and negotiations, liability was agreed on a 50/50 basis . This outcome was achieved despite the lack of cooperation and evidence from the client.
During this period, the client also attempted to bypass our involvement by seeking payment directly from the third-party insurer, despite us being the formally appointed representatives. As per standard procedure, the third-party insurer issued payment to us, which led to further objections from the client and the client did not accept the payment which resulted in the payment being on hold until further progression. Subsequently, the client expressed dissatisfaction with the settlement and instructed that the matter be escalated to solicitors. However, this instruction was not followed through with the necessary cooperation, which caused further delays.
The client later instructed that the payment be returned to the third-party insurer and that the file be closed so he could pursue the matter independently . We advised the client that repayment could only be processed upon receipt of the third party’s bank details, which were actively chased by our team. Despite being kept informed of this process, the client continued to raise complaints, threaten us and publish adverse reviews while the matter was still being addressed.
We confirm that, upon receipt of the relevant bank details, the payment was returned to the third-party insurer , and the f ile has now been formally closed from our end . It is also important to note that no payment was received by our company from the client for the services provided throughout the duration of this claim.
In light of the above, we maintain that the claim was handled professionally, transparently, and in accordance with our procedures, and that the issues raised arose primarily due to the client’s lack of cooperation and unrealistic expectations rather than any failure in service on our part.
