I had an accident in icy conditions almost 2 years ago on a freezing evening when I stopped at the scene of another accident where a car had overturned due to black ice. Then, a few seconds later, a third car hit my car and skidded over a bank into a field. Police were called etc., and my car had damage to the back. My insurance included a replacement car so I phoned them and they organised for an accident management firm to sort it out as my car got collected to be repaired on the Tuesday but I got a replacement on the Thursday, thus being 2 days without a car. The next week, Swiftcover, the insurer of the lady who had hit my car, contacted me offering me a replacement car, that would have meant me being without a car for at least 7 days before they had acted. I informed them I already had one through my insurer but they were not happy with this. My car was some 21 days being repaired and resprayed. I later received several letters from Swiftcover saying they would not pay for my replacement car as I had not taken one from them. I wrote back to say I would have has they offered me one in time, but a car which was vital in the rural area I lived and that the sole reason I needed one was because their driver had not been able to stop. My insurer had to take Swiftcover to court to claim hire car costs and I had to arrange for a day off work to appear and only then was the matter settled out of court. Is such behaviour normal in such circumstances?