WE have access to UK TV and it struck me how ironic it is, seeing those advertisements for friendly insurance men rushing round in your hour of distress. He is making good all you have lost or damaged and you wave him off from your doorstep as he departs with the cheery grin on the face of a man leaving satisfied customers.

As we know, reality is somewhat different. The name AXA is well-known in UK circles and there is a similarly-named firm dispensing a form of insurance out here. I believe they are unconnected if under the same corporate umbrella.

We insured our car comprehensively when we came to France and some 17 months ago a van drove out of a side turning and hit us amidships. We were travelling along the Route National towards Mazamet. The van driver admitted it was his fault as we climbed out of our car. There were four of us and we each knew enough French to understand he had looked left and then right but he admitted he had forgotten to look left again.

His wife filled out the insurance form, on her side, admitting to driving out on a route principal. There was no question of priority a droite (to the right), as confirmed by the local police. On our side of the form, we stated that it was their fault. We signed our column, they signed their side. They also drew a map showing their error.

Just by chance I saw a central panel with tick boxes within it. The other driver ticked a box and that was that. We sent off our form and asked for a hire car while the repairs were being made. The agent, back in our old village of Benevent L’Abbaye, is actually an Axa agent and works for AXA, not his clients. He asked if the car was able to be driven to the garage of their choice for repairs.

We said it was, just about.

In which case we qualified for a hire car.

“Do you mean, if they had all but written the car off, to render it un-driveable, we would not have received a hire car,” I asked?

“Yes, you would not have qualified,” was the reply.

That seemed madness to me. Your car is written off- no hire car; your car is just about driveable – you receive a hire car.

“That is how the policy is written,” he replied, which is insurance-speak for avoiding truly comprehensive cover.

He also took issue with the fact there was a cross in the central box on the accident form, which suggested it was a cross-roads. I had best get the other driver to remove it and admit it was just a cul de sac entering the principal route, he said.

“You have signed it,” the agent said.

“But he has signed saying he drove into a route principal, naming it as the Route National, and I have stated it was their fault, and they have signed it.”

I was asked to obtain photos of the site. The junction was photographed and sent off, along with the local police number and contact name who stated there was no priority to anyone coming onto the Route National from right or left.

My car was driven off, a hire car delivered and we waited nine weeks for the car to be returned, repaired. This seemed inordinately long.

I noted the rear censor was on permanently, the cd-player did not work, the indicator light on the wing mirror no longer functioned and, when I opened up the boot and cleaned up the oil stains, caused by it spilling during the accident, the boot dropped down on my back. One of the supports was unconnected. I was far from happy.

I took the car to my old garage for a service and asked if these errors were serious. Later that day they reported the rear bumper was “hanging on”, the wiring to it was chaotic, there was oil which had been squirted on impact into the cd-player, the upholstery had been twisted and not put back properly or replaced after the airbags had worked on impact, and there was a tranche of unprotected metal underneath, where the new wing had been connected, which lacked under-seal protection.

I dropped round to the agent who commenced to tell me what I had to do. I pointed out it was down to him to do something. I was complaining the car repairs had not been finished properly by their chosen garage and, further, I had not been refunded the 240 euros for the excess, as the accident was not my fault.

The whole saga was referred to by AXA, who told me the repairer was happy with the repairs he had produced and the equivalent of the MOT base, which checks the car’s mechanics function as proscribed, was also happy before the car was returned to me.

You become a little lost in situations like this. I did write in French and suggest neither I nor AXA expected the repairer or any others to admit to gross negligence or say anything along the lines of “yes we thought he wouldn’t be happy, bring i back and we will finish the job”.

Three months later, we were no further forward, but, for the record, the bumper which had been described as hanging on, lost its grip and fell off. I reported this, and a month later it was vaguely acknowledge by the agent.

After a host of emails, AXA finally conceded they would send out an expert to inspect the car. They also admitted I was entitled to having my excess returned as the other driver had admitted responsibility on the form. They instructed the agent to send a cheque which I imagined did not please him.

The expert inspected the car, told me the upholstery should have been replaced and he located and confirmed all the discrepancies.

However, somewhat illogically, he sent in a report that admitted to three errors but then described all the failings attributed to the rear bumper, which we had reported and complained about and had two mechanics witness in November 2012, were as a result of the bumper falling off, perhaps nudged off while in a car park in April 2013.

In other words AXA claimed we were clairvoyant.

Axa told us the limited repairs would cost 137 euros and if we could find someone to undertake the work for that price, they would pay them. To date no one has been found who would consider the job.

So when you see those adverts on television, just remember: Beware of insurance men bearing gifts.