Bodywork repairs following accident - paint match
in [Classic Cars]
|
From: The Todal on 30 Jun 2010 07:10 "BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbollox(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:999b87a5-4087-409d-8b67-5b387fabf5d3(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > Got a classic 1987 mini cooper in mint condition. Well, it was until > someone ran into the back of it in a car park when it was parked. > > Anyway, off it went to the bodyshop recommended by the insurer. Got it > back yesterday. > > Very poor paint job. Its now blatantly obvious that the back has been > resprayed but not the whole car. > > Spoke to my insurance company who said that they could not expect the > 3rd partys insurer to pay for a complete respray and that this was > sometimes the problem with older cars. > > Seems a bit unfair. So now I've got a car with not matching paintwork > due to an accident that blatantly wasnt my fault. > > Surely, this is not right. Shouldnt the 3rd party or their insurer be > liable to restore the car to its original condition regardless of > whether it requires a complete respray? You should tell the body shop that you are dissatisfied and that you want them to do the job again and match the paint. If it cannot be matched, you should be entitled to a respray. That might ultimately mean suing your insurers to make them honour their obligations.
From: Adrian on 30 Jun 2010 07:14 Paul <paul23023(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> It's still relevant that your insurance was not a classic policy, so >> the standards being applied are those of a normal vehicle of that age. >> You merely proved to them that the repair was not financially unviable. > Why should it matter whether the policy was classic or not when the > other driver was at fault? Because the standard of repair expected to a classic vehicle - particularly with reference to paint match - is higher than to a random older car. There are also different techniques required - it'd be fine to paint a 2yo car to the paint code, since fading and previous repainting is unlikely. But not an older car - you really do need to match to the colour. Which might take a couple of goes, and increases the cost. > And since the alternative would be to write off a mini (what are they > selling for now, three grand?) - it must be finacially viable to repair > rather than write off. Which was what Bertie achieved through some paperwork. Their attitude was that, as a random 20-odd year old car not in their price guides, it must be nearly valueless. Which, given that it was insured as a random 20-odd year old car instead of as a classic, is fair enough. If you have specific requirements, buy a product that meets them, not just a random one.
From: Paul on 30 Jun 2010 07:37 Adrian wrote: > Paul <paul23023(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: > >>> It's still relevant that your insurance was not a classic policy, so >>> the standards being applied are those of a normal vehicle of that age. >>> You merely proved to them that the repair was not financially unviable. > >> Why should it matter whether the policy was classic or not when the >> other driver was at fault? > > Because the standard of repair expected to a classic vehicle - > particularly with reference to paint match - is higher than to a random > older car. There are also different techniques required - it'd be fine to > paint a 2yo car to the paint code, since fading and previous repainting > is unlikely. But not an older car - you really do need to match to the > colour. Which might take a couple of goes, and increases the cost. I know that - and that's fine if the owner crashes it under a normal policy - he can only expect the value the value the insurer wants to give him...if you don't pay the premium you can't expect magic. > >> And since the alternative would be to write off a mini (what are they >> selling for now, three grand?) - it must be finacially viable to repair >> rather than write off. > > Which was what Bertie achieved through some paperwork. Their attitude was > that, as a random 20-odd year old car not in their price guides, it must > be nearly valueless. Which, given that it was insured as a random 20-odd > year old car instead of as a classic, is fair enough. But its not for the third party insurers to make that decision - as I said, the type of policy in force on the victims car is irrelevent. If I was to break my neigbbours windows with my football, I (or my insurer) is still responsible for the full cost of repair to satisfactory standard, regardless of whether my neighbour has all risks insurance or no insurance at all. My insurer might argue that since the neigbbour only had contents cover they were only going to fit single glazed instead of double glazed, but they wouldn;t habe a leg to stand on with that arguement. > > If you have specific requirements, buy a product that meets them, not > just a random one. He didn't need ANY insurance - what if his car had been sorned and correctly parked in a private bay? The facts remain that the third party would quibble the cost of the repair regardless of whether the OP had a normal policy or a classic policy, and is the OP due repairs to return his car to the value it was before. If it was a £3k mini before and now is a £2,800 mini due to poor paintmatching he has every right to expect restitution to his previous position, plus expenses. Of course, it most likely that he will have to go to court to achieve this, but his lack of 'best policy' will not detract from his case.
From: Adrian on 30 Jun 2010 07:42 Paul <paul23023(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> And since the alternative would be to write off a mini (what are they >>> selling for now, three grand?) - it must be finacially viable to >>> repair rather than write off. >> Which was what Bertie achieved through some paperwork. Their attitude >> was that, as a random 20-odd year old car not in their price guides, it >> must be nearly valueless. Which, given that it was insured as a random >> 20-odd year old car instead of as a classic, is fair enough. > But its not for the third party insurers to make that decision - as I > said, the type of policy in force on the victims car is irrelevent. If you recall the original threads, Bertie was claiming from his own insurance, not directly from the other party. >> If you have specific requirements, buy a product that meets them, not >> just a random one. > He didn't need ANY insurance - what if his car had been sorned and > correctly parked in a private bay? Without any insurance? He'd have a court date by now...
From: Paul on 30 Jun 2010 07:45
Adrian wrote: > Paul <paul23023(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: > >>>> And since the alternative would be to write off a mini (what are they >>>> selling for now, three grand?) - it must be finacially viable to >>>> repair rather than write off. > >>> Which was what Bertie achieved through some paperwork. Their attitude >>> was that, as a random 20-odd year old car not in their price guides, it >>> must be nearly valueless. Which, given that it was insured as a random >>> 20-odd year old car instead of as a classic, is fair enough. > >> But its not for the third party insurers to make that decision - as I >> said, the type of policy in force on the victims car is irrelevent. > > If you recall the original threads, Bertie was claiming from his own > insurance, not directly from the other party. No he wasn't, I wondered if you'd confused the issue: "Spoke to my insurance company who said that they could not expect the 3rd partys insurer to pay for a complete respray and that this was sometimes the problem with older cars." > >>> If you have specific requirements, buy a product that meets them, not >>> just a random one. > >> He didn't need ANY insurance - what if his car had been sorned and >> correctly parked in a private bay? > > Without any insurance? He'd have a court date by now... Done to death, insurance and VED not required in private bay.. |