Bodywork repairs following accident - paint match
in [Classic Cars]
|
From: BertieBigBollox on 2 Jul 2010 10:36 On Jul 2, 3:19 pm, Jethro <krazyka...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > On 30 June, 11:32, "BertieBigBol...(a)gmail.com" > > > > > > <bertiebigbol...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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? > > I haven't read every reply in this thread, but ISTR you are required > to sign an acceptance note, before you can drive the car away from the > repairers. > > If the repair is unacceptable, why didn't you refuse to sign it ?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Wife did :-(
From: BertieBigBollox on 2 Jul 2010 10:41 > I suggest you get 3 independent estimates for the cost of a respray. Present > them to your insurers and say that if they aren't willing to pay the > smallest of the three estimates, you will be suing them in the county court. > > You can however also write to the insurers of the other driver and ask them > to pay. The problem is that your own insurers have (presumably) already > incurred the first bill for repainting the vehicle and if they can't recover > that from the insurers of the other party they will very probably reduce > your no claims discount. So it is probably best to deal with your own > comprehensive insurers and not complicate the issue by going to the opposing > insurers, unless you have other losses and expenses you want to claim. So if my insurers cant get the money off them, I lose my no claims even though it wasnt my fault ? (wasnt even in the car). > > > > > I guess my only option now is to go to FOS and see what they say? No > > idea where I stand legally. > > What's FOS? You mean the financial ombudsman service? Only as a last resort. Thought I couldnt do this once I'd started court proceedings. > You do still have the option of suing the third party, yes. If the third > party has made a payment to your insurers towards the repair bill you have > already incurred, it is (probably) entitled as of right to deduct that from > what you are claiming. Yeh. I guess at some point my insurers have or will be sending the bill for the work to them. Cant I just sue them for the additional cost of a respray? Hang on now though. If at some point, I manage to co-erce my insurers to pay for a respray are you saying that if the 3rd party insurer then disagrees and refuses to stump up then I'll lose my no claims? Thats fair since it wasnt my fault at all. What would be my options then? p.s. I'm betting theres a clause that says if they cant make a full recovery FOR WHATEVER REASON, then it counts as a fault claim?
From: John Turner on 2 Jul 2010 10:41 "BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com" wrote > Surely, this cant be right. Surely I've got a right to have car > repaired to how it was before the accident? Remember this was a show > quality classic car.... You're entitled to have the vehicle put back into the condition it was in before the accident - no better nor any worse. If all the paintwork matched before the accident, then it should match after it was repaired. You should probably not have accepted the car back after the repair if it had not been done to your satisfaction. If you've signed a note accepting the work done then you may have negated any rights you might otherwise have had. John. John.
From: Jethro on 2 Jul 2010 10:57 On 2 July, 15:36, "BertieBigBol...(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbol...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 3:19 pm, Jethro <krazyka...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 30 June, 11:32, "BertieBigBol...(a)gmail.com" > > > <bertiebigbol...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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? > > > I haven't read every reply in this thread, but ISTR you are required > > to sign an acceptance note, before you can drive the car away from the > > repairers. > > > If the repair is unacceptable, why didn't you refuse to sign it ?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Wife did :-(- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So I presume the car is still at the garage ? If that's the case, what does the garage say about it ? They should be putting pressure on the insurance co. too ....
From: The Todal on 2 Jul 2010 11:21
Jethro wrote: > On 2 July, 15:36, "BertieBigBol...(a)gmail.com" > <bertiebigbol...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 2, 3:19 pm, Jethro <krazyka...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 30 June, 11:32, "BertieBigBol...(a)gmail.com" >> >>> <bertiebigbol...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> 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? >> >>> I haven't read every reply in this thread, but ISTR you are required >>> to sign an acceptance note, before you can drive the car away from >>> the >>> repairers. >> >>> If the repair is unacceptable, why didn't you refuse to sign it ?- >>> Hide quoted text - >> >>> - Show quoted text - >> >> Wife did :-(- Others may say that by signing a form signifying that she was satisfied with the repair, she waived all your rights. I'd say bollocks to that. So long as you don't delay in expressing your dissatisfaction to the garage, you should be okay. > > So I presume the car is still at the garage ? If that's the case, what > does the garage say about it ? They should be putting pressure on the > insurance co. too .... Unless the insurance company has paid the invoice. They may have done. If they did so when you were complaining that the job was sub-standard, then that's an error by their staff and they should not penalise their customer if they can't recover the sum from the opposing insurers. |