Bodywork repairs following accident - paint match
in [Classic Cars]
|
From: steve robinson on 3 Jul 2010 05:08 BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Jul 2, 3:57�pm, Jethro <krazyka...(a)googlemail.com> 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 :-(- 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 .... > > No. Got the car. Went back yesterday and they admitted it looked > like the back had been reprayed and that it stood out. They're > excuse was insurance refused to pay for anything other than area > damaged. Thats a fair argument , the garage is not a charity if the insurance company say spray the back section only thats all the garage will do
From: steve robinson on 3 Jul 2010 05:13 BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Jul 2, 6:26�pm, stephen.h...(a)btinternet.com wrote: > > In message <0q4s26pb5li957icof0csd430vvk62a...(a)4ax.com> > > � � � � � Cynic <cynic_...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:31:55 +0100, stephen.h...(a)btinternet.com > > > wrote: > > > > > > If a car spray shop can't match a simple colour then they > > > > should NOT be in business. > > > > > It is not only the colour that can cause a newly sprayed part to > > > look different to a part that was sprayed a decade ago. > > > > > If I paint a wall of my living room, it will be obvious that the > > > wall has been newly painted even if I have use exactly the same > > > paint that had been used 5 years ago on the other 3 walls. > > > > > I should think it is incredibly difficult to make a fresh paint > > > job look as if it was done many years ago. > > > > The difference is particularly with a conventional vehicle paint > > is that you can always polish the old finish up to look new, > > unless the finish has failed of course. > > > > You cannot make old household paint look new, but you can > > sometimes make new paint look old but it will always be cleaner > > looking. > > > > I admit there can be difficult colours even on old vehicles but > > they normally can always be matched. > > > > I have matched an old 1926 Rolls Royce standard paint finish and > > intend this month to match a 1980's coach paint finish that has > > faded considerably, I don't want to paint the whole vehicle just > > for one small repair area but I will be able to match the colour, > > finish, texture and obtain a similar shine, it just takes a little > > time but can be done. > > > > Stephen. > > > > --http://www.stephen.hull.btinternet.co.uk > > Coach painting tips and techniques + Land Rover colour codes > > "Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble". Henry Royce > > So polishing / tcutting whatever might sort it out? you also have the problem that the matched paint will fade too in a few years leaving your car looking two tone again
From: Rob on 3 Jul 2010 06:18 On 03/07/2010 10:08, steve robinson wrote: > BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com wrote: > >> On Jul 2, 3:57 pm, Jethro<krazyka...(a)googlemail.com> 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 :-(- 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 .... >> >> No. Got the car. Went back yesterday and they admitted it looked >> like the back had been reprayed and that it stood out. They're >> excuse was insurance refused to pay for anything other than area >> damaged. > > Thats a fair argument , the garage is not a charity if the insurance > company say spray the back section only thats all the garage will do I don't follow any of this. A *competent* car body repairer would *try* to match existing, and advise if this was an issue before work started. Even halfords offer a colour matching service, and therefore understand that colours fade. On hindsight, the OP probably wishes he'd asked if the resprayed area would match existing. A question that shouldn't need asking IMO. I'd agree that it appears this garage is not a charity. It also appears not competent. it was asked to do a job. It either couldn't or wouldn't. I'd take legal action or drop it, and put it down to a bad experience. I'm surprised that so may here appear to think the garage acted properly. Rob
From: steve robinson on 3 Jul 2010 06:34 Rob wrote: > On 03/07/2010 10:08, steve robinson wrote: > > BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > >>On Jul 2, 3:57 pm, Jethro<krazyka...(a)googlemail.com> 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 :-(- 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 .... > > > > > > No. Got the car. Went back yesterday and they admitted it looked > > > like the back had been reprayed and that it stood out. They're > > > excuse was insurance refused to pay for anything other than area > > > damaged. > > > > Thats a fair argument , the garage is not a charity if the > > insurance company say spray the back section only thats all the > > garage will do > > I don't follow any of this. A competent car body repairer would try > to match existing, and advise if this was an issue before work > started. Even halfords offer a colour matching service, and > therefore understand that colours fade. They may well have advised the insurance company of such an issue we dont know Halfords colour matching service doesnt garentee a match , only a near match and thats all a garage could be expected to do given the price they are chargeing . If you want an exact match you need to take the vehicle to a specialist restorer and be prepared to pay large sums . > > On hindsight, the OP probably wishes he'd asked if the resprayed > area would match existing. A question that shouldn't need asking > IMO. > > I'd agree that it appears this garage is not a charity. It also > appears not competent. it was asked to do a job. It either couldn't > or wouldn't. I'd take legal action or drop it, and put it down to a > bad experience. > The garage has matched the paint to the original vehicle paint code thats all the insurance companies will pay for , they wont pay for bespoke matching services . Another problem is paints now are acrylic , its possible the op car was cellulose , its near impossible to get accurate matching in these circumstances The only option is a complete respray which adds a value the op shouldnt expect the insurance company to pay for this > I'm surprised that so may here appear to think the garage acted > properly. > > Rob
From: Ian on 3 Jul 2010 08:28
"steve robinson" <steve(a)colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message news:xn0gw704844rtf002(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Rob wrote: > >> On 03/07/2010 10:08, steve robinson wrote: >> > BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com wrote: >> > >> >>On Jul 2, 3:57 pm, Jethro<krazyka...(a)googlemail.com> 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 :-(- 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 .... >> > > >> > > No. Got the car. Went back yesterday and they admitted it >> > > looked >> > > like the back had been reprayed and that it stood out. They're >> > > excuse was insurance refused to pay for anything other than >> > > area >> > > damaged. >> > >> > Thats a fair argument , the garage is not a charity if the >> > insurance company say spray the back section only thats all the >> > garage will do >> >> I don't follow any of this. A competent car body repairer would try >> to match existing, and advise if this was an issue before work >> started. Even halfords offer a colour matching service, and >> therefore understand that colours fade. > > They may well have advised the insurance company of such an issue we > dont know > > Halfords colour matching service doesnt garentee a match , only a > near match and thats all a garage could be expected to do given the > price they are chargeing . > > If you want an exact match you need to take the vehicle to a > specialist restorer and be prepared to pay large sums . > > > >> >> On hindsight, the OP probably wishes he'd asked if the resprayed >> area would match existing. A question that shouldn't need asking >> IMO. >> >> I'd agree that it appears this garage is not a charity. It also >> appears not competent. it was asked to do a job. It either couldn't >> or wouldn't. I'd take legal action or drop it, and put it down to a >> bad experience. >> > > The garage has matched the paint to the original vehicle paint code > thats all the insurance companies will pay for , they wont pay for > bespoke matching services . > > Another problem is paints now are acrylic , its possible the op car > was cellulose , its near impossible to get accurate matching in > these > circumstances > > The only option is a complete respray which adds a value the op > shouldnt expect the insurance company to pay for this Ummmm.... surely if it was a classic car, original paintwork in good condition, then a complete (indeed, *any*) respray would detract from the cars value, not add to it? The end result is *not original*.... |