Bodywork repairs following accident - paint match
in [Classic Cars]
|
From: Adrian on 30 Jun 2010 07:57 Paul <paul23023(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> If you recall the original threads, Bertie was claiming from his own >> insurance, not directly from the other party. > No he wasn't Yes, he was. Like I said - if you recall the original threads... http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/browse_frm/thread/1b0f16866cbf3098 > I wondered if you'd confused the issue: > > "Spoke to my insurance company Why, if he's not claiming from them? They wouldn't know anything about it, let alone make decisions about it. > who said that they could not expect the 3rd partys insurer to pay reimburse them > for a complete respray As is to be expected > and that this was sometimes the problem with older cars." Fob-off, go away. You think they'd try that on a classic policyholder? >>>> 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.. RTA applicability goes with assumption of access, remember?
From: Paul on 30 Jun 2010 08:09 Adrian wrote: > Paul <paul23023(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: > >>> If you recall the original threads, Bertie was claiming from his own >>> insurance, not directly from the other party. > >> No he wasn't > > Yes, he was. Like I said - if you recall the original threads... > http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/browse_frm/thread/1b0f16866cbf3098 > >> I wondered if you'd confused the issue: >> >> "Spoke to my insurance company > > Why, if he's not claiming from them? They wouldn't know anything about > it, let alone make decisions about it. Every claim I've had to make, I place firmly in the hands of my insurers and leave them to deal with, that's what they are there for! > >> who said that they could not expect the 3rd partys insurer to pay > > reimburse them > >> for a complete respray > > As is to be expected > It IS expected that they do the job to a satisfactory standard that restores the car to its previous value, OR provides a write off value equal to that of a similar model and condition. >> and that this was sometimes the problem with older cars." > > Fob-off, go away. You think they'd try that on a classic policyholder? Still not a problem - his insurer is handling the case, not funding it. The third party and/or his insurers are still liable for the repairs. The fact that his own insurers cannot be arsed putting the effort in does not prevent him from pursuing it. > >>>>> 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.. > > RTA applicability goes with assumption of access, remember? Recent threads diagree and older threads argue a parked car needs no insurance...
From: Adrian on 30 Jun 2010 08:14 Paul <paul23023(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>> If you recall the original threads, Bertie was claiming from his own >>>> insurance, not directly from the other party. >>> No he wasn't >> Yes, he was. Like I said - if you recall the original threads... >> http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/browse_frm/ thread/1b0f16866cbf3098 >>> I wondered if you'd confused the issue: >>> >>> "Spoke to my insurance company >> Why, if he's not claiming from them? They wouldn't know anything about >> it, let alone make decisions about it. > Every claim I've had to make, I place firmly in the hands of my insurers > and leave them to deal with, that's what they are there for! Yep, you claim from them, they deal with the other insurer. You claim under the Ts & Cs of your own policy. >>> who said that they could not expect the 3rd partys insurer to pay >> reimburse them >>> for a complete respray >> As is to be expected > It IS expected that they do the job to a satisfactory standard that > restores the car to its previous value, OR provides a write off value > equal to that of a similar model and condition. Yep. Like I already said - an unacceptable paint match is not on. He has grounds to throw it back at 'em. If the only way to match the paint is to respray the whole car, then fine - but that's unlikely unless it's a polychromal colour. >>> and that this was sometimes the problem with older cars." >> Fob-off, go away. You think they'd try that on a classic policyholder? > Still not a problem - his insurer is handling the case, not funding it. They're funding it, then reclaiming the money from the other insurer. There's no point in them spending far more than they know they can reclaim. > The third party and/or his insurers are still liable for the repairs. Nope. He claimed from his policy, so his insurer is liable. The other insurer's just paying them back. > The fact that his own insurers cannot be arsed putting the effort in > does not prevent him from pursuing it. Correct. As I already said. The fact is, though, that it's hoops he wouldn't have to be jumping through if he'd bought the right product in the first place.
From: Jerry on 30 Jun 2010 08:30 "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. Assuming that we are talking about above average paintwork condition here (see below), then no, but you can expect the repairs to match the paint or blow-in down the side of the car, sounds like they have taken the masking to the body seams, take it back - I assume you didn't sign the satisfaction note (without which the insurance company will not, normally, pay the repairer)?... : : 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? Not original, which could mean a lot of "betterment" which is not the fault of the 3rd party either. What colour is the car? -- Regards, Jerry.
From: Dave Plowman (News) on 30 Jun 2010 08:41
In article <890maaFjm0U28(a)mid.individual.net>, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Yeh. But surely I've got a right to have the car back in the same > > condition as before the accident? > Indeed. And that condition was not "freshly and completely resprayed". > 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. That's complete bollocks.;-) My getting on a bit (13 years old) but still in good condition BMW was damaged recently and it was touch and go about it being written off. Due to the cost of a new door. I asked why they couldn't just use a secondhand one - about 50 rather than 500 quid for the part - and they said they only use new parts. They also had to respray more than just the damaged part to get a good match on the metallic paint. You are entitled to have the car returned to the condition it was in before the accident, and not bodged in any way. My other car is on a classic policy. Not had any special treatment over repairs on that. Only thing might be an agreed value - but suspicious me wonders just how worthwhile these are? Because some insurers seem to accept amounts far higher than the car would fetch if sold on the open market. -- *Age is a very high price to pay for maturity. Dave Plowman dave(a)davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |