From: BertieBigBollox on
On Jun 30, 12:42 pm, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul <paul23...(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...

Yes. Made a mistake there maybe.

Maybe I should have bypassed my insurance and gone straight to them.
However, when I phoned my insurance to report the accident they said
it was an easy case because no-one was in the car so might as well
have it done through them and then they'd claim it back.,
From: Adrian on
"BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbollox(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

> I could have 3rd party insurance if I wanted. Does this mean I lose
> rights to decent repairs if someone else hits it ????

It'd mean that you wouldn't be claiming off your insurer in the first
place.

<sigh> It's simple. The quality of the paint match is nothing to do with
your insurance. You're conflating two issues. It's down to the bodyshop.
From: BertieBigBollox on
On Jun 30, 1:09 pm, Paul <paul23...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
> > Paul <paul23...(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/1b0f16866cb...
>
> >> 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...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Paul mate. Looks like we're off the same opinion here.

Been looking on FOS website for something. When they argued about the
value I found a page on there which said the value of a car if
recently purchased can be said to be the purchase value. They shut up
when I pointed this out.

If I could get the same for this, I'd be happy.
From: BertieBigBollox on
On Jun 30, 1:14 pm, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul <paul23...(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.

Agreed about the policy. I will be changing it when this is all over
and done with.
From: BertieBigBollox on
On Jun 30, 1:30 pm, "Jerry" <mapson.sca...(a)btinternet.INVALID> wrote:
> "BertieBigBol...(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbol...(a)gmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews: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.

Unfiortunately, wife did sign the form. :-(

Did complain at the time that it was dark and car hadnt been washed
though.

Colour is gunmetal grey.