From: BertieBigBollox on 30 Jun 2010 09:48 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 30 Jun 2010 09:48 "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 30 Jun 2010 09:50 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 30 Jun 2010 09:51 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 30 Jun 2010 09:52
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. |