From: Adrian on
"BertieBigBollox(a)" <bertiebigbollox(a)> gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

> 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.,

Yeh, they would. Nice little profit on the whole saga...
From: Adrian on
"BertieBigBollox(a)" <bertiebigbollox(a)> gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

> Unfiortunately, wife did sign the form. :-(


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

Did she note that on the form?
From: Adrian on
Paul <paul23023(a)> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were

> just in case they try to say - we sprayed it the right colour, some
> previous bodger resprayed the entire car the wrong shade ;-)

Tough. Match to the car, not the code.
From: Ian on

"BertieBigBollox(a)" <bertiebigbollox(a)> wrote in
> 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?
You could have had a complete respray.

But *you* pay for the bits to be resprayed that were not affected in
the accident.

It's called "betterment".

From: Mike P on
On 30 June, 14:46, "BertieBigBol...(a)"
<bertiebigbol...(a)> wrote:
> On Jun 30, 12:14 pm, Adrian <toomany2...(a)> wrote:
> > Paul <paul23...(a)> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > saying:
> > >> 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.
> > > Why should it matter whether the policy was classic or not when the
> > > other driver was at fault?
> > Because the standard of repair expected to a classic vehicle -
> > particularly with reference to paint match - is higher than to a random
> > older car. There are also different techniques required - it'd be fine to
> > paint a 2yo car to the paint code, since fading and previous repainting
> > is unlikely. But not an older car - you really do need to match to the
> > colour. Which might take a couple of goes, and increases the cost.
> > > 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.
> > If you have specific requirements, buy a product that meets them, not
> > just a random one.
> I dont see the relevance of my policy as someone else has pointed out.
> In this case, the other insurer is liable for the costs anway.
> I could have 3rd party insurance if I wanted. Does this mean I lose
> rights to decent repairs if someone else hits it ????

Your insurer pays for the repair whatever policy you have. Then they
claim the costs back from the other insurer.

It's not hard to understand.

Mike P