Bodywork repairs following accident - paint match
in [Classic Cars]
|
From: Adrian on 30 Jun 2010 11:23 Mike P <mikewpearson1(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Your insurer pays for the repair whatever policy you have. Only if you claim off them. Which you don't have to. If it's open-and- shut, that's a mug's game.
From: Paul on 30 Jun 2010 11:28 Mike P wrote: > On 30 June, 14:46, "BertieBigBol...(a)gmail.com" > <bertiebigbol...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 30, 12:14 pm, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Paul <paul23...(a)hotmail.com> 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 Its not as *simple* as you make out and doesn't always work that way... why do you think Legal Protection policies exist, if it was your insurer paying and claiming don't you think *they* would buy the policy. Last time I had a third party hit me the solicitors took over (Leech of manchester - apt name), and all costs were met and paid directly from the third party insurers, I know, I got a lovely cheque for �3k for injury and damage to personal property, and saw the cheque from them at the repairers when i collected my car...
From: Indy Jess John on 30 Jun 2010 11:29 BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Jun 30, 12:10 pm, "The Todal" <deadmail...(a)beeb.net> wrote: >> "BertieBigBol...(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbol...(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. >>> 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 should tell the body shop that you are dissatisfied and that you want >> them to do the job again and match the paint. If it cannot be matched, you >> should be entitled to a respray. That might ultimately mean suing your >> insurers to make them honour their obligations.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Going to see them on Friday and tell them I'm not happy. I would go further than that and say that you reject the paint job as unsatisfactory, and bearing in mind that you used their recommended repairer, it is their fault, so they need to either ensure that their repairer redoes it to a satisfactory quality or allow another repairer to repaint it the colour of the rest of the car. They are your insurer, and it is their responsibility to make sure that their customer's reasonable expectations are met. Jim
From: Cynic on 30 Jun 2010 13:47 On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:44:15 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave(a)davenoise.co.uk> wrote: >> 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. > >A decent craftsman should manage it first time. Doesn't even need a craftsman these days. Run the computerised colour scanner over the paintwork needed to be matched, stick a tin under the computer controlled paint mixer, and you've got a tin of paint that will exactly match. Mind you, the computer is designed to mix up a colour that will *end up* matching the scanned colour *after it has aged sufficiently*. New paintwork invariably changes its colour slightly over the following few months. So perhaps the OP will discover that the difference between the old and new paint will slowly disappear? -- Cynic
From: Jerry on 30 Jun 2010 13:30
"BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbollox(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:0f49bb89-507b-49a8-8074-db2bac15ba02(a)d16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... <snip> : 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. You sure about that, I think you will find that (unless you are TPF&F) you *are* making a claim against your insurance **unless** you have an acceptance of fault from the third party, in effect your insurance Co. will be claiming back /their/ costs. -- Regards, Jerry. |