From: stephen.hull on 30 Jun 2010 15:44
In message <889b20e4-2842-427d-b9a3-225805a44300(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
"BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbollox(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 30, 1:30�pm, "Jerry" <mapson.sca...(a)btinternet.INVALID> wrote:
>> "BertieBigBol...(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbol...(a)gmail.com> wrote in
>> : Got a classic 1987 mini cooper in mint condition.
>> 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
>Colour is gunmetal grey.
If it is Gunmetal Metallic (ARG.684 1986/87) then there is only
one colour version of that particular shade, so how can the
body shop get that wrong? Particularly when metallic colours don't
fade that much because of the lacquered finish protecting them.
It is the sprayers responsibility to match the existing colour
whatever the age, however this sort of thing happens all too often
these days, a neighbour of mine had a few panels on his 13 year
old Mercedes W140 S-Class resprayed at a so called reputable
garage but the colour match was awful, I resprayed it in the
street with a better colour match than the garage did.
The sprayer is supposed to assume the colour won't match and
prepare adjacent panels ready to blend in if the colour match is
slightly out, then you would get a perfect colour match, In my
case the Merc was painted and lacquered panel to panel with no
regard to matching if the incorrect colour variant was used,
which proves it can be done if they take the time and care.
The Merc also had five colour variants and was a Pearlecent mica
whereas your Mini has only one colour shade, no variants and age
related to 96/97 only,
Yes take it back and demand the correct colour match or threaten
to go to your local paper to name and shame.
Coach painting tips and techniques + Land Rover colour codes
"Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble". Henry Royce
From: smurf on 30 Jun 2010 18:04
> "BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbollox(a)gmail.com> gurgled
> happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>> It's certainly very true that you should not expect a complete
>>> respray - although you would have been very welcome to pay the
>>> marginal extra yourself (betterment).
>>> However, you shouldn't have to live with a poor match - the bodyshop
>>> should have matched the paint on the repaired section to the
>>> existing paint, rather than relying on the colour code.
>> 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
Why would his insurance policy matter? I presume he is claiming from the
third party, or at least he is getting the work done and then the third
party will cough up the amount.
From: Grimly Curmudgeon on 30 Jun 2010 18:22
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com"
<bertiebigbollox(a)gmail.com> saying something like:
>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 have it right - you are entitled to have it back to the standard it
was before the bump. You are entitled to reject the repair as
unsatisfactory, but this might not entail a full respray - and
shouldn't, if the paint shop is any good.
From: Jerry on 1 Jul 2010 04:50
"smurf" <smurf(a)smurf.com> wrote in message
: Adrian wrote:
: > It's still relevant that your insurance was not a classic
: > the standards being applied are those of a normal vehicle of
: > age. You merely proved to them that the repair was not
: > unviable.
: Why would his insurance policy matter? I presume he is claiming
: third party, or at least he is getting the work done and then
: party will cough up the amount.
Because that is not how the insurance industry works, unless the
*policy holder makes a claim directly with the third parties
insurance Co.*, they do make a claim against their own policy -
this is why claiming against the third party when insured via a
TPF&F policy can be so lengthy, as both insurance Companies will
need to agree settlement BEFORE any repairs/money can be
authorised. In this case the OP is evidently making a claim on
their own insurance against the third party so his own policy (or
clauses within) does have a bearing on all this.
From: Jerry on 1 Jul 2010 04:55
<stephen.hull(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
: If it is Gunmetal Metallic (ARG.684 1986/87) then there is only
: one colour version of that particular shade, so how can the
: body shop get that wrong? Particularly when metallic colours
: fade that much because of the lacquered finish protecting them.
There is another possibility, one that I have come across before,
that is the make of paint used, the colour match might be correct
but the lacquered finish is causing the problem - some lacquered
finishes can look, to coin a phrase, to plastic, almost to shiny