From: Jerry on 1 Jul 2010 05:05
"Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimly4REMOVE(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
: You have it right - you are entitled to have it back to the
: was before the bump.
No, unless otherwise agreed with the insurance company *before*
the policy was taken out, all you have a right to is the vehicle
returned to it's original condition.
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.
Rubbish, how would any paint shop match 40 year old faded
paintwork for example, and painting the whole car would be
classed as "Betterment", something that the owner would have to
From: stephen.hull on 1 Jul 2010 12:37
In message <i0hmeb$ufh$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>
"Jerry" <mapson.scarts(a)btinternet.INVALID> wrote:
><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 don't
>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
I first came across this problem a few years ago now with a cheap
thermoplastic type lacquer, it would also remain far too soft even
when fully cured unless it was oven baked, I have not come across
this with the higher end paint materials though.
Coach painting tips and techniques + Land Rover colour codes
"Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble". Henry Royce
From: BertieBigBollox on 2 Jul 2010 09:51
It gets worse - went back to garage to complain and they said, yes, it
doesnt match. It looks like the back end has been resprayed but thats
all the insurance company would pay for.
Phoned insurance company and they say they said that the 3rd parties
insurance co will only pay for repairs to the damaged area and not a
complete respray. I argued that now it doesnt match and they said it
even though it was unfair it was tough luck...
Surely, this cant be right. Surely I've got a right to have car
repaired to how it was before the accident? Remember this was a show
quality classic car....
I guess my only option now is to go to FOS and see what they say? No
idea where I stand legally.
I must admit I wish I hadnt even gone through my insurers and gone
straight to the third party. Thay way I could have argued with them
Wonder if I still have the option to sue the third party or their
insurers directy to get the car back to its original condition? Seems
like all these insurers are in each others pockets and look after each
From: The Todal on 2 Jul 2010 10:06
> It gets worse - went back to garage to complain and they said, yes, it
> doesnt match. It looks like the back end has been resprayed but thats
> all the insurance company would pay for.
> Phoned insurance company and they say they said that the 3rd parties
> insurance co will only pay for repairs to the damaged area and not a
> complete respray. I argued that now it doesnt match and they said it
> even though it was unfair it was tough luck...
> Surely, this cant be right. Surely I've got a right to have car
> repaired to how it was before the accident? Remember this was a show
> quality classic car....
I agree. If the correct matching paint is not obtainable you are entitled to
a respray. However there may be an element of "betterment" if the vehicle is
improved as a result of the respray, ie if there were scratches and
blemishes that have now been cured by the respray. If your car was in
pristine condition then this should not arise.
I suggest you get 3 independent estimates for the cost of a respray. Present
them to your insurers and say that if they aren't willing to pay the
smallest of the three estimates, you will be suing them in the county court.
You can however also write to the insurers of the other driver and ask them
to pay. The problem is that your own insurers have (presumably) already
incurred the first bill for repainting the vehicle and if they can't recover
that from the insurers of the other party they will very probably reduce
your no claims discount. So it is probably best to deal with your own
comprehensive insurers and not complicate the issue by going to the opposing
insurers, unless you have other losses and expenses you want to claim.
> I guess my only option now is to go to FOS and see what they say? No
> idea where I stand legally.
What's FOS? You mean the financial ombudsman service? Only as a last resort.
> I must admit I wish I hadnt even gone through my insurers and gone
> straight to the third party. Thay way I could have argued with them
> Wonder if I still have the option to sue the third party or their
> insurers directy to get the car back to its original condition? Seems
> like all these insurers are in each others pockets and look after each
You do still have the option of suing the third party, yes. If the third
party has made a payment to your insurers towards the repair bill you have
already incurred, it is (probably) entitled as of right to deduct that from
what you are claiming.
From: Jethro on 2 Jul 2010 10:19
On 30 June, 11:32, "BertieBigBol...(a)gmail.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?
I haven't read every reply in this thread, but ISTR you are required
to sign an acceptance note, before you can drive the car away from the
If the repair is unacceptable, why didn't you refuse to sign it ?