Prev: Seat Diaphragm
Next: Classic car insurance - read the small print!
From: BertieBigBollox on 30 Jun 2010 06:32
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?
From: Adrian on 30 Jun 2010 06:37
"BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbollox(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

> 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.

I'm glad you dodged the bullet on it. I take it you'll be taking the hint
on classic insurance when it comes to renewal time...?

> 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?

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.
From: BertieBigBollox on 30 Jun 2010 06:48
On Jun 30, 11:37 am, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> "BertieBigBol...(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbol...(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying:
>
> > 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.
>
> I'm glad you dodged the bullet on it. I take it you'll be taking the hint
> on classic insurance when it comes to renewal time...?
>
> > 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?
>
> 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?

If it needs a complete respray, then its not my fault. Especially
since the accident was blatantly not my fault.

Although, like you said, if they could match it then thats fine by me
- not going to be awkward about it. Got the feeling that the bodyshop
havent made a great deal of effort with the car though.

I guess I could have a bit of a fight on my hands now though proving
that the quality is unnacceptable...
From: Adrian on 30 Jun 2010 06:58
"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 unviable.
From: Paul on 30 Jun 2010 07:03
Adrian wrote:
> "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 unviable.

Why should it matter whether the policy was classic or not when the
other driver was at fault? The classic policy provider is not
contributing and indeed the at fault drivers insurer might not even know
what policy the damaged car is covered by.
If I have third party rather than comprehensive I still would expect
full repairs provided by the third party...

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.



 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Prev: Seat Diaphragm
Next: Classic car insurance - read the small print!