Blown turbo - engine damage? and insurance conundrum
Discussion
RyanTank said:
My Aunt hit her neighbours car while pulling away, owned up to it and to avoid it going through the insurance they agreed to settle it with her paying for the quoted work. Her local garage estimated the repair at £200 for a filler and spray job, so she gave her neighbour £200 for him to get it done. 6 months later his car still has a buggered bumper and she's effectively given him £200 to do with what he wants. He clearly hasn't put it towards the repair cost so should she be asking for the money back? No. Is she entitled to get the money back. No. Because she agreed to pay him, and not to pay the garage for the work.
You are making my argument for me here. Your Aunt paid your neighbour for damages, yet he spend £0 to repair the car. He is under no obligation to repair it. Your aunt is still liable, regardless of what he paid as he is being compensated for the damage.What you are arguing here is effectively this. Neighbour gets quote for £200. He actually spends £50 on a lower quality repair. Your argument goes that your Aunt is then only liable to pay £50 because that's what he spent which is patently untrue. This is a direct analog to my own case. You are saying that because I repaired it for cheap, the 3rd party does not have to pay me the full amount. The same is true if I didn't repair it. Your aunt(the 3rd party) is still liable to pay me for damages.
Please. Read and understand for your own benefit when dealing with non-fault claims.
Lord Justice said:
As we have already pointed out, the loss to a claimant whose chattel has been damaged by the negligence of another is immediate. That loss cannot be "mitigated" by having the chattel repaired free or for a lower cost, because it is not the cost of the repairs that constitutes the loss; the loss is the diminution in value of the chattel
Edited by dogzilla on Tuesday 24th March 14:22
Taken from this atricle, which comes up when you google your quoted above statement - http://www.tbchambers.co.uk/Legal-Articles/the-rec...
article said:
So where ‘the claimant’s insurer has arranged the repair, the reasonableness of the repair charge is to be judged by reference to what a person in the position of the claimant could obtain on the open market’.
Comment can be made here that the effect of judging the repair charge incurred from this vantage point, is defendants are likely to find Courts accepting higher repair charges as accurately evidencing what the Claimant’s diminution in value was. This arises because, almost inevitably, the bargain the individual claimant can achieve on the open market for vehicle repair services will not be as good as what a large bulk-buying insurance company could negotiate on the open market. Logically therefore, charges which would have been judged unreasonable had the insurer bargained for them in the open market, will be judged reasonable when the claimant bargains for them. Arguably this means diminution in value is a relative rather than an absolute concept, and a defendant takes the bargaining strength of his victim in the market for redress services as he finds him. Such a position would be consistent with the overarching damages principle, that ‘compensation should as nearly as possible put the party who has suffered in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong’, as per Lord Scarman in Lim v Camden & Islington Area Health Authority [1980] AC 174, 187
but also in the article under the point - Preliminary Issue 3 - Recoverable AmountComment can be made here that the effect of judging the repair charge incurred from this vantage point, is defendants are likely to find Courts accepting higher repair charges as accurately evidencing what the Claimant’s diminution in value was. This arises because, almost inevitably, the bargain the individual claimant can achieve on the open market for vehicle repair services will not be as good as what a large bulk-buying insurance company could negotiate on the open market. Logically therefore, charges which would have been judged unreasonable had the insurer bargained for them in the open market, will be judged reasonable when the claimant bargains for them. Arguably this means diminution in value is a relative rather than an absolute concept, and a defendant takes the bargaining strength of his victim in the market for redress services as he finds him. Such a position would be consistent with the overarching damages principle, that ‘compensation should as nearly as possible put the party who has suffered in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong’, as per Lord Scarman in Lim v Camden & Islington Area Health Authority [1980] AC 174, 187
article said:
If the total repair cost paid by RSAI is more than the reasonable repair cost that the claimant would have paid if he had arranged the repairs on the open market, then the sum claimed (effectively by RSAI) will simply be reduced to the notional reasonable repair cost.
I read this as, should you have had the repairs by BMW then the value of the repair would in fact have been the sum you previously had been agreed. But in having chosen to get the repairs done yourself means the sum can now only be the cost of what you paid? article said:
Conclusion
This is an important case for understanding the legal basis for assessing the measure of damages which a person will recover when his personal (as opposed to real) property has been physically damaged by the negligence of another. The disposal stage will involve the Court ultimately seeking to establish what the diminution in value was, using as a rule of thumb, that it can be taken as being the ‘reasonable cost of repair’. The loss is not the cost of remedial steps; the loss is the diminution in value. Accordingly, the notion that a duty to mitigate applies to steps taken by the claimant to have the vehicle repaired, is misguided. The recoverability of sums expended by a claimant (or his insurer) is governed, and limited by, the Court’s assessment of, as a question of fact, what was a reasonable amount for the claimant (not the insurer) to have spent having the vehicle repaired. What was actual spent can be at most only evidence (thought it is often the best evidence) as to what that reasonable amount was. Where, as in Coles, the claimant’s insurer’s scheme was used, the Court will consider whether the overall charge is reasonable, not on a component by component basis.
Again, this is my interpretation of the case, and if I've misread it again then I apologise, and wish you all thebest This is an important case for understanding the legal basis for assessing the measure of damages which a person will recover when his personal (as opposed to real) property has been physically damaged by the negligence of another. The disposal stage will involve the Court ultimately seeking to establish what the diminution in value was, using as a rule of thumb, that it can be taken as being the ‘reasonable cost of repair’. The loss is not the cost of remedial steps; the loss is the diminution in value. Accordingly, the notion that a duty to mitigate applies to steps taken by the claimant to have the vehicle repaired, is misguided. The recoverability of sums expended by a claimant (or his insurer) is governed, and limited by, the Court’s assessment of, as a question of fact, what was a reasonable amount for the claimant (not the insurer) to have spent having the vehicle repaired. What was actual spent can be at most only evidence (thought it is often the best evidence) as to what that reasonable amount was. Where, as in Coles, the claimant’s insurer’s scheme was used, the Court will consider whether the overall charge is reasonable, not on a component by component basis.
Unfortunately this is how insurance works - if you get the work completed, at a lower amount - the insurer is entitled to pay the lower amount.
You have summed it up perfectly here:
"You are saying that because I repaired it for cheap, the 3rd party does not have to pay me the full amount."
You are trying to gain from this i.e. firstly take the money - get your bodywork repaired cheaply AND get the Turbo sorted (which is nothing to do with bodywork). That's how the insurer and the law will see it?
Tough and sorry, this is why you are blowing a gasket....?
You have summed it up perfectly here:
"You are saying that because I repaired it for cheap, the 3rd party does not have to pay me the full amount."
You are trying to gain from this i.e. firstly take the money - get your bodywork repaired cheaply AND get the Turbo sorted (which is nothing to do with bodywork). That's how the insurer and the law will see it?
Tough and sorry, this is why you are blowing a gasket....?
Shezbo said:
Unfortunately this is how insurance works
Without being rude my friend you have to do better than that.Refer you to this quote once again from a supreme court judgement last year.
Lord Justice said:
As we have already pointed out, the loss to a claimant whose chattel has been damaged by the negligence of another is immediate. That loss cannot be "mitigated" by having the chattel repaired free or for a lower cost, because it is not the cost of the repairs that constitutes the loss; the loss is the diminution in value of the chattel
That loss cannot be "mitigated" by having the chattel repaired free or for a lower cost.My understanding is that that you wanted the 7k that the insurance offered and would do a cheap repair and use the rest on the engine work.You started the cheap body repair that was not up to BMW standard and then the insurance company changed their mind about the 7k payout and only wanted to pay for the bodywork.
As you decided to do the body work for 2k instead of the 7k that a BMW body shop would charge the insurance company will only now pay the 2k body shop bill,which seams fair to me.
I guess the insurance company can change their mind before giving you the 7k and I am not sure if you told the insurance company that you wanted a cheap repair to give you the money to fix the engine and if you did thats a bit naughty and no wonder they changed their mind.
Is my thinking on the above events correct.
So now you have a cheap body work repair that the insurance has paid for and the engine repairs are at your cost.
If you took your case to the insurance Ombudsman I think that you will have virtually no chance of winning and you quote the case in the supreme court which I believe is an American court so if you ended up with your case in the high court could you afford the 50k plus court costs as you would again be very unlikely to win.
As you decided to do the body work for 2k instead of the 7k that a BMW body shop would charge the insurance company will only now pay the 2k body shop bill,which seams fair to me.
I guess the insurance company can change their mind before giving you the 7k and I am not sure if you told the insurance company that you wanted a cheap repair to give you the money to fix the engine and if you did thats a bit naughty and no wonder they changed their mind.
Is my thinking on the above events correct.
So now you have a cheap body work repair that the insurance has paid for and the engine repairs are at your cost.
If you took your case to the insurance Ombudsman I think that you will have virtually no chance of winning and you quote the case in the supreme court which I believe is an American court so if you ended up with your case in the high court could you afford the 50k plus court costs as you would again be very unlikely to win.
btcc123 said:
If you took your case to the insurance Ombudsman I think that you will have virtually no chance of winning and you quote the case in the supreme court which I believe is an American court so if you ended up with your case in the high court could you afford the 50k plus court costs as you would again be very unlikely to win.
I've not edited your post for any other reason than the rest of it I broadly agree with. However please provide evidence that what you have said with regards to the FOS is correct... There general principle seems to be about "treating the consumer fairly". Telling a customer one thing, which influences their behaviour would seem to be unfair. I am not convinced that your assertion that the FOS would do nothing is correct.
However I wouldn't bank on them doing something either. I'd go through them if I was the OP. He seems to have little to lose in this regard.
I would guess and wave my fingers and give him about a 50/50 chance. But I am just making numbers up. My reading of their cases would certainly not give this no chance though....
I cant see why everyone thinks the OP is wrong here. His car was damaged by two other third parties, to retain the value of his vehicle it had to be repaired to BMW standard at a cost of £8500 agreed by the insurance companies. whilst waiting for the car to go for repair the turbo blew potentially leaving the engine u/s and the vehicle uneconomical to repair, but as the engine repairs are not part of the insurance claim they are discounted and he is still due the £8500 repair, little point with a blown engine. On explaining this to the insurance company they have agreed and offered the body repair cost as cash in lieu effectively writing off the vehicle and OP retaining salvage with which he can do as he likes. Had he waited until the cheque was in his hand that would have been the matter closed, but because he has gone ahead with his own repairs on that basis the insurance company have backtracked, in my opinion at first letter of court action the insurance company will pay up, all insurance companies are very loathe to go to court incase they end up with costs. A few years ago I bought a L/R Freelander for £1200 which got written off in an accident a few months later, the insurance company put a much higher value on the vehicle and after having my excess plus 9% salvage value deducted i ended up with a cheque for £1200 plus the vehicle back which I repaired for £200. At the time my insurance company and an accident investigator employed by them agreed with me that the third party was more to blame than me in this accident but a few months later when she had me sent court papers trying to claim damages of £15000 they paid out to her rather than incurr court costs.
Edited by imagineifyeswill on Tuesday 24th March 19:24
Lets take a simple straw poll on an example scenario:
3rd party crashes into your car and admits liability. You take it to the main dealer and they quote you £8000 to fix. The insurance company agrees to those costs and authorizes main dealer to repair your car however you are an expert body shop technician and you don't trust anyone else to repair your car, the insurance company offers you a cash in lieu settlement which you accept. So you start repairing your car on your own time on the weekend. You spend £0 repairing the car.
How much do you think the AT FAULT 3rd party should pay you? Bearing in mind they have caused roughly £8000 worth of damage to the car?
Most of you seem to be advocating £0 as you have spent £0 fixing the car therefore the 3rd parties liability is mitigated to zero because of your choice to repair the car.
If you think that, I genuinely am shocked, because it's absolutely absurd. Simple principle of fairness tells me that if you cause damage to someones car, you are liable for the cost to repair the damage back to it's original condition.
The fact that the person decides to repair it to a lower quality has absolutely no bearing on your liability. You must still pay the full amount, it was your fault, you caused the problem you must now fix the problem fairly by paying a fair sum. You do not get a free pass because they choose an economical repair, they have still suffered loss of value to their car.
3rd party crashes into your car and admits liability. You take it to the main dealer and they quote you £8000 to fix. The insurance company agrees to those costs and authorizes main dealer to repair your car however you are an expert body shop technician and you don't trust anyone else to repair your car, the insurance company offers you a cash in lieu settlement which you accept. So you start repairing your car on your own time on the weekend. You spend £0 repairing the car.
How much do you think the AT FAULT 3rd party should pay you? Bearing in mind they have caused roughly £8000 worth of damage to the car?
Most of you seem to be advocating £0 as you have spent £0 fixing the car therefore the 3rd parties liability is mitigated to zero because of your choice to repair the car.
If you think that, I genuinely am shocked, because it's absolutely absurd. Simple principle of fairness tells me that if you cause damage to someones car, you are liable for the cost to repair the damage back to it's original condition.
The fact that the person decides to repair it to a lower quality has absolutely no bearing on your liability. You must still pay the full amount, it was your fault, you caused the problem you must now fix the problem fairly by paying a fair sum. You do not get a free pass because they choose an economical repair, they have still suffered loss of value to their car.
photosnob said:
btcc123 said:
If you took your case to the insurance Ombudsman I think that you will have virtually no chance of winning and you quote the case in the supreme court which I believe is an American court so if you ended up with your case in the high court could you afford the 50k plus court costs as you would again be very unlikely to win.
I've not edited your post for any other reason than the rest of it I broadly agree with. However please provide evidence that what you have said with regards to the FOS is correct... There general principle seems to be about "treating the consumer fairly". Telling a customer one thing, which influences their behaviour would seem to be unfair. I am not convinced that your assertion that the FOS would do nothing is correct.
However I wouldn't bank on them doing something either. I'd go through them if I was the OP. He seems to have little to lose in this regard.
I would guess and wave my fingers and give him about a 50/50 chance. But I am just making numbers up. My reading of their cases would certainly not give this no chance though....
My personal opinion regarding the FOS related to this case and I guess that from the OPs posts we do not know all the facts in this case,from what he says does not add up,he had two claims outstanding for bodywork repairs for 7-8k that to me would seam substantial yet drove the car to the Alps where on the return journey his engines turbo failed.
The insurance company agreed a payout of 7-8k but then changed their mind,was that because the OP said that he would rather do a cheap repair for 2k,some of the insurance payout to repair his engine that is not related to the insurance claim and maybe pocket the rest.As he was only entitled to claim the bodywork repairs from the insurance company and chose a repairer to do a cheap fix thats all the insurance needed to pay for.
What he should have done is to complete his two outstanding cliams with the car repaired at an official body shop and treat the engine problem seperately but where he went wrong is to try to use the insurance money to cover everything.
It may be his only option the FOS taking up his case as only he and his insurance company knows the true course of events that if he feels he has the evidence to prove his case and win then I wish him well.
imagineifyeswill said:
I cant see why everyone thinks the OP is wrong here. His car was damaged by two other third parties, to retain the value of his vehicle it had to be repaired to BMW standard at a cost of £8500 agreed by the insurance companies. whilst waiting for the car to go for repair the turbo blew potentially leaving the engine u/s and the vehicle uneconomical to repair, but as the engine repairs are not part of the insurance claim they are discounted and he is still due the £8500 repair, little point with a blown engine. On explaining this to the insurance company they have agreed and offered the body repair cost as cash in lieu effectively writing off the vehicle and OP retaining salvage with which he can do as he likes. Had he waited until the check was in his hand that would have been the matter closed, but because he has gone ahead with his own repairs on that basis the insurance company have backtracked, in my opinion at first letter of court action the insurance company will pay up, all insurance companies are very loathe to go to court incase they end up with costs. A few years ago I bought a L/R Freelander for £1200 which got written off in an accident a few months later, the insurance company put a much higher value on the vehicle and after having my excess plus 9% salvage value deducted i ended up with a cheque for £1200 plus the vehicle back which I repaired for £200. At the time my insurance company and an accident investigator employed by them agreed with me that the third party was more to blame than me in this accident but a few months later when she had me sent court papers trying to claim damages of £15000 they paid out to her rather than incurr court costs.
Do you really think any insurance company after agreeing to pay for body work repairs and then to be told that my turbo had failed so I would like to repair that with your insurance money and the insurance company say ok no problem we will give you a cheque instead to do what you like.,,,,I dont think so.btcc123 said:
I guess that from the OPs posts we do not know all the facts in this case,from what he says does not add up,he had two claims outstanding for bodywork repairs for 7-8k that to me would seam substantial yet drove the car to the Alps where on the return journey his engines turbo failed.
I'd hope you would give me the benefit of the doubt, I'm not here to lie to people to paint myself in a positive light, I have been completely honest.The £8k damage was because the car had been swiped down both side, effectively requiring the replacement of like 6 panels (two doors, two front and two rear quarters plus rear bumper)
Functionally, it was fine, it's just cosmetic body damage, it didn't look too bad compared to all the French bangers on the road!!
btcc123 said:
Do you really think any insurance company after agreeing to pay for body work repairs and then to be told that my turbo had failed so I would like to repair that with your insurance money and the insurance company say ok no problem we will give you a cheque instead to do what you like.,,,,I dont think so.
My friend, the minute I got back from France I phoned them and I explained the situation about the engine problems.They are the ones that suggested cash in lieu, they are the ones that told me it had been agreed and led me to believe categorically over 3 separate phone calls that it had been agreed, I just needed to give the nod and they would pay me. Which they then backtracked on.
I called them to discuss because I felt it was the best option. Why take a non-running car for a £8k bodyshop repair which might then cost upwards of £4k to fix the engine ontop? I had been honest with them from the start and this is the repayment I get.
Shezbo said:
Hi Dog,
The concern here is this:
You completed work to a standard you find acceptable - therefore that is what the insurer will now reasonably pay? Did you really think that you would get your car repaired and have a wad of cash over, by going down this route. Unfortunately insurance does not work like that (I totally get what they promised) as you chose this level of work - I think (from a legal point of view) that is all that they will have pay now?
What a mess...!
You're wrong, insurance totally works like that. I've had 3 claims in the past where I've pocketed the insurers cash and got the work done a lot cheaper, in one case not at all. All legal and above board.The concern here is this:
You completed work to a standard you find acceptable - therefore that is what the insurer will now reasonably pay? Did you really think that you would get your car repaired and have a wad of cash over, by going down this route. Unfortunately insurance does not work like that (I totally get what they promised) as you chose this level of work - I think (from a legal point of view) that is all that they will have pay now?
What a mess...!
dogzilla said:
Lets take a simple straw poll on an example scenario:
3rd party crashes into your car and admits liability. You take it to the main dealer and they quote you £8000 to fix. The insurance company agrees to those costs and authorizes main dealer to repair your car however you are an expert body shop technician and you don't trust anyone else to repair your car, the insurance company offers you a cash in lieu settlement which you accept. So you start repairing your car on your own time on the weekend. You spend £0 repairing the car.
How much do you think the AT FAULT 3rd party should pay you? Bearing in mind they have caused roughly £8000 worth of damage to the car?
Most of you seem to be advocating £0 as you have spent £0 fixing the car therefore the 3rd parties liability is mitigated to zero because of your choice to repair the car.
If you think that, I genuinely am shocked, because it's absolutely absurd. Simple principle of fairness tells me that if you cause damage to someones car, you are liable for the cost to repair the damage back to it's original condition.
The fact that the person decides to repair it to a lower quality has absolutely no bearing on your liability. You must still pay the full amount, it was your fault, you caused the problem you must now fix the problem fairly by paying a fair sum. You do not get a free pass because they choose an economical repair, they have still suffered loss of value to their car.
Normally when an insurance company repair a car at a body shop the bill is sent directly to the insurance company so if the bill was £8000 I would expect them to pay that but if you were daft enough to repair it for £100 I would expect them to pay only that amount.3rd party crashes into your car and admits liability. You take it to the main dealer and they quote you £8000 to fix. The insurance company agrees to those costs and authorizes main dealer to repair your car however you are an expert body shop technician and you don't trust anyone else to repair your car, the insurance company offers you a cash in lieu settlement which you accept. So you start repairing your car on your own time on the weekend. You spend £0 repairing the car.
How much do you think the AT FAULT 3rd party should pay you? Bearing in mind they have caused roughly £8000 worth of damage to the car?
Most of you seem to be advocating £0 as you have spent £0 fixing the car therefore the 3rd parties liability is mitigated to zero because of your choice to repair the car.
If you think that, I genuinely am shocked, because it's absolutely absurd. Simple principle of fairness tells me that if you cause damage to someones car, you are liable for the cost to repair the damage back to it's original condition.
The fact that the person decides to repair it to a lower quality has absolutely no bearing on your liability. You must still pay the full amount, it was your fault, you caused the problem you must now fix the problem fairly by paying a fair sum. You do not get a free pass because they choose an economical repair, they have still suffered loss of value to their car.
Spangles said:
Shezbo said:
Hi Dog,
The concern here is this:
You completed work to a standard you find acceptable - therefore that is what the insurer will now reasonably pay? Did you really think that you would get your car repaired and have a wad of cash over, by going down this route. Unfortunately insurance does not work like that (I totally get what they promised) as you chose this level of work - I think (from a legal point of view) that is all that they will have pay now?
What a mess...!
You're wrong, insurance totally works like that. I've had 3 claims in the past where I've pocketed the insurers cash and got the work done a lot cheaper, in one case not at all. All legal and above board.The concern here is this:
You completed work to a standard you find acceptable - therefore that is what the insurer will now reasonably pay? Did you really think that you would get your car repaired and have a wad of cash over, by going down this route. Unfortunately insurance does not work like that (I totally get what they promised) as you chose this level of work - I think (from a legal point of view) that is all that they will have pay now?
What a mess...!
I always thought that body shops charge insurance work more expensive than if you said to them its not insurance but cash in hand.But after speaking to someone in the insurance industry they said that is not true and the body shops charge the insurance companies about 70% of the private cash in the hand jobs.
That surprised me but I guess a back street garage that does not do insurance work or very little may be cheaper though but not such a good job.
btcc123 said:
Spangles said:
Shezbo said:
Hi Dog,
The concern here is this:
You completed work to a standard you find acceptable - therefore that is what the insurer will now reasonably pay? Did you really think that you would get your car repaired and have a wad of cash over, by going down this route. Unfortunately insurance does not work like that (I totally get what they promised) as you chose this level of work - I think (from a legal point of view) that is all that they will have pay now?
What a mess...!
You're wrong, insurance totally works like that. I've had 3 claims in the past where I've pocketed the insurers cash and got the work done a lot cheaper, in one case not at all. All legal and above board.The concern here is this:
You completed work to a standard you find acceptable - therefore that is what the insurer will now reasonably pay? Did you really think that you would get your car repaired and have a wad of cash over, by going down this route. Unfortunately insurance does not work like that (I totally get what they promised) as you chose this level of work - I think (from a legal point of view) that is all that they will have pay now?
What a mess...!
Lord Justice said:
As we have already pointed out, the loss to a claimant whose chattel has been damaged by the negligence of another is immediate. That loss cannot be "mitigated" by having the chattel repaired free or for a lower cost, because it is not the cost of the repairs that constitutes the loss; the loss is the diminution in value of the chattel
It happens all the time, cash in lieu of repair. Spangles said:
You're wrong, insurance totally works like that. I've had 3 claims in the past where I've pocketed the insurers cash and got the work done a lot cheaper, in one case not at all. All legal and above board.
Yeah it does but not normally for "normal" cars that CAN easily be fixed via the normal route, I know it happens all the time with older cars and cars with hard to get parts.We have about 20 LDV vans, the body parts are virtually unobtainable, however we have 2 with dead oily bits... Just before Xmas someone hit back of one of our vans and dented the rear door and smashed a light. Insurance asses and instantly write it off for about £2500, fair enough its a 7 year old van. So we get cash in lieu and fix it ourselves for 2 skinned knuckles 😀.
Last week someone sticks a 5 year old Fiesta Cmax or whatever it is into a bollard at about 2 mph but leavers off some trim and gouges a door, no probs £800 to fix it. This car however is shagged it smokes like dot cotton, as it has been abused every day of its life, I think serviced once. We are going to auction it soon enough, so I asked for cash in lieu and was told NO CHANCE, we could get it repaired at our choice of repairer but they would pay them direct...
I am no lawyer by any stretch but I really don't see how that Supreme Court ruling helps the OP if anything it looks to undermine his case. Is the point of the ruling that an insurer should be able to repair at a lower cost than a consumer in the free market?
I've skim read this, but to summarise the massive essays that are being written it seems to me
1. Your car was hit by two lorries in two separate incidents
2. You didn't have it repaired straight away
3. The engine failed on your car
4. The damage all in is now more than your car is worth, or at the very least close to it
5. You tried to get cash for the repairs to cover the cost of the engine too
6. You've been rumbled
The Coles ruling is not your friend here. That relates to insurers and others suffering a loss not having to pass on any negotiated discounts. It doesn't cover you getting a substandard repair amd pretending that it was a top notch job. That's fraud.
The opOmbuudsman is highly unlikely to find in your favour when all this comes out. Too many on here seem to think that the FOS is some sort of avenging customer white knight. They aren't, they take account of everything and excluding PPI claims uphold customer complaints1 in 3 times and rule against them 2 in 3.
1. Your car was hit by two lorries in two separate incidents
2. You didn't have it repaired straight away
3. The engine failed on your car
4. The damage all in is now more than your car is worth, or at the very least close to it
5. You tried to get cash for the repairs to cover the cost of the engine too
6. You've been rumbled
The Coles ruling is not your friend here. That relates to insurers and others suffering a loss not having to pass on any negotiated discounts. It doesn't cover you getting a substandard repair amd pretending that it was a top notch job. That's fraud.
The opOmbuudsman is highly unlikely to find in your favour when all this comes out. Too many on here seem to think that the FOS is some sort of avenging customer white knight. They aren't, they take account of everything and excluding PPI claims uphold customer complaints1 in 3 times and rule against them 2 in 3.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff