Blown turbo - engine damage? and insurance conundrum

[photosnob]

LoonR1 said:

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.

Loon you have clearly either misunderstood what he has said - or are misrepresenting him.

The issue is the insurance company said one thing. And then changed their minds. How is that fair to him?

Genuine question - would you think it was acceptable if a member of staff at your company did that? At best it's incompetence.

If as he has said - he fully explained this to the insurance company representative, and was advises of a resolution - how can you justify them changing their mind after the fact?

This seems like a simple case to me. He has nothing to lose by going to the FOS. I'd be willing to wager a small amount of money to charity with you, that he doesn't get hung out to dry with it. You are the expert - but I honestly do not believe (on the basis of what he has written) that the insurance company could show they were treating him fairly... That doesn't mean he will get all the money. But it doesn't mean he won't get some of it.

[LoonR1]

photosnob said:

Loon you have clearly either misunderstood what he has said - or are misrepresenting him.

The issue is the insurance company said one thing. And then changed their minds. How is that fair to him?

Genuine question - would you think it was acceptable if a member of staff at your company did that? At best it's incompetence.

If as he has said - he fully explained this to the insurance company representative, and was advises of a resolution - how can you justify them changing their mind after the fact?

This seems like a simple case to me. He has nothing to lose by going to the FOS. I'd be willing to wager a small amount of money to charity with you, that he doesn't get hung out to dry with it. You are the expert - but I honestly do not believe (on the basis of what he has written) that the insurance company could show they were treating him fairly... That doesn't mean he will get all the money. But it doesn't mean he won't get some of it.

I skim read it. I've no interest in reading War and Peace. I'm not sure what his problem is, but the whole two crashes and gap to repair won't help his cause. Maybe he could summarise like I have n

[photosnob]

LoonR1 said:

I skim read it. I've no interest in reading War and Peace. I'm not sure what his problem is, but the whole two crashes and gap to repair won't help his cause. Maybe he could summarise like I have n

I'll try from what I've read.

He has an accident or two. Causing a fair amount of cosmetic damage.
Car still drives.
Drives car and turbo blows.
Tells insurance assessor about this.
Insurance assessor says they will give him cash instead of fixing.
He then gets car fixed on the cheap.
Insurance company claim the convo never happened.
He recorded the call, so they accept that.
They now say it doesn't matter.
He's left with a poorly repaired car and is out of pocket.

His actions were as a result of what he was told. The insurance companies own records will show that it was their cock up that caused this. He has the evidence.

I'm not anti insurance - and I think he was lucky to get the offer. But once the offer was made - I fail to see how they can withdraw it and claim to be treating the customer fairly.

As I've said - I'm not the expert. But I'd wager something to a charity that it wouldn't go all the insurance co's way.

[Mopar440]

photosnob said:

But I'd wager something to a charity

You keep saying this. How much are you putting up?

[LoonR1]

photosnob said:

I'll try from what I've read.

He has an accident or two. Causing a fair amount of cosmetic damage.
Car still drives.
Drives car and turbo blows.
Tells insurance assessor about this.
Insurance assessor says they will give him cash instead of fixing.
He then gets car fixed on the cheap.
Insurance company claim the convo never happened.
He recorded the call, so they accept that.
They now say it doesn't matter.
He's left with a poorly repaired car and is out of pocket.

His actions were as a result of what he was told. The insurance companies own records will show that it was their cock up that caused this. He has the evidence.

I'm not anti insurance - and I think he was lucky to get the offer. But once the offer was made - I fail to see how they can withdraw it and claim to be treating the customer fairly.

As I've said - I'm not the expert. But I'd wager something to a charity that it wouldn't go all the insurance co's way.

Give over with the "treating customers fairly" bks. That's nothing to do with individual circumstances from an FCA perspective. It's about evidencing this generally, not giving everyone want they want.

There is a lot more to this,as nobody repairs a car that's as knackered as the OP's and chooses to do it badly. However, putting that aside the insurer obviously believes they have a case, otherwise they'd pay up. I can't see it from what you've said, but then they'll know everything rather than what we're being told.

[photosnob]

Mopar440 said:

You keep saying this. How much are you putting up?

What's it got to do with you? I was speaking to Loon. I'm not as rich as him so it wouldn't be a lot. I'll let him say what he thinks is fair. It's for charity so I'm not bothered either way as long as it's not a huge sum of money.

[photosnob]

LoonR1 said:

Give over with the "treating customers fairly" bks. That's nothing to do with individual circumstances from an FCA perspective. It's about evidencing this generally, not giving everyone want they want.

There is a lot more to this,as nobody repairs a car that's as knackered as the OP's and chooses to do it badly. However, putting that aside the insurer obviously believes they have a case, otherwise they'd pay up. I can't see it from what you've said, but then they'll know everything rather than what we're being told.

Treating people fairly has nothing to do with giving people what they want... I agree. It's treating people fairly. You are the expert here - but I've read of many cases where the FOS has ruled because and only because customers were not treated fairly... and that bks.

I'm dealing with what I have in front of me. Using your own statistics 1 in 3 times, financial institutions have all the evidence and get it wrong... So they arn't perfect.

Going back to my original question - do you think that it's acceptable to treat people like the OP has described? He might be winding us all up - but if he is it's a boring wind up. I think on the basis of what he has said (and that alone) that he has a reasonable case. That is all. Nothing more and nothing less.

[LoonR1]

photosnob said:

Treating people fairly has nothing to do with giving people what they want... I agree. It's treating people fairly. You are the expert here - but I've read of many cases where the FOS has ruled because and only because customers were not treated fairly... and that bks.

I'm dealing with what I have in front of me. Using your own statistics 1 in 3 times, financial institutions have all the evidence and get it wrong... So they arn't perfect.

Going back to my original question - do you think that it's acceptable to treat people like the OP has described? He might be winding us all up - but if he is it's a boring wind up. I think on the basis of what he has said (and that alone) that he has a reasonable case. That is all. Nothing more and nothing less.

I'll only a question like that when I'm in full possession of all the facts, otherwise you and others on here will twist that reply. I will re-emphasise that the insurer will have other facts that we're not aware of otherwise they would have settled it.

Oh and the piss poor legal eagle stuff is hilarious around Coles. Go back to Bee vs Jensen to get the rulings that led to that. I was close to these cases and there is no way that it will help you out.

Edited by LoonR1 on Tuesday 24th March 22:20

[dogzilla]

LoonR1 said:

I skim read it. I've no interest in reading War and Peace. I'm not sure what his problem is, but the whole two crashes and gap to repair won't help his cause. Maybe he could summarise like I have n

Shortish Summary:

1. Car had two separate no-fault claims last year.
2. Delayed getting fix because of busy schedule and lack of courtesy cars. All damage was cosmetic.
3. We subsequently drove to France. Turbo failed.
4. First thing I do is call the insurance company explain the situation, unknown engine damage, car is being inspected currently. I don't know what to do?
5. They advise I can take a cash in lieu settlement. I called 3 separate occasions and was told quite categorically that it had been agreed, they even told me a specific amount.
6. I explained my entire motivation, that I would take the money and use it to repair the bodywork and engine. Totally upfront. No objections made.
7. Bodyshop can start work immediately. I give them the go-ahead. #in hindsight yes I should have waited.
8. Call up to get the money, told that I must apply for your cash in lieu payment. I was give the wrong information by call worker.
9. A week later the engineer denied request for cash in lieu because (we were told at the time)the damage to the engine being unknown they cannot guarantee the road worthiness of the car.
10. Escalate to manager. Manager listens to call, he says to the effect: "off the record, i agree with your p.o.v, we did mislead you but i can't do anything about the policy so I advise you to make a complaint to escalate.
11. Now I am in the complaints process, lots of back and forth, escalated further to QA manager. Currently waiting on further clarification. What I do know is:

11a. Engineer concern is not about the engine but rather the potential for suspension damage from a side swipe. (so they say)

During the original inspection we specifically asked them to check the steering and suspension as we felt a bit of a change after the accident, BMW engineer drove car, checked steering,suspension. Came up blank. He didn't think anything was wrong. So quote was all cosmetic. (subsequently got the tracking done on a hunter system and it was way out, got put into line and it's much better)

11b. Because the two quotes were done at different times they believe there would be a lower cost when undertaking both repairs at once, so they want to merge the quote and come up with a figure which they would ultimately pay me if cash in lieu was agreed.

I am willing to get the car inspected by an independent party for suspension problems. So on what basis can they withholding money? Surely not a duty of care, if no suspension damage is found, there can be no question of damage.

[LoonR1]

Who are these engineers? Is this your insurer or either /both of the third parties? A lack of courtesy cars? For non fault accidents I doubt that very much.

[dogzilla]

LoonR1 said:

Who are these engineers? Is this your insurer or either /both of the third parties? A lack of courtesy cars? For non fault accidents I doubt that very much.

This is my insurance companies in-house engineer who supposedly makes the judgement call on offering cash in lieu payments. Their stance is that they cannot offer cash in lieu where there is potential for mechanical damage. I assume it's some duty of care bks.

The lack of courtesy car was a resourcing issue as wife needed an auto box and they were short on them. Waited and waited and eventually had to go away.

Edited by dogzilla on Tuesday 24th March 23:14

[LoonR1]

dogzilla said:

This is my insurance companies in-house engineer who supposedly makes the judgement call on offering cash in lieu payments.

The lack of courtesy car was a resourcing issue as wife needed an auto box and they were short on them. Waited and waited and eventually had to go away.

Who's this insurer who doesn't hand off non fault claims to an AMC then? They'd have an endless supply of cars for you.

[dogzilla]

LoonR1 said:

Who's this insurer who doesn't hand off non fault claims to an AMC then? They'd have an endless supply of cars for you.

I believe the issue was they would not provide a rental car unless we use their approved garage. I did not push them to provide a hire car at the time as BMW were willing to offer one.

At that time the liability was still disputed.

[LoonR1]

dogzilla said:

I believe the issue was they would not provide a rental car unless we use their approved garage. I did not push them to provide a hire car at the time as BMW were willing to offer one.

At that time the liability was still disputed.

Nope. Still intrigued. You may have that issue on a fault claim, but not on a non-fault.

[btcc123]

The following do not make sense to me and need some clarification.

1.Is the op allowed to name his insurance company dealing with an outstanding claim on a forum.

2.His insurance company is dealing with the no fault claim,for no fault claims do all insurance companies pass this on to Accident Management companies.

3.His insurance company offered him a cheque,would that not be a decision made by the third party insurance.

4.Would any insurance company after agreeing to pay for direct payment from a body shop for repairs then change their mind if the policyholder said I have a engine problem unrelated to the claims and want the insurance to pay that as well and the insurance company says ok we will send you a cheque to do what you like with.

5.Would the policyholders insurance companies in house engineer have have the authorization to give a cheque instead of repair in the normal way or someone in a more senior position in head office.

6.The reason the op could not get a hire car was that one was not available but then changed his mind that he was not allowed a hire car as he declined to have the work done at an approved body shop.Is this usual.

7.I would not think their is a problem getting a hire car at very short notice for any non fault claim.

8.You have just said we did not push insurance company for a hire car, I didn't even consider it but you must have as in an earlier post you said your wife wanted and automatic.

9.You updated post was dated 12th January after your engine turbo problems so your original two body work claims must have been some time before that but now it is 25th March so seams a very long time for the insurance company to settle the claim.

Edited by btcc123 on Wednesday 25th March 10:13

[dogzilla]

LoonR1 said:

Nope. Still intrigued. You may have that issue on a fault claim, but not on a non-fault.

Is there any particular reason why you are focussing on the time delay? Do you believe that to be a key issue in not compensating adequately for the damages?

Because it really is as simple as I say, we had lots of back and forth with insurance company, eventually got some quotes from BMW, then waiting for them to agree costs, when they did finally agree we then had to get it booked in at BMW, they had shortage of cars, we did not push insurance company for a hire car, I didn't even consider it. So we waited and waited and eventually needed to go to france, so we did.

In hindsight and with any future claims I will rush my bks off to get it fixed and closed off that's for sure.

Edited by dogzilla on Wednesday 25th March 09:54

[LoonR1]

Yes I do think it's relevant. Most people would want their car repaired quickly. Few would go off on holiday with a beaten up car.

I wonder if you knew there was an engine problem and have been trying to work out how to get the insurance to pay for the repairs and the engine even though only one of those is their fault.

[LoonR1]

@btcc123

1. Yes, not slagging them off
2. Pretty well yes
3. No. His insurers repair / write off / cash in lieu and then recover their outlay form the other side. This still has to be reasonable and linked to accident though
4. Unlikely, although I can't work out your question
5. Engineer
6. The latter part is, the first part just shows inconsistency in the OP's story.
7. There won't be
8. More inconsistency in his story
9. It is and that's why I'm convinced there is more to this than the OP is telling us.

[dogzilla]

LoonR1 said:

I wonder if you knew there was an engine problem and have been trying to work out how to get the insurance to pay for the repairs and the engine even though only one of those is their fault.

That is ridiculous.

I had no way of predicting turbo failure. The car was functioning absolutely fine and it just had cosmetic damage. Bits weren't falling off, it was just scraped up. People drive scraped up cars all the time.

I was going to see my Family on the south coast of France over Christmas. In my boot I had a 12kg turkey, 3kg ham, huge bag of brussel sprouts and parsnips. In the car was my wife and my dog. Does it seem likely I'd drive knowing I had engine problems?

Then on my return leg, just past Lyon, my turbo fails. I'm then stuck waiting for 6 hours for a pickup, then another 2 hours getting driven to my hotel. Then another 2 days getting back to Calais (Christmas/New Year is not a good time to get stuck in France). Then I had to pay £200 out my own pocket for a taxi to take us from Calais to Dover with our dog in the boot.
(fortunately Green flag covered hotels and other costs)

Then I waited 6 weeks to get the car repatriated to the UK.

Yes I totally would have predicted and planned the whole event just to get money out of the insurance company with all the uncertaintny of getting there or not and all the stress and hassle it involved.

Edited by dogzilla on Wednesday 25th March 11:07

[dogzilla]

LoonR1 said:

@btcc123
8. More inconsistency in his story
9. It is and that's why I'm convinced there is more to this than the OP is telling us.

8. As I said, we were not aware we could push for a hire car from our insurance. We were told we had to use their body shop to get a courtesy car. BMW offered a car, but were short on automatics and as the car was running , wife wanted to wait for an automatic courtesy car.

9. Car took about 5-6 weeks to get repatriated from France. I posted in January before the car was even back in the UK.