Paid Insurance excess on courtesy car - Work not carried out

Paid Insurance excess on courtesy car - Work not carried out

Author
Discussion

Mike_Mac

Original Poster:

664 posts

199 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
I could do with a bit of advice from someone who knows the Law/Insurance. A while back I had a Main Dealer courtesy car for a few days. It was one of the staff's normal work car. While I had it the boot-lid opened against an obstruction causing a stone-chip sized nick in the paint (to metal). I informed the MD on return, who stated:

- That it was an insurance job and couldn't be repaired as was.
- That they had to re-spray the whole boot to maintain the anti-corrosion warranty.
- That I would have to pay the excess charge on the Insurance (£500).

While a bit peeved, especially with such a small amount of damage, I didn't argue, but did ask the cost. Initially they said that wasn't relevant, wanted to take all the money and that was it. My point was, what if the repair costs less than that? They promised to get an estimate and, if less, refund the difference, so I paid the excess and waited.

The estimate was for stripping and painting the whole boot, plus replacing all the badges etc and cost more than the excess. I put this down as a lesson to just buy a touch-up pen next time, but did ask the MD when the work would be carried out and was told within a few weeks, depending on when the car was free.

It's now well over two months since the money was taken, I've checked with the body shop and they've not heard anything since the estimate.

In sum - can I take this further? To me, the MD has taken my excess and not done the work within a reasonable time-frame (or is over 2 months ok?). If it's not been done, then leaving a to-metal chip for two months won't do the anti-corrosion warranty any good and if they've just Smart repaired it, then I've had money taken under false pretences (or whatever the correct term is).

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
You are entitled to the difference back between the cost of repairs and £500, if the repair cost is lower. They don't have to get it done in 2 months but they are unreasonable in hanging on to your £500 in the meantime. Demand your £500 back, whilst agreeing to pay the full cost of repair upon production of final invoice, or the £500 if the repair costs exceed that figure.

CaptainMorgan

1,454 posts

158 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
Have you considered going to the dealer and looking at the car, then asking them?

Mike_Mac

Original Poster:

664 posts

199 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
The MD is not too handy for me, but I have checked every so often and the car wasn't there. It's probably being used by the member of staff mentioned, or continuing as a courtesy car. Now I know it's not been done I will be checking much more often. What I'd like to find is not an unrepaired chip, but rather a blob of touch up paint. Until then I can wait ref the £500.

My suspicion is that it'll never get done and the excess is just banked (the fact they haven't even booked it in for the work in over 2 months would suggest that IMO), but I don't therefore want to precipitate them getting the job done just because I've chased. I'd rather wait until I can definitely say it was not going to be done or get proof that they've just touched it up, then go fking mental at their top bloke, but with evidence. What I would like to know is if there's a reasonable time by law that is recognised as such? If so then I'll wait until then.

WillG

87 posts

190 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
I would imagine they are simply waiting until they finish using the car as a courtesy car, and put on the forecourt for sale, at which point they will do all the little dinks and scratches in one go. That's what I do if I were a dealer.

I would imagine they won't claim on their insurance, by the time they take off vat and their profit on the job, probably won't be worth it.

£500+ doesn't seem unreasonable to strip and paint a boot and all th associated stuff, at the end of the day you signed a bit of paper that's says your are liable for the first £500 for damages, you damaged the car.

Next time I'd take cdw or arrange your own insurance, or get the dealer to pick your car up from home.

Mike_Mac

Original Poster:

664 posts

199 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
WillG said:
I would imagine they are simply waiting until they finish using the car as a courtesy car, and put on the forecourt for sale, at which point they will do all the little dinks and scratches in one go. That's what I do if I were a dealer.

I would imagine they won't claim on their insurance, by the time they take off vat and their profit on the job, probably won't be worth it.

£500+ doesn't seem unreasonable to strip and paint a boot and all the associated stuff, at the end of the day you signed a bit of paper that's says your are liable for the first £500 for damages, you damaged the car.

Next time I'd take cdw or arrange your own insurance, or get the dealer to pick your car up from home.
Don't really need advice on what to do next time (that's not really the question I was asking) and the cost of repair isn't an issue. The issue is that the work I've paid for hasn't been done. If it had I wouldn't have an issue, I did, after all, accept the terms of the insurance and have paid the excess - if they don't then claim but keep the excess then that's theft. It's nothing to do with whether it's worth it to them - this is meant to be an insurance job!

Put it this way, if your car is damaged you'd expect it to be repaired, then and there, especially when you've paid towards it via an insurance excess. If the dealer waits until the car goes on sale to fix the various dinks and chips then how many people will have coughed up to repair the same panel? Nice little earner! Plus I very much doubt that cars will have entire panels resprayed to correct one stone chip (although I may be totally wrong in that).

Edited by Mike_Mac on Friday 26th August 21:47

WillG

87 posts

190 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
Yeah but if my cars damaged that's different, I have a contract with my insurance company to repair my car. On the flip side if my insurers give me cash, I'm not compelled to use it to repair my car. You have a contract with the md (I'm guessing) that states the xs is £500. Seperate to that it probably states you are liable for the first £500 of damage. It doubt it states that they must use that £500 to pay an xs on an insurance claim, nor are they compelled to repair the damage.

I doubt very much that providing courtesy cars is a profitable venture.

If you follow the manufactures repair requirements to the letter, then they probably do have to repaint the entire panel. I recently saw a Golf that a minor scrap on the rear bumper, a smart repairer quoted £80 to fix. VW quoted £1400 to remove the rear bumper, prep and repaint the bumper boot lid and rear quarter panel, etc. The insurer involved paid VW because the smart repair is not deemed a proper repair to the manufacturers guidelines.

Sheepshanks

32,528 posts

118 months

Friday 26th August 2016
quotequote all
Mike_Mac said:
Put it this way, if your car is damaged you'd expect it to be repaired, then and there, especially when you've paid towards it via an insurance excess.
You wouldn't normally pay the excess in advance though - that part seems strange, although I've never been in this position myself.

Mike_Mac

Original Poster:

664 posts

199 months

Saturday 27th August 2016
quotequote all
WillG said:
Yeah but if my cars damaged that's different, I have a contract with my insurance company to repair my car. On the flip side if my insurers give me cash, I'm not compelled to use it to repair my car. You have a contract with the md (I'm guessing) that states the xs is £500. Seperate to that it probably states you are liable for the first £500 of damage. I doubt it states that they must use that £500 to pay an xs on an insurance claim, nor are they compelled to repair the damage.

I doubt very much that providing courtesy cars is a profitable venture.

If you follow the manufactures repair requirements to the letter, then they probably do have to repaint the entire panel. I recently saw a Golf that a minor scrap on the rear bumper, a smart repairer quoted £80 to fix. VW quoted £1400 to remove the rear bumper, prep and repaint the bumper boot lid and rear quarter panel, etc. The insurer involved paid VW because the smart repair is not deemed a proper repair to the manufacturers guidelines.
In order:

It's not different - it is an insurance claim, plain and simple (see below). I am not just 'giving' them cash. I am not disputing that a full rather than Smart repair costs more than £500 (£596 to be exact) and is very likely to be required by the manufacturer's guidelines (fair enough). I fail to see whether or not courtesy cars are profitable is of any relevance.

Moving on, there's no need (and it's not really helpful) to repeatedly guess what the contract 'probably' does or does not say - I have it in front of me and it states that 'Where the car is covered by the dealership insurance the excess is £500.' It was covered and that was the basis of me paying the money.

The process explained to me at the time was that the dealership insurance is provided by an insurance company (on broadly the same basis as anyone else), who the dealership then submits a claim to in order to get the damage repaired. I was there when the Service Rep phoned the Insurance Company and sent the details off to the garage for the estimate, which I have a copy of. Therefore I am liable for the excess they pay for claiming on their insurance policy, which I do not have a problem with.

However, if I pay the excess on an insurance claim that they subsequently don't make, then that's fraud/theft/whatever IMO. As with any other insurance, I very much doubt that you can delay claiming until you feel like it, or just not get the repair done that the claim is for, but keep the excess you have passed on to the customer.

What I am asking is for someone who knows what they are talking about (possibly someone in a MD or Insurance Coy) to confirm how these policies work and what is considered a reasonable time-frame to both submit the claim and then complete the work (bearing in mind they don't seem to have even submitted a claim yet). They may have the ability to 'defer' the work until the car is prepped for retail, but that, to me, is seriously dodgy as if they pull that stunt each time over the 12 (?) or so months the car is a courtesy slag, then potentially several people are going to pay an excess to repair the same panel - to me, not right!

If they aren't going to submit a claim - dodgy.
If they've just used a blob of touch-up paint - dodgy
If they're waiting until the car goes for retail (6-12 months from now?) before doing it all in a one - dodgy
If they submitted the claim as they said they would and then conduct an insurance-approved repair - Not dodgy

Edited by Mike_Mac on Saturday 27th August 10:06

Mike_Mac

Original Poster:

664 posts

199 months

Saturday 27th August 2016
quotequote all
Sheepshanks said:
You wouldn't normally pay the excess in advance though - that part seems strange, although I've never been in this position myself.
Agreed - and me neither! biggrin

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Saturday 27th August 2016
quotequote all
Mike_Mac said:
Sheepshanks said:
You wouldn't normally pay the excess in advance though - that part seems strange, although I've never been in this position myself.
Agreed - and me neither! biggrin
As I said in my first post. Get your £500 back now.


Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Saturday 27th August 11:26

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Saturday 27th August 2016
quotequote all
WillG said:
Seperate to that it probably states you are liable for the first £500 of damage. It doubt it states that they must use that £500 to pay an xs on an insurance claim, nor are they compelled to repair the damage.

If they don't repair the car, how does the OP know the repair cost was over £500? We can all have a guess, but that's irrelevant. OP is liable to pay the first £500 of the repairs, or the full cost of repairs if under £500. That's all. They must be able to quantify the loss to the OP's satisfaction.

WillG

87 posts

190 months

Saturday 27th August 2016
quotequote all
Mike_Mac said:
In order:

It's not different - it is an insurance claim, plain and simple (see below). I am not just 'giving' them cash. I am not disputing that a full rather than Smart repair costs more than £500 (£596 to be exact) and is very likely to be required by the manufacturer's guidelines (fair enough). I fail to see whether or not courtesy cars are profitable is of any relevance.

Moving on, there's no need (and it's not really helpful) to repeatedly guess what the contract 'probably' does or does not say - I have it in front of me and it states that 'Where the car is covered by the dealership insurance the excess is £500.' It was covered and that was the basis of me paying the money.

The process explained to me at the time was that the dealership insurance is provided by an insurance company (on broadly the same basis as anyone else), who the dealership then submits a claim to in order to get the damage repaired. I was there when the Service Rep phoned the Insurance Company and sent the details off to the garage for the estimate, which I have a copy of. Therefore I am liable for the excess they pay for claiming on their insurance policy, which I do not have a problem with.

However, if I pay the excess on an insurance claim that they subsequently don't make, then that's fraud/theft/whatever IMO. As with any other insurance, I very much doubt that you can delay claiming until you feel like it, or just not get the repair done that the claim is for, but keep the excess you have passed on to the customer.

What I am asking is for someone who knows what they are talking about (possibly someone in a MD or Insurance Coy) to confirm how these policies work and what is considered a reasonable time-frame to both submit the claim and then complete the work (bearing in mind they don't seem to have even submitted a claim yet). They may have the ability to 'defer' the work until the car is prepped for retail, but that, to me, is seriously dodgy as if they pull that stunt each time over the 12 (?) or so months the car is a courtesy slag, then potentially several people are going to pay an excess to repair the same panel - to me, not right!

If they aren't going to submit a claim - dodgy.
If they've just used a blob of touch-up paint - dodgy
If they're waiting until the car goes for retail (6-12 months from now?) before doing it all in a one - dodgy
If they submitted the claim as they said they would and then conduct an insurance-approved repair - Not dodgy

Edited by Mike_Mac on Saturday 27th August 10:06
Chill, I'm trying to help.

I do work in insurance, nothing to do with motor trade insurance, but the basics are the same.

If they have notified the insurance company of the damage, which you say they have, and provided an estimate there is no rush for them to complete the claim, there is generally no term about how soon repairs must be completed, providing the damage is not getting any worse, and therefore they subsequently try to claim for more.

The estimate for £596, does this include everything inc VAT? If it does then they assuming the md are vat registered they cannot make a claim, as the insurers will not pay the vat as they can claim it back, so less the vat the estimate is less than the xs, so they cannot claim.

This is why the contract is important, you said it states the xs is £500 which we know is true, but it will depend what the rest of it says. I doubt that the contract states you only have to pay if they make an insurance claim, as of course this wouldn't work for say £200 worth of damage, so I imagine it simply says you are liable to pay them for damage to the car, upto the maximum of £500 to coincide with the xs. But I don't see that they are compelled to use this money only to pay an xs, nor to actually repair the car.


Blaster72

10,772 posts

196 months

Saturday 27th August 2016
quotequote all
What does the invoice for the £500 actually say? I think it's bizarre they took the money before the work was done - sounds dodgy as heck.

Mike_Mac

Original Poster:

664 posts

199 months

Saturday 27th August 2016
quotequote all
WillG said:
Mike_Mac said:
In order:

It's not different - it is an insurance claim, plain and simple (see below). I am not just 'giving' them cash. I am not disputing that a full rather than Smart repair costs more than £500 (£596 to be exact) and is very likely to be required by the manufacturer's guidelines (fair enough). I fail to see whether or not courtesy cars are profitable is of any relevance.

Moving on, there's no need (and it's not really helpful) to repeatedly guess what the contract 'probably' does or does not say - I have it in front of me and it states that 'Where the car is covered by the dealership insurance the excess is £500.' It was covered and that was the basis of me paying the money.

The process explained to me at the time was that the dealership insurance is provided by an insurance company (on broadly the same basis as anyone else), who the dealership then submits a claim to in order to get the damage repaired. I was there when the Service Rep phoned the Insurance Company and sent the details off to the garage for the estimate, which I have a copy of. Therefore I am liable for the excess they pay for claiming on their insurance policy, which I do not have a problem with.

However, if I pay the excess on an insurance claim that they subsequently don't make, then that's fraud/theft/whatever IMO. As with any other insurance, I very much doubt that you can delay claiming until you feel like it, or just not get the repair done that the claim is for, but keep the excess you have passed on to the customer.

What I am asking is for someone who knows what they are talking about (possibly someone in a MD or Insurance Coy) to confirm how these policies work and what is considered a reasonable time-frame to both submit the claim and then complete the work (bearing in mind they don't seem to have even submitted a claim yet). They may have the ability to 'defer' the work until the car is prepped for retail, but that, to me, is seriously dodgy as if they pull that stunt each time over the 12 (?) or so months the car is a courtesy slag, then potentially several people are going to pay an excess to repair the same panel - to me, not right!

If they aren't going to submit a claim - dodgy.
If they've just used a blob of touch-up paint - dodgy
If they're waiting until the car goes for retail (6-12 months from now?) before doing it all in a one - dodgy
If they submitted the claim as they said they would and then conduct an insurance-approved repair - Not dodgy

Edited by Mike_Mac on Saturday 27th August 10:06
Chill, I'm trying to help.

I do work in insurance, nothing to do with motor trade insurance, but the basics are the same.

If they have notified the insurance company of the damage, which you say they have, and provided an estimate there is no rush for them to complete the claim, there is generally no term about how soon repairs must be completed, providing the damage is not getting any worse, and therefore they subsequently try to claim for more.

The estimate for £596, does this include everything inc VAT? If it does then they assuming the md are vat registered they cannot make a claim, as the insurers will not pay the vat as they can claim it back, so less the vat the estimate is less than the xs, so they cannot claim.

This is why the contract is important, you said it states the xs is £500 which we know is true, but it will depend what the rest of it says. I doubt that the contract states you only have to pay if they make an insurance claim, as of course this wouldn't work for say £200 worth of damage, so I imagine it simply says you are liable to pay them for damage to the car, upto the maximum of £500 to coincide with the xs. But I don't see that they are compelled to use this money only to pay an xs, nor to actually repair the car.
Sorry - not trying to have a go, but realise it does come across a bit snippy! smile I wanted to make sure this didn't go down a random rabbit hole, so took to opportunity to clear some grey areas up that your post highlighted, plus put the actual contract line in there for info.

On the rest of your post, ref contract, I was told that I was paying the insurance excess for the repair and the line I quoted from the contract is the only bit that mentions anything to do with damage and specifically talks about it being an insurance excess.

I agree that this should be either excess or cost of repair, which is fair enough, especially for a chip, but that comes back to only paying what the repair actually cost (up to £500), not just stumping up the full amount regardless. Initially they just wanted the £500 and I had to challenge them about 'what if' the actual cost was less that that.

However, there has been a few developments, but I will probably only be able to post, one way or another, tomorrow. No deep suspense, but it's still ongoing.

Mike_Mac

Original Poster:

664 posts

199 months

Saturday 27th August 2016
quotequote all
Blaster72 said:
What does the invoice for the £500 actually say? I think it's bizarre they took the money before the work was done - sounds dodgy as heck.
Good Point! Just dug it out - Basically it says it is an excess payment and also mentions a refund if the cost is less than this. I also have e-mails with the same thing, so glad I pushed for them.

Mike_Mac

Original Poster:

664 posts

199 months

Saturday 27th August 2016
quotequote all
OK - the development...

I happened to be near the dealer today, so thought, sod it - and went to have a look (probably wouldn't have except for CaptainMorgan's post - cheers!! biggrin). Guess what was parked up as an 'Approved Used' car, with a nice shiny boot-lid. biggrin

So, now I knew that it had been repaired, but hadn't been to the place that provided the estimate, but I didn't know exactly what type of repair was conducted, or how much it cost.

However, I luckily happen to have a Paint Thickness Gauge in the garage (CM-8828 if anyone's interested), so I went home, collected it and headed over once they closed to get some readings.

A reading from my front wing, which had been resprayed, was 240, which is about usual for a repair/re-spray as it's always thicker than factory applied paint. The other wing, which was original, was 154. Again that is about usual for factory paint, although depth depends on the angle of the panel, so can can change across something as varied as a boot-lid. Similar areas should remain within a close reach of each other, though.

I moved on to the Courtesy Car. The results were very interesting.

Top of the boot (L-R) - 136, 117, 130 (variation of 19, pretty much spot on for factory paint).
Below the Number Plate (L-R) - 103, 123, 120 (variation of 20, again pretty much spot on for factory paint).
Edge of boot-lid (L-R) - 152, 221(!), 253(!), 170 (variation of 101, definitely a re-spray, but localised right on the chip area).

So, that says, fairly convincingly, that the car has had some form of 'Smart' repair, but the rest of the boot-lid has not been touched.

bds! I'm so glad I pushed for copies of the invoice, photos and everything else!

I have those documents, all e-mails discussing the same and photos of all of these depth tests. I will be calling the dealer tomorrow with them in tow to see, or arrange an appointment with, the Dealership's manager, ASAP.

I will be demanding my Excess back in full, as they have IMO defrauded me!

One question is - does anyone know what a localised Smart repair usually costs? I'm assuming about £80 to Joe Public, but the dealer likely won't pay that price, for sure!!

I'll say it again, bds!!

Edited by Mike_Mac on Sunday 28th August 09:32


Edited by Mike_Mac on Sunday 28th August 09:32

poo at Paul's

14,116 posts

174 months

Saturday 27th August 2016
quotequote all
Did you even check that the excess was indeed £500? Seems high to me. Did they inform you of that excess when you took the car out?

Of course they were not going to paint the whole boot, what a load of bks.

Why not go and talk t them about buying the car, then point out the crap smart repair on the boot of it! I've never seen a good "smart" repair, not one that looks anywhere decent after 12 months, anyway.

fastbikes76

2,450 posts

121 months

Saturday 27th August 2016
quotequote all
poo at Paul's said:
Did you even check that the excess was indeed £500? Seems high to me.
When I worked at Toyota it was a £1000 excess on loan cars... not helped that most were 1.0L Yaris's eekeek

Mike_Mac

Original Poster:

664 posts

199 months

Saturday 27th August 2016
quotequote all
The wording of the contract I signed (see several of the posts above) stated £500, as did the payment note on the invoice I was given. Of course repainting the whole boot was bks, that was why I kept all the evidence and got everything in writing, as well as checking yesterday whether it had been done, because I strongly suspected they were going to do something like this and don't like being taken for a mug.

There's no need for any bks like pretending to buy the car, why would I when I can just walk in tomorrow, or probably Tuesday,with evidence, and politely ask them for an explanation...