Blown turbo - engine damage? and insurance conundrum

[dogzilla]

Final Update: RESULT!

Quality Manager liased with their inhouse engineer and they agreed that there is no obvious suspension damage to the car.
Engineer has therefore agreed to a cash in lieu payment with a strong recomendation for a geometry check which they will pay for.

They combined the two quotes which reduced the cost of the repair by roughly £800.

Cheque is in transit to me today for roughly £7500.

They are considering how much compensation to pay me and I will find out in a few days.
I expect this to be somewhere in the region of £100 just for my phone bill/wasted time.

+1 for common sense and simple fairness.

-1 for all the haters.

1. ########################

Latest Update:

Spoke with complaints team manager and she apologised profusely as I have been consistently been given wrong information, conceded that she was very dissapointed as it should not have gone this far.

1. Engineer is concerned that due to the original side swipe that it may have impacted the wheel and caused suspension damage. No damage to the wheel occured and the car is fine suspension wise so most likely this can be resolved either internally or by an inspection before they hand over cash.

The engineers concerns are nothing to do with the engine repair, the engine repair is totally irrelevent to the claim at this point and is not a blocker to recieving a cash in lieu payment. The main concern with cash in lieu is that the car is repaired safely, they do not want me spending £50 on a body repair and pocketing the cash leaving the car in a dangerous condition if there is in fact suspension damage. (there isn't I can safely say)

2. Because there are two claims, with two individual authorised quotes, there is some confusion over the exact worth of the damage when put together. In theory, where there is overlap, there are some costs savings, eg. the car needing to be resprayed/blended etc...

So they are trying to pick between the two quotes and come up with a cost assuming the two repairs are done simultaneously.

So I wait now on point 1+2, if they can be both resolved then I was given the impression cash in lieu would be authorised.

1. ################

1. Insurance company agreed to pay cash in lieu of circa £8500 to cover damages which had already been agreed. Confirmed numerous times over the phone even after I confirmed that I would be using part of the money for the engine repair.

2. I authorised cosmetic repair to car in order to save rest of money for turbo replacement. Cost £2000~

3. Insurance company then back tracked and said that was incorrect, that the engineers would not authorise a cash in lieu payment because of the mechanical damage which was subsequently disclosed. Despite the fact they have audio recordings of me being told specifically they would give me a cash in lieue.

1. # This is incorrect information provided to me by call handler. Engineer was concerned about damage to the suspension from original accident.

4. Currently going through complaints procedure. I was offered £50 compensation for the bad advice and an offer to pay the £2000~ bodywork repair bill. When I explained that the £2000 was only part of the loss, I was told that was my decision to have it repaired and so they are only liable for the actual cost of the repair.

My argument is that the loss of value to my vehicle should be compensated for, not the eventual cost of repairs.

Escalating it and making a claim with the ombudsman now.

1. #############

Back story on engine damage.

1. #############

We were on the way back from France after Christmas and the wifes 2008 120D lost power on the motorway, turbo started making a horrendous screeching sound before packing up completely.

Because of the time of year, and because we were close to the alps where thousands of people were stranded I took the executive decision to keep driving, i figured a blown turbo isn't the end of the world, the engine was still running and sounding fine, no warning lights.

So keeping a sedate 60mph I carried on. An hour later the engine started to vibrate quite a bit when on the throttle, and I decided at that point to call time and arrange break down. Still no warning lights btw.

So back in the UK now. I'm wondering how much damage there might be to the engine? (still waiting for it to get back)

Also now have a conundrum. The car was due for £8k worth of insurance body work after two no-fault accidents involving trucks swiping both sides of the car. I spoke with insurance company today and they have said they can give me a cheque for £7k and I'm free to do with the car what I want.

Having never been in this situation before I don't know what to do. Obviously I could repair the engine, dunno how much that might cost and then sell the car on. Or perhaps I should just scrap it? Can you get much for a non running car where every body panel is scraped? Or just accept the bodywork repair and then spend my own money to get the engine fixed?

Either way I don't really want the car any more. 2 days nightmare getting home on a car that has been immaculatly serviced and had not even done 60k miles. I do a lot of road trips so I can't be having an unreliable car.

Edited by dogzilla on Tuesday 24th March 20:58

Edited by dogzilla on Wednesday 25th March 17:09

Edited by dogzilla on Wednesday 25th March 17:13

[dogzilla]

Ok update to the situation...

Called insurance company to confirm details of deal. I was told unequivocally that the two claims had costs agreed and they can give us a cash in lieu payment of roughly £8000. I explained I had booked the car in for engine diagnostics and my plan was to take the payment and fix the engine and then with whatever is left fixed the bodywork.

So now the turbo replacement is booked in at local independent specialist and work starts. They also quoted on the bodywork so that has started also.

Insurance company now tells me they cannot authorise the cash in lieu payment because their engineer cannot guarantee the road worthiness of the car given that they know it has engine problems. So at the moment I'm gonna be out of pocket by quite a bit.

I've been through a manager and now a complaint team member, manager listened to the call and totally agreed with my position as they had misinformed me so he referred to complaints team, now they are investigating.

So not sure where I stand really. The bodywork ended up costing around £2k but it was a repair and not a BMW repair which would have involved replacing panels and making it like new. I certainly would prefer to get it done at the £8k BMW price because it was a no-fault claim and those other bds are paying me.

Am waiting to see what the complaints people say now.

[dogzilla]

Yes I made that exact point. I could have taken it to BMW and they would have repaired as per the authorised repair sheet and then I could take the car wherever I wanted for the engine work. Or I could sell it with a duff engine. Its nothing to do with them.

Anyway collected car today. Took it for a spin at night and did about 90 motorway miles, gave it some beans. All seems in order, seems a bit quieter with less turbo whistle.

I'm still dreading dpf problems. The engineer said lots of oil came out the exhaust system, they took it off the car and hung it up to drain it was that bad he said.

Is there anyway I can get a reading on whether it might become an issue?

I am planning a 6000m road trip in may and Id really like to make it without breaking down again

[dogzilla]

ftypical said:

It really depends on the way the turbo failed. Screeching suggests bearing failure. The subsequent loss of power suggests compressor failure following the failure of the bearings. Neither of these things would cause warning lights.

So, did bits start coming off the turbo? If so they are either trapped in the Intercooler, have already made their mark on the engine, or both.

Yeah I don't think it was a catastrophic failure, the car was running fine for more than an hour after and the engine sounded just fine apart from having no power and smoke coming from oil in the exhaust I assume. They also replaced some pipework? Which he said was very oily and sooted up. Can't remember which bit have to check the invoice.

I will plan to do a few long drives between now and may and see how it goes. If the insurance company do pay out then I might just spend some of the cash and get the DPF bypassed anyway as a pre-emptive. I'm told the turbo should last a bit longer that way?

Oh and if you want a laugh, they just renewed my insurance and hit me for a £3800 bill. As there are still 2 out standing claims on my record, despite the fact both are no-fault claims, they don't get removed from the policy until all money has been recovered from the 3rd party insurance company which could be like 6 months away.

Insurance really is a total con in this country.

[dogzilla]

D_G said:

If you take the cash in lieu option be prepared for the car to get CAT status, that's what happened when my car was hit whilst parked. This was even after it was agreed it wouldn't get written off as part of the deal.

According to the phone record, I specifically asked would it be registered CAT D, she said no, as the two bodywork claims had already been agreed and were irrespective of the engine problem. So the car was never a candidate for CAT D.

[dogzilla]

OK update from the insurance company:

1. They will pay for the body work repair undertaken by my indepdenent garage.
2. They will give me £50 compensation for giving me incorrect information re: the cash in lieu.

Now to understand some basic facts:

1. Original repair bill authorised and agreed by insurers was £8500 and involved replacing number of body panels and parts to BMW factory standard.
2. When I explained the mechanical issues to the insurance company I was advised and told on no uncertain terms that a cash in lieu payment was agreed and available in this scenario.
3. Based upon their information I authorised a bodywork repair which cost roughly £2000 which was a cosmetic repair not involving any replacement panels

The insurance company are saying they are only liable for the bodywork repair and since it was my choice to have it repaired in a substandard manner that they are only responsible for the bodywork repair bill.

My point is this:

Based upon the information I was given, I opted for a cosmetic repair, knowing full well that it would not be equivelent to a BMW repair, not carry the same guarantees or warranties and would therefore affect the future value of my car. But I compromised on the basis that they would be paying me a cash in lieu payment which could go towards fixing the engine.

Their point is:

They are only liable for the bodywork repair, as I had a bodywork repair for £2000 then they are only liable to pay that amount.

So basically, they gave me wrong information, and now are trying to shaft me. So not only have I got a substandard repair (on two no-fault claims) but also I have loss in value of the car through no fault of my own.

[dogzilla]

Yes I am raising a claim with the ombudsman. I was just hoping anyone else had any experience with this malarky.

My view is that I should be compensated for the loss of damage to my vehicle, NOT the actual cost to repair, as the two can be significantly different especially given I acted upon their specific advise.

[dogzilla]

ftypical said:

Hmm. I think you'll lose. And - based on the information provided - you may find yourself having some difficulty getting insurance in future.
Sorry, but as described it looks like attempted fraud.

I can only assume you didn't actually bother to read anything I wrote then.

marshalla said:

The OP decided to go ahead and get a cheap repair done before any financial settlement had been agreed and handed over.
OP should have got the cheque in his hand before authorising any work.

You mean being told 3 times that a cash in lieu payment was agreed and then authorising repairs to my car? Yeah my fault for not waiting to get the cheque obviously but that's besides the point.

Fortunately I live with two practising solicitors and they've been doing some research so I think I'm on solid ground when it comes to the law here.

The loss of value to my car occured at the point of impact when the 3rd party crashed into me so I am entitled to claim the full amount from the 3rd party. That amount is how much it would take to return the car back to it's original condition, which in this case is the signed and agreed BMW repair quote.

The fact that I spent less on the repair is irrelevent. That is entirely my choice to do so because ultimately I have still suffered X loss which must be compensated by the 3rd party.

This fact has already been well established in law including a supreme court case recently involving insurance companies where the Lord Justice took the chance to clarify further.

Coles V Hetherton said:

As Cooke J pointed out at [7] of his judgment (2), the correct jurisprudential analysis of a claim for diminution in value, even if it is measured by the reasonable cost of repairs, is that it is a claim for general damages, not one for "special damages". The diminution in value claim should therefore be pleaded as a claim for general damages. Documents such as an invoice for the cost of the repairs undertaken are no more than evidence of the diminution in value suffered by the chattel as a result of the negligence of the wrongdoer which can be used to make good the claim. Strictly speaking, the cost of the repairs is not itself the loss suffered. In addition to the direct loss represented by diminution in value, there may be other, consequential losses, such as deprivation or "loss of use" of the vehicle, but that constitutes a different head of claim.[27] Once again a claim for simple deprivation, or loss of use, is a claim for general damages. However, if the chattel concerned is one that is normally used in the hope of making a profit

Coles V Hetheron said:

Taking Lord Hobhouse's statement together with statements in other cases: (1) where a chattel is damaged by the negligence of another that loss (the "direct" loss) is suffered as soon as the chattel is damaged. (2) The proper measure of that loss is the diminution in value that the chattel has suffered as a result of the negligence of the defendant. This follows the general principle in awarding damages, ie. that of restitution.[21] In Lord Hobhouse's phrase, "this can be expressed as a capital account loss". (3) If the chattel can be economically repaired, the claimant is entitled to have it repaired at the cost of the wrongdoer, although the claimant is not obliged to repair the chattel to recover the direct loss suffered

[dogzilla]

There is an old saying, if you've got nothing useful to say, shut you gob you dafty.

I think that applies here.

[dogzilla]

Ok so had a dead end with my original complaint advisor so I escalated it.

Spoke with manager and he apologised profusely as I have been consistently been given wrong information, conceded that she was very dissapointed as it should not have gone this far.

1. Engineer is concerned that due to the side swipe that it may have impacted the wheel and cause suspension damage. No damage to the wheel occured and the car is fine suspension wise so most likely this can be resolved either internally or by an inspection before they hand over cash.

2. Because there are two claims, with two individual authorised quotes, there is some confusion over the exact worth of the damage when put together. In theory, where there is overlap, there are some costs savings, eg. the car needing to be resprayed/blended etc...

So they are trying to pick between the two quotes and come up with a cost assuming the two repairs are done simultaneously.

So I wait now on point 1+2, if they can be both resolved then I was given the impression cash in lieu would be authorised.

[dogzilla]

ftypical said:

Out of curiosity, why did you post if you're not interested in any responses that don't reinforce your view of the situation?

I'm all for constructive criticism but it rubs me up the wrong way when someone comes into the thread and says nothing useful other than "you've shafted yourself" when I have only acted according to the information I have been given from the insurance company. There was even a reply calling me a insurance scammer which got deleted shortly after posting but not before I read it.

Ultimately I don't have months to sit around without a busted up car waiting for the insurance company to pull their finger out so when I was told 3 times on seperate occasions that a cash in lieu payment was authorised I took the decision to get the work done before the cash hit my account. If that's my only fault then I accept it, however pointing out the obvious is not very constructive is it?

hughcam said:

After reading the entire thread I have come to the conclusion that you have basically negotiated a bad deal in which you are trying to back out on. You can not agree to a cash in lieu payment AND also get authorisation on repairs. This would mean that you are benefiting from the insurance when car insurance (and most other non life policies) are based on the principle of indemnity (to put you in the same position you were in prior to the loss/body damage). You should have just accepted the cheque and not notified the cost of the body work repair to your insurer.

I understand that the claim handler may have given you bad advice with regards to basis of settlement (I.E cash or repair/reinstatement) however as they have given you £50 compensation that you have also accepted I dont think you have a leg to stand on.

The misunderstanding here is that the insurance company told me 3 times they authorised cash in lieu payment and I was led to believe I just had to ring up and they would settle the claim immediately.

Thus, I authorised repair of the car myself to another garage which legally I am entitled to do, however in practise it leaves me out of pocket until the insurance company resolves the claim fully. I accept that.

Also you have to understand these are 3rd party non-fault claims in which my insurance company is essentially acting on my behalf to claim money from the 3rd party who is at fault. Neither the insurance company or myself has an obligation to repair the car as cheap as possible nor do I have any obligation to accept a repair at all, I am perfectly entitled to ask for a cash sum instead.

The 3rd party is liable for an amount which puts me back in the position before the accident, which is how much it would cost to repair it back to it's original condition. I have two authorised quotes from BMW which the insurance company signed off on. It would be difficult to argue otherwise, the pictures, quotes and notes from the engineer are all on file.

The fact that I spent less on the bodywork repair is neither here nor there, that was my choice and it was done at a 3rd party without all the usual BMW warranty or guarantees, there is no doubting it's a lower quality repair, however again, it's my choice to accept a lower quality repair, that doesn't mean the 3rd party owes me less money.

P.S I haven't accepted any money or compensation yet. I'm waiting on a final conclusion.

[dogzilla]

iSore said:

I hope it all works out for you.
No, really I do.

Sorry for snapping at you but this whole thing is stressing me out and it just felt like being kicked when all I want to do is come out of this with a fair payment for two accidents which were not my fault.

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?

With the greatest respect you are incorrect. Legally speaking how much I specifically pay for a repair is irrelevent to the loss of value sustained to my car and thus how much the 3rd party are liable for.

Lets say I am a body shop guy and I can personally fix my car for £500 in parts. Does that mean the 3rd party is only liable for a £500 repair? No, because it is recognised that the £500 repair is not the true cost of the loss to the car. The amount the 3rd party is liable for is specifically how much it would reasonably cost to repair it back to it's original condition.

Now in my case, I accepted a lower quality of repair, that doesn't mean the 3rd party gets a free ride, that just means I have personally chosen to spend less on the repair and pocket the difference. (in this case for the engine work)

That's not me taking the piss and profiting because I have categorically sustained a loss of value to my car which cannot be disputed. Anyone who thinks otherwise really does not understand that a lower quality repair is not returning the car back to it's original condition. The fact I did has NO bearing on how much the 3rd party is liable for. It is my choice to do with the money as I please, there is nothing in law that says I must spend all of the money on the car or in fact that I must spend any money at all. I am perfectly entitled to take the cash and go to the casino if I want and put up with a banged up car.

This is a legal principle which I have learned goes back into the long and distant history of admiralty law and has been upheld at the supreme court as recently as 2014.

[dogzilla]

marshalla said:

Can you give us a link the to judgment please ? I'm struggling to find one - but probably using the wrong search terms.

There are a number of closely related judements but the most interesting one is : Coles v Hetherton

There are lots of interesting bits in the case which I have quoted below.

Lord Justice said:

"…where a vehicle is negligently damaged and is reasonably repaired, rather than written off, the measure of the claimant's loss can be taken as the reasonable cost of repair. That reasonable cost is not necessarily the repair cost actually incurred, whether by the claimant or its insurer or indeed by anyone else who pays a repairer since the reasonable cost of repair is only a way of ascertaining the diminution in the value of the chattel by reason of the physical damage, though it is the normal and conventional way….A court can assess "the reasonable cost of repair" by reference to any evidence which is sufficient to discharge the burden of proof upon the claimant to establish the amount in question….In each case it will be a matter for the court to determine whether the claimant has made out its case, whether or not repairs have been done and whether or not in invoice is produced for the repair costs".

Lord Justice said:

The argument that the claimants cannot recover the full cost of repair to RSAI because they must mitigate their loss by having the repairs done at a lower cost is wrong because mitigation is not relevant in respect of this "direct" loss. 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

Essentially what some in this thread are saying is that because I chose to mitigate the cost of repair that the 3rd party liability is reduced, that is simply not true. Me choosing to mitigate costs does not release the 3rd party from their obligation to meet the full cost of the repair.

It is a simple question of fairness. If you smash my car and it costs £8k to repair but I personally choose to repair it for cheaper, that doesn't let you off the hook because I've already sustained the loss when you hit me.

Edited by dogzilla on Tuesday 24th March 12:32

[dogzilla]

marshalla said:

Which would be this one : http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1704....

(Supreme Court seem to have refused to look at it again as no new points of law were raised).

Yes the supreme court dismissed the appeal and the judgement just rehashes what has been said before and reinforces the original verdict. So I strongly believe I am on firm footing here.

Shezbo said:

Unfortunetely this IS not the case - if you chose to repair it for a lower amount, you cannot pocket the difference.

You cannot be seen to "make money" from a claim: as you have got your car repaired before anything is put in writing or the repair has been authorised, that is the repair route YOU have chosen and therefore the amount they will now settle?

Again, please with the greatest of respect, you are wrong and I have posted legal cases with which I am basing my claim.

Firstly, the BMW quote was signed off and authorised, £8k worth of repair. That is the definition of "reasonable repair cost" to return the goods back to the condition prior to the accident. The law does not care what you spend to repair it, the court is simply concerned with a NOTIONAL cost, that is, an IMAGINARY cost to reasonably repair it. The law does not and has not taken into account the actual cost of repair.

I AM NOT MAKING MONEY. Sorry for the caps but I am really frustrated at this point that people seem to think I am profiteering. I AM NOT.

As I said, lets imagine you are a body work repair guy and because of your skill and contacts you can repair the car for £0.

Do you honestly believe that it then follows that the 3rd party is not liable to pay you anything because you repaired it for free? What if I decided simply not to repair the car. Does that mean the 3rd party gets a free ride for smashing up my car?

Please, if I have to repeat myself on this point I am seriously going to blow a gasket.

Also you must realise this is in relation to 3rd party liability. Where a 3rd party has damaged your car through no fault of your own.

If you are at fault then it's a different question and the insurance companies are within their right to only reinburse you your actual costs.

[dogzilla]

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

[dogzilla]

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.

[dogzilla]

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.

[dogzilla]

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!!

[dogzilla]

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.

[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.