Insurance woes - who actually regulates them ?
Discussion
I'm having some problems with my insurers with regards to a claim.
I don't believe I am being fairly compensated for an accident. I am not being put in the position I was prior to the accident. They are effectively saying what they are offering is "good enough".
I have spoken to the insurance ombudsman who are utterly toothless and basically say that even if you had hard proof of losing out due to an insured accident insurance do not have to compensate you for it. E.g. lets say a vehicle had a proven drop in value due to an accident & repair the insurer does not have to cover that drop in value.
In addition my insurer seems intent on artificially inflating the cost of the claim to suit their own interests. These costs will then by passed to the other insurer to pay. Insurance Ombudsman do not concern themselves with such matters, the only body I can that do are the Financial Conduct Authority who do not deal with individual cases and will simply acknowledge whatever you report to them.
As a consumer I'm being screwed over as I will not be compensated for a loss. The other parties insurer is going to have to pay a higher than necessary bill for the claim and it seems that no-one actually gives a f
k. Am I missing anyone who will look at the situation and help ?
I don't believe I am being fairly compensated for an accident. I am not being put in the position I was prior to the accident. They are effectively saying what they are offering is "good enough".
I have spoken to the insurance ombudsman who are utterly toothless and basically say that even if you had hard proof of losing out due to an insured accident insurance do not have to compensate you for it. E.g. lets say a vehicle had a proven drop in value due to an accident & repair the insurer does not have to cover that drop in value.
In addition my insurer seems intent on artificially inflating the cost of the claim to suit their own interests. These costs will then by passed to the other insurer to pay. Insurance Ombudsman do not concern themselves with such matters, the only body I can that do are the Financial Conduct Authority who do not deal with individual cases and will simply acknowledge whatever you report to them.
As a consumer I'm being screwed over as I will not be compensated for a loss. The other parties insurer is going to have to pay a higher than necessary bill for the claim and it seems that no-one actually gives a f
k. Am I missing anyone who will look at the situation and help ?That is not my expectation of how insurance works. It is there to make a satisfactory repair to your car. There is a debate of satisfactory of course, but let's assume they do a industry standard job.
Any unmolested super dooper car will (potentially) be worth less after being damaged and repaired than before it. But nowhere in my insurance terms can I see a promise to put you in the position you were in had the accident not happened.
Bert
Any unmolested super dooper car will (potentially) be worth less after being damaged and repaired than before it. But nowhere in my insurance terms can I see a promise to put you in the position you were in had the accident not happened.
Bert
ging84 said:
what is the loss? has your vehicle been damaged and repair, if the repairs are not satisfactory then you should be able to claim further compensation, if they have been then what makes you think there is a loss in value?
The car was two weeks old. The repair involves major mechanical work (front suspension, subframe, steering rack etc), painting nearly half the car, interior stripped out & refitted (airbag replacement) and parts of the body shell itself cut out and patches welded in - this would not be done where that panel is fitted & welded at the factory, essentially cut in to the middle of a panel. I cannot see how the car is being returned to pre-accident state. Essentially because its possible to repair the car thats being deemed as "good enough" and at least one of their reps has admitted the car is not being returned to pre-accident state but thats my problem, one even told me "thats the risk you take buying a new car".
The repair is, by their own admission 60% of the value of the car. I do not have a firm date for the return of the car to me yet and could be delayed by unavailability of parts, which cannot be checked until an order is placed by which time we are committed to a repair.
I am getting grief for not using the insurer's recommended repairer, I cannot ascertain if they are approved by the manufacturer of the car (I believe necessary to kept the car warranty intact).
The repairer is (at the moment) a main dealer for the manufacturer - the manufacturer's in car system alerted them to the accident, sent a truck, got the car from the accident scene and took it to the dealer. The guy there is basically saying the car can be repaired, but even he said that if it was his he'd prefer a write off.
The insurer has a sister company who is providing the hire car.
They tell me hire car costs cannot be taken in to consideration when deciding if to write the car off or not.
I know the car will not be repaired until next month at the earliest, by which time the hire car cost will be 50% of the car value. This means that the repair & hire car cost are over 110% of the car value. The accident is non-fault on my part and thus they are passing this cost on to the other insurer. A write off would actually be a cheaper solution (it negates the bulk of the hire car cost and offset by salvage value). Yet no-one wants to use common sense.
The Ombudsman isn't really there to protect the consumer, they just make sure that the insurance company handle a complaint correctly (i.e. follow a procedure). Thats all they do.
The only option I have is to sell the car, losing thousands in the process.
BertBert said:
That is not my expectation of how insurance works. It is there to make a satisfactory repair to your car. There is a debate of satisfactory of course, but let's assume they do a industry standard job.
Any unmolested super dooper car will (potentially) be worth less after being damaged and repaired than before it. But nowhere in my insurance terms can I see a promise to put you in the position you were in had the accident not happened.
Bert
Didn't stop Rowan Atkinson's mclaren F1 selling for nearly £8m making it likely to be the most expensive one ever sold Any unmolested super dooper car will (potentially) be worth less after being damaged and repaired than before it. But nowhere in my insurance terms can I see a promise to put you in the position you were in had the accident not happened.
Bert
My £14,000 car suffered £9,400 worth of damage the day after I bought it. I was 99% certain of a write off - as were the third party insurance company. Their engineer inspected it and green lit the repairs. The car was returned in show-room condition. Full respray etc. Luck of the draw I guess.
Most insurers have an agreement in their wording to supply a brand new car should it be damaged in the first few months- your insurer doesn't?
Why not try to speak to the claims manager or get your broker to earn their commission and do so on your behalf - it makes no sense to to have a claim more than the value of the car!!
Why not try to speak to the claims manager or get your broker to earn their commission and do so on your behalf - it makes no sense to to have a claim more than the value of the car!!
Crafty_ said:
The car was two weeks old. The repair involves major mechanical work (front suspension, subframe, steering rack etc), painting nearly half the car, interior stripped out & refitted (airbag replacement) and parts of the body shell itself cut out and patches welded in - this would not be done where that panel is fitted & welded at the factory, essentially cut in to the middle of a panel.
Most of that's just fine, but the patching of panels may be, may not be. The manufacturer will have official body repair documentation and procedures.Crafty said:
The repair is, by their own admission 60% of the value of the car.
I'm really quite surprised they're not writing it off.Crafty said:
The repairer is (at the moment) a main dealer for the manufacturer
Then the repair will be being done to manufacturer standard.Mojooo said:
why will the insurance ombudsman not help? they cover motor insurance.
you have to exhaust the insurers complaint procedure first
there is no general insurance regulator AFAIK.
They are looking in to it a little more, but at the moment they are saying that the insurer is fulfilling their obligations and therefore its my tough luck.you have to exhaust the insurers complaint procedure first
there is no general insurance regulator AFAIK.
The matter has been passed to the insurers "quality team" who will apparently be in contact in a few days. They refused to put me through to that team nor give me a complaint reference number.
When I spoke to the Ombudsman they are trying a new scheme where they try to speed up dealing with reported issues. Happily my insurer is part of this new trial scheme, which is a nice cosy arrangement it seems - they don't keep sending each other letters about stuff, agree that everything is all ok and tell the consumer to go stick it.
ging84 said:
Then your complaint needs to be that it has not been repaired to it's pre-accident state, not that it has lost value as a result of being repaired
It hasn't yet been repaired. The insurer has already been very clear that if the car isn't repaired properly its my problem as I picked the repairer and they cannot help me with that. I asked what would happen if their repairer did the work instead, "You get a five year warranty" was the only reply.
So, lets say I am not happy with the repair, insurer doesn't care, garage say its an acceptable standard I have no comeback or support. This is one reason why I am yet to allow the repair.
To my mind the car simply cannot be put back to pre accident condition, thats not a criticism of any repairer, just simply how it is - the paint will never match correctly, the fact that parts of the shell have been welded in, the stripped interior is going to cause rattles and so on. It just will not be the car I had once its been in a million bits.
I can understand it on a car thats a couple of years old - had some wear, road rash etc, as it was the car was utterly pristine - actually better than when I picked it up due to OCD amounts of cleaning/detailing.
In any case it seems that the quality of the repair is immaterial, provided its roadworthy and not dangerous thats good enough. The insurer told me it won't suffer a loss in value, but have provided no proof nor assurance of this and refused to say why someone would buy an accident damaged car over a non damaged one for the same price.
As a consumer I have no support and the insurer will do what they want, how they want, when they want. If that means I lose out through no fault of my own it doesn't matter
I bought a new car to have a new car, untouched and pristine. What I will be left with is certainly not that. All I am asking for is to be put in the position I was pre-accident. I'll accept a payout less than I spent on the car, as it will have lost money even at 2 weeks old. I'll accept that should I decide to buy another its going to take 2 months to get my hands on it and I'll incur costs in buying a runabout for the meantime.
Maybe others will disagree but I don't think I'm asking for the moon on a stick.
There is some shocking stuff on this read. Why do people insist on posting if they don't understand it?
1. The FOS manages individual complaints and are absolutely correct in what they have said. You have zero chance of getting any diminution in value claim via your own insurers, as it's not an insured loss amd that assumes (rather hopefully) that there is a loss. You can try with the other insurer, but again your chances are extremely low
2. The FCA and the PRA manage insurers at the highest level and have no legal mandate to involve themselves in individual issues
3. An insurer will replace your car under a new car replacement scheme in the first 12 months if you are the first owner, but only if the car is a write off
4. What an insurer charges for a repair is irrelevant to you, if you'd like to know the case law it started with Bee vs Jensen and escalated to a final case in the Court of Appeal in Coles vs Hetherton. It is not illegal, it is not relevant to your claim at all
5. Who is this "sister company" AMC? I keep asking people to bake one insurer that owns an AMC and nobody ever does, they just make (incorrect) assumptions.
6. If an insurer feels it's repairable then they will repair it. I very much doubt than a manufacturer franchised repairer would be chopping panels up amd wedding parts in to repair them. If they are the your issue is with them and not your insurer.
1. The FOS manages individual complaints and are absolutely correct in what they have said. You have zero chance of getting any diminution in value claim via your own insurers, as it's not an insured loss amd that assumes (rather hopefully) that there is a loss. You can try with the other insurer, but again your chances are extremely low
2. The FCA and the PRA manage insurers at the highest level and have no legal mandate to involve themselves in individual issues
3. An insurer will replace your car under a new car replacement scheme in the first 12 months if you are the first owner, but only if the car is a write off
4. What an insurer charges for a repair is irrelevant to you, if you'd like to know the case law it started with Bee vs Jensen and escalated to a final case in the Court of Appeal in Coles vs Hetherton. It is not illegal, it is not relevant to your claim at all
5. Who is this "sister company" AMC? I keep asking people to bake one insurer that owns an AMC and nobody ever does, they just make (incorrect) assumptions.
6. If an insurer feels it's repairable then they will repair it. I very much doubt than a manufacturer franchised repairer would be chopping panels up amd wedding parts in to repair them. If they are the your issue is with them and not your insurer.
Crafty_ said:
It hasn't yet been repaired. The insurer has already been very clear that if the car isn't repaired properly its my problem as I picked the repairer and they cannot help me with that.
I asked what would happen if their repairer did the work instead, "You get a five year warranty" was the only reply.
So, lets say I am not happy with the repair, insurer doesn't care, garage say its an acceptable standard I have no comeback or support. This is one reason why I am yet to allow the repair.
To my mind the car simply cannot be put back to pre accident condition, thats not a criticism of any repairer, just simply how it is - the paint will never match correctly, the fact that parts of the shell have been welded in, the stripped interior is going to cause rattles and so on. It just will not be the car I had once its been in a million bits.
I can understand it on a car thats a couple of years old - had some wear, road rash etc, as it was the car was utterly pristine - actually better than when I picked it up due to OCD amounts of cleaning/detailing.
In any case it seems that the quality of the repair is immaterial, provided its roadworthy and not dangerous thats good enough. The insurer told me it won't suffer a loss in value, but have provided no proof nor assurance of this and refused to say why someone would buy an accident damaged car over a non damaged one for the same price.
As a consumer I have no support and the insurer will do what they want, how they want, when they want. If that means I lose out through no fault of my own it doesn't matter
I bought a new car to have a new car, untouched and pristine. What I will be left with is certainly not that. All I am asking for is to be put in the position I was pre-accident. I'll accept a payout less than I spent on the car, as it will have lost money even at 2 weeks old. I'll accept that should I decide to buy another its going to take 2 months to get my hands on it and I'll incur costs in buying a runabout for the meantime.
Maybe others will disagree but I don't think I'm asking for the moon on a stick.
They are correct. You've chosen the repairer and the quality of the repair sits with you. If you used their repairer then they are involved and will guarantee the repairs for the period they say. I asked what would happen if their repairer did the work instead, "You get a five year warranty" was the only reply.
So, lets say I am not happy with the repair, insurer doesn't care, garage say its an acceptable standard I have no comeback or support. This is one reason why I am yet to allow the repair.
To my mind the car simply cannot be put back to pre accident condition, thats not a criticism of any repairer, just simply how it is - the paint will never match correctly, the fact that parts of the shell have been welded in, the stripped interior is going to cause rattles and so on. It just will not be the car I had once its been in a million bits.
I can understand it on a car thats a couple of years old - had some wear, road rash etc, as it was the car was utterly pristine - actually better than when I picked it up due to OCD amounts of cleaning/detailing.
In any case it seems that the quality of the repair is immaterial, provided its roadworthy and not dangerous thats good enough. The insurer told me it won't suffer a loss in value, but have provided no proof nor assurance of this and refused to say why someone would buy an accident damaged car over a non damaged one for the same price.
As a consumer I have no support and the insurer will do what they want, how they want, when they want. If that means I lose out through no fault of my own it doesn't matter
I bought a new car to have a new car, untouched and pristine. What I will be left with is certainly not that. All I am asking for is to be put in the position I was pre-accident. I'll accept a payout less than I spent on the car, as it will have lost money even at 2 weeks old. I'll accept that should I decide to buy another its going to take 2 months to get my hands on it and I'll incur costs in buying a runabout for the meantime.
Maybe others will disagree but I don't think I'm asking for the moon on a stick.
As for the rest of your opinion that the car won't be perfect, it will and you're being over sensitive. I repeat that a manufacturer franchised repairer will not cut panels up amd weld repairs in. There is not a chance that the manufacturer will allow that.
Crafty_ said:
The insurer has already been very clear that if the car isn't repaired properly its my problem as I picked the repairer and they cannot help me with that.
Seems fair.Crafty_ said:
To my mind the car simply cannot be put back to pre accident condition, thats not a criticism of any repairer, just simply how it is - the paint will never match correctly, the fact that parts of the shell have been welded in, the stripped interior is going to cause rattles and so on. It just will not be the car I had once its been in a million bits.
Woo, hold on one minute...The interior might have to come apart for a warranty issue. It might already have been apart for an issue picked up on PDI.
The paint might have to be matched for a minor parking bingle. It might already have had some paint for damage picked up before delivery.
The shell was made up out of lots of bits of steel welded together in the first place.
Crafty_ said:
the insurer will do what they want, how they want, when they want.
Umm, that's not quite right, is it?The insurer are already agreeing to your preference to have the car repaired by the franchise dealer, rather than their repairer. They are merely saying to you "Well, that's fine, but the quality of the work is outside our control in that case." - which it is.
The manufacturer/importer cannot legally insist on any repairs - mechanical or body - being carried out by a franchise dealer for warranty, merely being done to their standards and with approved parts.
I'm quite surprised that such extensive damage is being repaired rather than written off - many insurers do offer a new-for-old above a certain %age of value damage on near-new cars. Maybe your insurer isn't one of those? But, even if it is, there will always be repairs below the threshold. You say the damage is 60%+ of new price. Maybe that threshold is 65% or 70%. Move the threshold down, and there will still be repairs below it - all the way to near-new cars being written off for a minor bumper scuff.
I'd like to see the repair estimate scanned in here. Photo via a smartphone is a good one and works well, as I doubt the repair cost is that high without it being written off too. Insurers get mahoosive discounts on new cars,as they buy so many parts off the manufacturers, so they will write off amd sell on the salvage rather than repair once you get around 60%
LoonR1 said:
There is some shocking stuff on this read. Why do people insist on posting if they don't understand it?
1. The FOS manages individual complaints and are absolutely correct in what they have said. You have zero chance of getting any diminution in value claim via your own insurers, as it's not an insured loss amd that assumes (rather hopefully) that there is a loss. You can try with the other insurer, but again your chances are extremely low
2. The FCA and the PRA manage insurers at the highest level and have no legal mandate to involve themselves in individual issues
3. An insurer will replace your car under a new car replacement scheme in the first 12 months if you are the first owner, but only if the car is a write off
4. What an insurer charges for a repair is irrelevant to you, if you'd like to know the case law it started with Bee vs Jensen and escalated to a final case in the Court of Appeal in Coles vs Hetherton. It is not illegal, it is not relevant to your claim at all
5. Who is this "sister company" AMC? I keep asking people to bake one insurer that owns an AMC and nobody ever does, they just make (incorrect) assumptions.
6. If an insurer feels it's repairable then they will repair it. I very much doubt than a manufacturer franchised repairer would be chopping panels up amd wedding parts in to repair them. If they are the your issue is with them and not your insurer.
Loon, apologies if any of this thread offends, I think most (including the repairer and some reps at the insurance company) understand my situation and my view on not wanting a repaired car.1. The FOS manages individual complaints and are absolutely correct in what they have said. You have zero chance of getting any diminution in value claim via your own insurers, as it's not an insured loss amd that assumes (rather hopefully) that there is a loss. You can try with the other insurer, but again your chances are extremely low
2. The FCA and the PRA manage insurers at the highest level and have no legal mandate to involve themselves in individual issues
3. An insurer will replace your car under a new car replacement scheme in the first 12 months if you are the first owner, but only if the car is a write off
4. What an insurer charges for a repair is irrelevant to you, if you'd like to know the case law it started with Bee vs Jensen and escalated to a final case in the Court of Appeal in Coles vs Hetherton. It is not illegal, it is not relevant to your claim at all
5. Who is this "sister company" AMC? I keep asking people to bake one insurer that owns an AMC and nobody ever does, they just make (incorrect) assumptions.
6. If an insurer feels it's repairable then they will repair it. I very much doubt than a manufacturer franchised repairer would be chopping panels up amd wedding parts in to repair them. If they are the your issue is with them and not your insurer.
1) So I am told, yet no one will assert that a repaired car is completely unaffected in value. If it isn't fine - give me some assurance, until that point it is unproven. Some guy on the phone saying "it won't be worth any less" does not fill me with confidence.
2) Agreed, only mentioned to save someone saying "ring the FCA". No point, they won't do anything and probably won't even care about the cost bumping anyway.
4) It would seem so - so if they go around bumping up premiums though this sort of behaviour it would seem to be perfectly acceptable.
5) Yes an AMC, they introduced them as a "partner company" and as far as I can work out are all part of the same group of companies - I said repeated this a couple of times and they do not deny it. In any case it doesn't matter - the insurer themselves could provide the hire car and those costs still won't be taken in to account.
6) They are doing just that. There are two shell/chassis repairs. One is a panel that cannot be removed fully, so will be cut into and made good. The other is a part of structure that is damaged and cannot be bent back in to shape. I am not sure but believe this is an entire subsection/part that will be removed and replaced.
LoonR1 said:
I'd like to see the repair estimate scanned in here. Photo via a smartphone is a good one and works well, as I doubt the repair cost is that high without it being written off too. Insurers get mahoosive discounts on new cars,as they buy so many parts off the manufacturers, so they will write off amd sell on the salvage rather than repair once you get around 60%
I do not have a copy of the estimate, but the garage called me directly and told me the total cost. He suspected they would write off due to the high cost. I will try and get one and post if it makes any difference. The insurance company have since confirmed that as the repair cost. It is 60% of their value.They have valued the car at 98% of what I purchased it for. I have no idea if that is accurate or not, I made a speculative called to the supplying dealer, who, without looking in to it further didn't really know what they'd retail the car at on the forecourt, there are currently none for sale as used of my particular model.
The insurer is claiming to be using glasses guide for the value, if those guides are anywhere near up to date I don't know - I suspect they've made a guestimate.
60% is not a write off, they say the repair needs to be 65% of value. What really pisses me off is on the initial phone call I asked how they made their decision to repair and was told that each case is looked at individually and that there was no set criteria - costs, time to repair, additional costs, my wishes can all be taken in to account they said.
When it comes down to it I have a variable repair time, a high cost and a preference for total loss, yet they came back today and said they won't even entertain it unless its 65% of value.
Edited by Crafty_ on Monday 8th June 23:17
Crafty_ said:
Loon, apologies if any of this thread offends, I think most (including the repairer and some reps at the insurance company) understand my situation and my view on not wanting a repaired car.
1) So I am told, yet no one will assert that a repaired car is completely unaffected in value. If it isn't fine - give me some assurance, until that point it is unproven. Some guy on the phone saying "it won't be worth any less" does not fill me with confidence.
2) Agreed, only mentioned to save someone saying "ring the FCA". No point, they won't do anything and probably won't even care about the cost bumping anyway.
4) It would seem so - so if they go around bumping up premiums though this sort of behaviour it would seem to be perfectly acceptable.
5) Yes an AMC, they introduced them as a "partner company" and as far as I can work out are all part of the same group of companies - I said repeated this a couple of times and they do not deny it. In any case it doesn't matter - the insurer themselves could provide the hire car and those costs still won't be taken in to account.
6) They are doing just that. There are two shell/chassis repairs. One is a panel that cannot be removed fully, so will be cut into and made good. The other is a part of structure that is damaged and cannot be bent back in to shape. I am not sure but believe this is an entire subsection/part that will be removed and replaced.
1. It isn't affected. There is no public record of the repair. Many cars are repaired during their lives and you wouldn't know. Many are repaired before you even receive them as a brand new car too. My car has had the bonnet resprayed at my cost, as there were too many stone chips for my liking. It's worth no less, or more now. 1) So I am told, yet no one will assert that a repaired car is completely unaffected in value. If it isn't fine - give me some assurance, until that point it is unproven. Some guy on the phone saying "it won't be worth any less" does not fill me with confidence.
2) Agreed, only mentioned to save someone saying "ring the FCA". No point, they won't do anything and probably won't even care about the cost bumping anyway.
4) It would seem so - so if they go around bumping up premiums though this sort of behaviour it would seem to be perfectly acceptable.
5) Yes an AMC, they introduced them as a "partner company" and as far as I can work out are all part of the same group of companies - I said repeated this a couple of times and they do not deny it. In any case it doesn't matter - the insurer themselves could provide the hire car and those costs still won't be taken in to account.
6) They are doing just that. There are two shell/chassis repairs. One is a panel that cannot be removed fully, so will be cut into and made good. The other is a part of structure that is damaged and cannot be bent back in to shape. I am not sure but believe this is an entire subsection/part that will be removed and replaced.
2. No comment needed as we're agreed
3. In the twilight zone?
4. There was a full investigation done by the Competition Commission over the past few years. They didn't like it. However, it has been set in stone by the Courts. I've quoted the precedent for you. Feel free to spend s
t loads challenging it, but believe me you won't win. 5. Partner company is not a sister company. I'm going to guess at this being Direct Line or one of their brands and Quindell aka Ai. They are two separate companies. They do not share any management or ownership at all.
6. Then your issue is with the repairer and not the insurer. You chose this repairer. You said they were the franchised dealer's repairer. There is no way they will repair a car to a shoddy standard, the manufacturer will be all over them. If you have issues, take it up with the manufacturer.
I hate to say this, but I get the impression, you just want a new car, because this one Is a bit damaged and you're overly sensitive about it. I won't use OCD, as that's a serious condition, that people make light of on here far too frequently. You need to accept that all the things you dislike could happen for a recall as someone else has posted.
Didn't comment on 3, I never talked about "new for old", others bought that up.
1) Please find me someone who wishes to buy a car, two identical cars are available, same price etc. only difference is ones been in an accident, who picks the one thats been in an accident?
Respraying a bonnet is slightly different to stripping the interior, welding new parts to a shell and rebuilding the steering and suspension, I think you'll agree.
Again, if someone gives me an assurance that the car hasn't lost value then thats fine, until then its unproven.
4) I never talked about fighting it on that basis. I don't care who has decided its okay it flies in the face of common sense and is a big con, but I fully accept there is nothing I can do about it
5) Not the companies you mention, can't name due to N&S rules. As I said both I and reps have talked about a sister company, Make of that what you will.
6) You may be correct, I will seek clarification. The problem is if the car goes anywhere else I may lose manufacturer warranty on the car and I cannot get clarification on who the insurers repairer is and if they have manufacturer approval.
I want to be correctly compensated for something that wasn't my fault. the pint about the car coming apart for warranty - yes ok, but this is far more work than a warranty repair and in any case its having to come apart as a direct result of this accident that otherwise it wouldn't.
Frankly, at the moment I don't want a new car, I'll buy a £200 shed and drive that around because there is no sense in buying a nice car to take pleasure in owning and driving if this sort of thing can happen. I'll spend the money in other ways instead because it sure as hell isn't worth having money in a car.
1) Please find me someone who wishes to buy a car, two identical cars are available, same price etc. only difference is ones been in an accident, who picks the one thats been in an accident?
Respraying a bonnet is slightly different to stripping the interior, welding new parts to a shell and rebuilding the steering and suspension, I think you'll agree.
Again, if someone gives me an assurance that the car hasn't lost value then thats fine, until then its unproven.
4) I never talked about fighting it on that basis. I don't care who has decided its okay it flies in the face of common sense and is a big con, but I fully accept there is nothing I can do about it
5) Not the companies you mention, can't name due to N&S rules. As I said both I and reps have talked about a sister company, Make of that what you will.
6) You may be correct, I will seek clarification. The problem is if the car goes anywhere else I may lose manufacturer warranty on the car and I cannot get clarification on who the insurers repairer is and if they have manufacturer approval.
I want to be correctly compensated for something that wasn't my fault. the pint about the car coming apart for warranty - yes ok, but this is far more work than a warranty repair and in any case its having to come apart as a direct result of this accident that otherwise it wouldn't.
Frankly, at the moment I don't want a new car, I'll buy a £200 shed and drive that around because there is no sense in buying a nice car to take pleasure in owning and driving if this sort of thing can happen. I'll spend the money in other ways instead because it sure as hell isn't worth having money in a car.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff