Are You Happy with Your Insurer Steering You to Repairers?
Discussion
In the event of a claim (RTA / glass etc) your insurer (or fleet management company) may steer you towards their nominated or preferred repairer. But what if this is not the best option for you?
If your insurer's repairer cannot get you back on the road in a timely fashion, but an alternative service provider can, how would you feel if your insco restricted you from - or even penalised you for - using a supplier of your own preference?
This is a huge problem for end users and service providers alike. There are those that are looking to get their vehicles back on the road with the minimum of (further) inconvenience; at the other end there is a service provider that can do this and is ready to respond, but fleet management and insurance companies are not allowing this. Without question, this is amounting to consumer detriment and it's about time in my - and many others' - opinion something is changed to loosen this stranglehold.
I'm looking to get some feedback on this subject to gauge what the feeling amongst PH is; this info may also prove useful to former panel beater and now Barrister, Andrew Moody of RML (Retail Motor Law) who is heading a campaign to bring about the changes in favour of those that are affected.
More about the subject and Andrew's work, here. There is also an anti-steering petition which is a key component in this drive (if you feel strongly enough about it, please do sign it).
Your views on the subject of job steering, please.
If your insurer's repairer cannot get you back on the road in a timely fashion, but an alternative service provider can, how would you feel if your insco restricted you from - or even penalised you for - using a supplier of your own preference?
This is a huge problem for end users and service providers alike. There are those that are looking to get their vehicles back on the road with the minimum of (further) inconvenience; at the other end there is a service provider that can do this and is ready to respond, but fleet management and insurance companies are not allowing this. Without question, this is amounting to consumer detriment and it's about time in my - and many others' - opinion something is changed to loosen this stranglehold.
I'm looking to get some feedback on this subject to gauge what the feeling amongst PH is; this info may also prove useful to former panel beater and now Barrister, Andrew Moody of RML (Retail Motor Law) who is heading a campaign to bring about the changes in favour of those that are affected.
More about the subject and Andrew's work, here. There is also an anti-steering petition which is a key component in this drive (if you feel strongly enough about it, please do sign it).
Your views on the subject of job steering, please.
Funny you should ask this!
One of my daughters was stationary at a roundabout on Jan 3rd this year. Bloke decided to hit the back of the car as he thought she was moving off. Damage was only minor but tailgate wouldn't open [Alfa 147]
he admitted total liability. Called Less Than insurance who arranged for a courtesy car and collection of ours, very eifficiently, next day. Car was then taken to a Ford dealer for repair work even though there is an Alfa dealer , from where we purchased the car, locally.
Fast forward to last week and eventually we get the car back. Its taken three months!
Other area of concern is the fact that we've had a Mercedes B class for the whole time. Cost per day was £115.00 so approx rental cost was £10350.00!!!! Alfa valued at around £7500.00.
We also had numerous calls and letters from another 'legal' company asking if we needed help getting compensation for her injuries....She wasn't injured!
My brother in law works in the USA for a major loss adjusting company.The maximum that the insurance company pays the rental outfit is $25.00 per day. If they authorise a 'luxury' car, eg Jaguar XJ, they will pay $50.00 per day. The whole insurance market here for rental cars is a huge rip off where we will pay in the end.
One of my daughters was stationary at a roundabout on Jan 3rd this year. Bloke decided to hit the back of the car as he thought she was moving off. Damage was only minor but tailgate wouldn't open [Alfa 147]
he admitted total liability. Called Less Than insurance who arranged for a courtesy car and collection of ours, very eifficiently, next day. Car was then taken to a Ford dealer for repair work even though there is an Alfa dealer , from where we purchased the car, locally.
Fast forward to last week and eventually we get the car back. Its taken three months!
Other area of concern is the fact that we've had a Mercedes B class for the whole time. Cost per day was £115.00 so approx rental cost was £10350.00!!!! Alfa valued at around £7500.00.
We also had numerous calls and letters from another 'legal' company asking if we needed help getting compensation for her injuries....She wasn't injured!
My brother in law works in the USA for a major loss adjusting company.The maximum that the insurance company pays the rental outfit is $25.00 per day. If they authorise a 'luxury' car, eg Jaguar XJ, they will pay $50.00 per day. The whole insurance market here for rental cars is a huge rip off where we will pay in the end.
Edited by E31Shrew on Saturday 10th April 09:07
I've just updated the ongoing thread of my experience following my recent prang. See http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a... I'd be happy to provide further feedback.
My view is that an approved repairer would have quoted for new bits for anything that might possibly have been damaged, would have included the caveat that there may be as yet unseen further damage and mine would have been a write off.
The independent Saab garage, stripped it properly so they could be sure of the extent of the damage and then agreed a contract repair with the engineer.
This way it's cost the insurers the same or slightly less than a write off may have cost them but I get my car fixed (I've had it from new) and I'm a happy bunny!
I crashed it on a Friday evening, it was recovered to a holding compound and when I rang the insurers on the saturday they "steered" me to allowing them to get their approved repairer to collect it "for free" and to have it assessed.
When I called them back to say I'd changed my mind and I wanted it to go to my usual garage they were very reluctant and went to great lengths to tell me that I would have to arrange for the car to be recovered, pay for that recovery charge and that I wouldn't be entitled to a courtesy car. What they didn't tell me of course that I would only have been entitled to a loaner whilst mine was "being repaired" given they were going to take one look and say it was a write off I was never going to get a courtesy car but that wasn't part of the conversation!
I'm very happy with the repairs done to mine, the guys at the garage actually cared about getting it fixed and making it look good and that's not what I've seen of other people's experience with approved repairers.
My view is that an approved repairer would have quoted for new bits for anything that might possibly have been damaged, would have included the caveat that there may be as yet unseen further damage and mine would have been a write off.
The independent Saab garage, stripped it properly so they could be sure of the extent of the damage and then agreed a contract repair with the engineer.
This way it's cost the insurers the same or slightly less than a write off may have cost them but I get my car fixed (I've had it from new) and I'm a happy bunny!
I crashed it on a Friday evening, it was recovered to a holding compound and when I rang the insurers on the saturday they "steered" me to allowing them to get their approved repairer to collect it "for free" and to have it assessed.
When I called them back to say I'd changed my mind and I wanted it to go to my usual garage they were very reluctant and went to great lengths to tell me that I would have to arrange for the car to be recovered, pay for that recovery charge and that I wouldn't be entitled to a courtesy car. What they didn't tell me of course that I would only have been entitled to a loaner whilst mine was "being repaired" given they were going to take one look and say it was a write off I was never going to get a courtesy car but that wasn't part of the conversation!
I'm very happy with the repairs done to mine, the guys at the garage actually cared about getting it fixed and making it look good and that's not what I've seen of other people's experience with approved repairers.
There are upsides to being steered toward nominated garages (although if I'm honest I would be vary wary about being steered in any case).
If there is a complaint about the standard of work done by a nominated repairer, the insurance company has more leverage to get the problem sorted out.
The big repairers who have agreed service levels with insurers have a complaints process and potentially if their standards slip the insurer will simply terminate their contract and move their business to another repairer. This provides quite a lot of motivation for the repairers to get any problems sorted out. The insurers will take it so seriously because it's their reputation at stake too.
On the other hand, if a problem occurs with a non recommended repairer, you're pretty much left high and dry to sort it out yourself.
Non recommended repairers are great for people who have contacts/know & trust their bodyshop, but for very many people, they wouldn't know who to choose from the selection in the Yellow Pages anyway, and so having a bit more insurer back up can be beneficial.
Less Than offer the recommended repairer, but that's only a choice - they do not force you to use their recommended repairer.
If there is a complaint about the standard of work done by a nominated repairer, the insurance company has more leverage to get the problem sorted out.
The big repairers who have agreed service levels with insurers have a complaints process and potentially if their standards slip the insurer will simply terminate their contract and move their business to another repairer. This provides quite a lot of motivation for the repairers to get any problems sorted out. The insurers will take it so seriously because it's their reputation at stake too.
On the other hand, if a problem occurs with a non recommended repairer, you're pretty much left high and dry to sort it out yourself.
Non recommended repairers are great for people who have contacts/know & trust their bodyshop, but for very many people, they wouldn't know who to choose from the selection in the Yellow Pages anyway, and so having a bit more insurer back up can be beneficial.
Less Than offer the recommended repairer, but that's only a choice - they do not force you to use their recommended repairer.
Less Than offer the recommended repairer, but that's only a choice - they do not force you to use their recommended repairer.
[/quote]
I wasn't aware that I had a choice! Where would the average Joe stand if they took it to whoever they wanted to, and the repairs weren't to their satisfaction? It was incredibly difficult trying to understand some bird in Delhi who had absolutely no idea what I was going on about!
I suppose it's a lesson learnt. From now on I am going to insure all cars, including the business ones, with my old local broker, and forego the 20% 'saving'
[/quote]
I wasn't aware that I had a choice! Where would the average Joe stand if they took it to whoever they wanted to, and the repairs weren't to their satisfaction? It was incredibly difficult trying to understand some bird in Delhi who had absolutely no idea what I was going on about!
I suppose it's a lesson learnt. From now on I am going to insure all cars, including the business ones, with my old local broker, and forego the 20% 'saving'
Edited by E31Shrew on Saturday 10th April 09:33
[Hmmm - now this is perhaps the point the OP is making - certainly at that company it is not compulsory, although it is very likely that the new claim notification agents would be targetted on how many nominated garage referrals they are making, and therefore it is more likely that the customer will have to directly ask to go to a different repairer, rather than being offered that choice.
If your insurer wanted you to take it to a recommended garage there are a number of benefits - they would probably have a service level agreement with that garage which is likely to state something like all customers should be contacted within 2 hours and a booking in date given, all non driveable vehicles should be collected within 24 hours, other guarantees such as free courtesy cars for the duration of repair (or 72 hours in the case of total loss) etc.
The insurer has no right to place such demands on a non recommended garage, so you'd have to be confident that your recommended garage would be able to fulfil a service that suited you.
If your insurer wanted you to take it to a recommended garage there are a number of benefits - they would probably have a service level agreement with that garage which is likely to state something like all customers should be contacted within 2 hours and a booking in date given, all non driveable vehicles should be collected within 24 hours, other guarantees such as free courtesy cars for the duration of repair (or 72 hours in the case of total loss) etc.
The insurer has no right to place such demands on a non recommended garage, so you'd have to be confident that your recommended garage would be able to fulfil a service that suited you.
Agrilla said:
There are upsides to being steered toward nominated garages (although if I'm honest I would be vary wary about being steered in any case).
If there is a complaint about the standard of work done by a nominated repairer, the insurance company has more leverage to get the problem sorted out.
The big repairers who have agreed service levels with insurers have a complaints process and potentially if their standards slip the insurer will simply terminate their contract and move their business to another repairer. This provides quite a lot of motivation for the repairers to get any problems sorted out. The insurers will take it so seriously because it's their reputation at stake too.
On the other hand, if a problem occurs with a non recommended repairer, you're pretty much left high and dry to sort it out yourself.
Non recommended repairers are great for people who have contacts/know & trust their bodyshop, but for very many people, they wouldn't know who to choose from the selection in the Yellow Pages anyway, and so having a bit more insurer back up can be beneficial.
Less Than offer the recommended repairer, but that's only a choice - they do not force you to use their recommended repairer.
Valid points.If there is a complaint about the standard of work done by a nominated repairer, the insurance company has more leverage to get the problem sorted out.
The big repairers who have agreed service levels with insurers have a complaints process and potentially if their standards slip the insurer will simply terminate their contract and move their business to another repairer. This provides quite a lot of motivation for the repairers to get any problems sorted out. The insurers will take it so seriously because it's their reputation at stake too.
On the other hand, if a problem occurs with a non recommended repairer, you're pretty much left high and dry to sort it out yourself.
Non recommended repairers are great for people who have contacts/know & trust their bodyshop, but for very many people, they wouldn't know who to choose from the selection in the Yellow Pages anyway, and so having a bit more insurer back up can be beneficial.
Less Than offer the recommended repairer, but that's only a choice - they do not force you to use their recommended repairer.
But the call is to use competent / registered repairers for which there are standards, such as ATA (IMI) where each technician will have a card with his individual registration number. This scheme is currently voluntary. There is much emphasis on PAS (Publicly Available Standard) but no real benefit when work is steered away from you.
As I said though, although I can clearly see that there are definite benefits to using an insurers recommended garage, would I be happy taking out a policy which stated that I had no other option but to use one? Would I use one if I was given the option?
Well for me last year price was king I'm afraid, so although I didn't go with the absolute cheapest, I didn't bother checking the terms regarding this issue (like many people I imagine) on the basis that I had a pretty crap car anyway. If I had anything remotely interesting I would have DEFINITELY checked this out.
When a dozy mare hit the back of my car last year, I did send it to the recommended repairer - but only because I was pretty sure it was a total loss.
Well for me last year price was king I'm afraid, so although I didn't go with the absolute cheapest, I didn't bother checking the terms regarding this issue (like many people I imagine) on the basis that I had a pretty crap car anyway. If I had anything remotely interesting I would have DEFINITELY checked this out.
When a dozy mare hit the back of my car last year, I did send it to the recommended repairer - but only because I was pretty sure it was a total loss.
I'm surprised about some of the responses. My opinion of the Insurers approved centres is that they have bid on cost. Yes there may be a SLA agreement etc, but ultimately they have got the job because of price.
I've always said no thanks, I'll go to manufacturers approved bodyshop and not been disappointed.
I've always said no thanks, I'll go to manufacturers approved bodyshop and not been disappointed.
Yes - it's all down to the bottom line and the insurers will have negotiated preferential rates with their recommended garages.
Insurers will move garages however if the standard of work consistently falls below par - the insurer doesn't want to lose business hours sorting out repairer network problems, nor do they want to lose customer renewals by poor customer experience due to cocked up repairs.
Insurers will move garages however if the standard of work consistently falls below par - the insurer doesn't want to lose business hours sorting out repairer network problems, nor do they want to lose customer renewals by poor customer experience due to cocked up repairs.
davidjpowell said:
I've always said no thanks, I'll go to manufacturers approved bodyshop and not been disappointed.
We heard a case recently where an insured driver took his Granturismo to a Maserati main dealer for windscreen replacement. The dealer has been subbing all glazing work to the same independent windscreen co for years. Insco were refusing to budge on approving anymore than £100 (on top the cost of the glass) to replace this (approx four hour job) windscreen. The insco's 'approved' (approved for direct billing) repairer couldn't do the job for four weeks and in any case, the car owner wanted it done via the Maserati route.
Glassman...Do you know of other cases where 'car hire / rental' costs have meant the car was eventually written off? When does an insurance company decide that the loan car costs are going to exceed the value of the car? In my case the garage were wating for a new floor for the boot, but I would have thought that the total repair cost was no more than £1000.00, but as mentioned previously the car rental cost was over £10000.00!
My insurance underwriters would not allow me to take it to anyone not on their list of repairers.
Their preference being Nationwide, they took it there without asking me - I did not like what I saw (cars prepared and sprayed in the same area in a general workshop and not a spray booth (illegal isn't it because of pollution), they were also not going to do any mechanical repairs (car needed a new wheel hub, disc brake and control arm IIRC), they were going to leave the damaged parts on as it drove OK like it!
So I took it to another company on the underwriters list.
The assessor from the underwriter had already seen it at nationwide and saw it again 2 days later at the workshop I had it moved to.
He was not happy as he had already approved repairs and now they came to a bit more for a better job, so he stopped the repair going ahead and didn't answer calls or emails for 3 months.
I had no loan car as the repair had not been approved, I had not transport of my own in that time.
Their preference being Nationwide, they took it there without asking me - I did not like what I saw (cars prepared and sprayed in the same area in a general workshop and not a spray booth (illegal isn't it because of pollution), they were also not going to do any mechanical repairs (car needed a new wheel hub, disc brake and control arm IIRC), they were going to leave the damaged parts on as it drove OK like it!
So I took it to another company on the underwriters list.
The assessor from the underwriter had already seen it at nationwide and saw it again 2 days later at the workshop I had it moved to.
He was not happy as he had already approved repairs and now they came to a bit more for a better job, so he stopped the repair going ahead and didn't answer calls or emails for 3 months.
I had no loan car as the repair had not been approved, I had not transport of my own in that time.
Glassman said:
Kentish said:
I had no loan car as the repair had not been approved, I had not transport of my own in that time.
How did it end? Were you compensated? Did the insco apologise?(...and did you renew with them?
)IMHO the repairs were not comparable since the first one was happy to send it back out with no mechanical repairs. The amounts were clearly disproportionate for a good reason!
The bloke was a complete plank, made me so angry - me on public transport for 3 months whilst he shoved his finger up his ass.
No compensation, just one of those unfortunate experiences.
The motor vehicle insurance policy holder has the right to choose the repairer who they wish to carry out the required repairs and is not obliged to use only the insurance company's appointed repairer.
This has been agreed between the Office Of Fair Trading (OFT) and the Association Of British Insurers (ABI).
The only exception is where this, for commercial reasons, has been made an express condition of the policy and has been written into the insurance policy's terms and conditions to which the policy holder has been made aware.
http://daverickmotors.com/html/right.html
This has been agreed between the Office Of Fair Trading (OFT) and the Association Of British Insurers (ABI).
The only exception is where this, for commercial reasons, has been made an express condition of the policy and has been written into the insurance policy's terms and conditions to which the policy holder has been made aware.
http://daverickmotors.com/html/right.html
amir_j said:
The motor vehicle insurance policy holder has the right to choose the repairer who they wish to carry out the required repairs and is not obliged to use only the insurance company's appointed repairer.
This has been agreed between the Office Of Fair Trading (OFT) and the Association Of British Insurers (ABI).
The only exception is where this, for commercial reasons, has been made an express condition of the policy and has been written into the insurance policy's terms and conditions to which the policy holder has been made aware.
http://daverickmotors.com/html/right.html
Yes. But in many cases (not all) the PH is not made aware of this until a claim is made. This has been agreed between the Office Of Fair Trading (OFT) and the Association Of British Insurers (ABI).
The only exception is where this, for commercial reasons, has been made an express condition of the policy and has been written into the insurance policy's terms and conditions to which the policy holder has been made aware.
http://daverickmotors.com/html/right.html
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff