Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[omegod]

Hi, Some may recall my unfortunate experience with a faulty supermarket carwash a while ago, well at last someone is coming to inspect the damage after I sent in two estimates. The damage is in the most part abrasion/scuffing right down one side of the car which I suspect could be buffed with some serious aggression. I personally don't feel happy if they suggest this as it will seriously decrease the thickness of the paint and in future any scratches etc would not be fixable should I wish to as the lacquer would be too thin plus there is some deep scratching also but not on all panels which will need paint.

Am I right in thinking that as the car was fine before the defective machine buggered it up I have the right to have it restored to EXACTLY the same condition as manufactured?   Also as the quotes far outweigh the cars value, basically a full respray is needed to blend the colours, I am confident they can't declare it beyond economical repair, am I right ?   

[jonathanh]

Basically the supermarket has to remedy the damange - to fully make good the repaid.  My view is that you should seek a quotation for the work yourself.  If you are not happy with the insurers offer on behalf of the supermarket, I suggest you write to the supermarket explaining that you hold them liable for the value of your quote (which you must demonstrate is reasonable both in the work being done and the cost).  If the insuers will not cough up then threaten with court action.  They will not want the cost of court action so very likely to agree with you

Unfortunately they, the insurers are very good in trying to fob people off and only when someone fights back to they take notice

[omegod]

The question of liability is unlikely to be an issue due to the severity of the fault with the machine and it is the manufacturer of the machine's insurer sending out the assessor to me. I guess he is just here to check the quotations are equal to the damage, It's the standard of repair I am entitled to that I am querying really and really dont want efforts of smart repairs or anything that will leave me with really thin/easily damaged paintwork as it did not have this prior to the damage.   

[TheBoy]

Not to the standard that it was when it left the factory, but to the standard it was pre accident, as I understand it.

You should not gain (by having a better-than-previous repair) nor lose.

[omegod]

Not to the standard that it was when it left the factory, but to the standard it was pre accident, as I understand it.

You should not gain (by having a better-than-previous repair) nor lose.

Pre accident was mint and back to that will do me fine, I know the one owner from new and it has never had any paint.       

[dbug]

As said back to condiion immediately prior to damage - if to a better standard you will be charged the assessed "betterment" charge (eg if any panel had rust/damage not caused by incident)

Just stand your ground, and threats of court action usually work in these circumstances.  Immaterial if costs exceed cars value - you are entitled to have your car back in the condition it was pre accident, as it was not in any way your fault.

[sassanach]

As said back to condiion immediately prior to damage - if to a better standard you will be charged the assessed "betterment" charge (eg if any panel had rust/damage not caused by incident)

Just stand your ground, and threats of court action usually work in these circumstances.  Immaterial if costs exceed cars value - you are entitled to have your car back in the condition it was pre accident, as it was not in any way your fault.

as I understand it,if the value of the car is less than the cost of repairs then its a write off.insurance only has to put you back in the financial position you were before the incident.ie if a car is worth £300 then their maximum liability is £300.would love to be proved wrong tho.

[omegod]

As said back to condiion immediately prior to damage - if to a better standard you will be charged the assessed "betterment" charge (eg if any panel had rust/damage not caused by incident)

Just stand your ground, and threats of court action usually work in these circumstances.  Immaterial if costs exceed cars value - you are entitled to have your car back in the condition it was pre accident, as it was not in any way your fault.

as I understand it,if the value of the car is less than the cost of repairs then its a write off.insurance only has to put you back in the financial position you were before the incident.ie if a car is worth £300 then their maximum liability is £300.would love to be proved wrong tho.

As I understand it as I am not involving my insurance company, and I am not at fault, then I am under no contract with anyone where these mechanisms or principles would come into play. It's just purely rectification of damage to my property regardless of it's value.

[sassanach]

sounds good to me,providing they don't involve their insurance company.....

[dbdb]

As said back to condiion immediately prior to damage - if to a better standard you will be charged the assessed "betterment" charge (eg if any panel had rust/damage not caused by incident)

Just stand your ground, and threats of court action usually work in these circumstances.  Immaterial if costs exceed cars value - you are entitled to have your car back in the condition it was pre accident, as it was not in any way your fault.

as I understand it,if the value of the car is less than the cost of repairs then its a write off.insurance only has to put you back in the financial position you were before the incident.ie if a car is worth £300 then their maximum liability is £300.would love to be proved wrong tho.

As I understand it as I am not involving my insurance company, and I am not at fault, then I am under no contract with anyone where these mechanisms or principles would come into play. It's just purely rectification of damage to my property regardless of it's value.

Sadly I think sassanach is probably right.  If your car was damaged by another car and it was entirely their fault, the other cars insurers would only pay up to the write off value.  You would not be at fault and you wouldn't be under a contract with the other cars insurers, but I doubt they would pay much over market value.  Think of it as the car wash breaking loose and rolling down a hill into your car.  However if you can demonstrate that your car has a high market value because of its condition they will have to pay that.

They will want to avoid court (not just the costs but also bad publicity), so press them. Good luck.

[Rods2]

I think you will find that case law for 3rd party liabilities is they have to put you into the same position as you were before the accident happened and if this is more than the value of the car then so be it. This used to come up quite regularly in Honest Johns motoring column in Saturday's DT. His advice was if they don't pay up take it to the small claims court.

I'm sure if you do a search or ask the question on his website, you will get similar advice.

[dbug]

I think you will find that case law for 3rd party liabilities is they have to put you into the same position as you were before the accident happened and if this is more than the value of the car then so be it. This used to come up quite regularly in Honest Johns motoring column in Saturday's DT. His advice was if they don't pay up take it to the small claims court.

I'm sure if you do a search or ask the question on his website, you will get similar advice.

Correct

[omegod]

Well all sorted! 

 Thanks for the input guys, most helpful 

[MR MISTER]

Well all sorted! 

 Thanks for the input guys, most helpful 

Spill the effin beans then. Never mind 'all sorted'.

[omegod]

Well all sorted! 

 Thanks for the input guys, most helpful 

Spill the effin beans then. Never mind 'all sorted'.

I'm far too modest and money is such a dirty subject Steve