Bodywork repairs following accident - paint match

" snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

I'm glad you dodged the bullet on it. I take it you'll be taking the hint on classic insurance when it comes to renewal time...?

It's certainly very true that you should not expect a complete respray - although you would have been very welcome to pay the marginal extra yourself (betterment).

However, you shouldn't have to live with a poor match - the bodyshop should have matched the paint on the repaired section to the existing paint, rather than relying on the colour code.

Yeh. But surely I've got a right to have the car back in the same condition as before the accident?

If it needs a complete respray, then its not my fault. Especially since the accident was blatantly not my fault.

Although, like you said, if they could match it then thats fine by me

- not going to be awkward about it. Got the feeling that the bodyshop havent made a great deal of effort with the car though.

I guess I could have a bit of a fight on my hands now though proving that the quality is unnacceptable...

" snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Indeed. And that condition was not "freshly and completely resprayed".

It's still relevant that your insurance was not a classic policy, so the standards being applied are those of a normal vehicle of that age. You merely proved to them that the repair was not financially unviable.

Why should it matter whether the policy was classic or not when the other driver was at fault? The classic policy provider is not contributing and indeed the at fault drivers insurer might not even know what policy the damaged car is covered by. If I have third party rather than comprehensive I still would expect full repairs provided by the third party...

And since the alternative would be to write off a mini (what are they selling for now, three grand?) - it must be finacially viable to repair rather than write off.

You should tell the body shop that you are dissatisfied and that you want them to do the job again and match the paint. If it cannot be matched, you should be entitled to a respray. That might ultimately mean suing your insurers to make them honour their obligations.

Paul gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Because the standard of repair expected to a classic vehicle - particularly with reference to paint match - is higher than to a random older car. There are also different techniques required - it'd be fine to paint a 2yo car to the paint code, since fading and previous repainting is unlikely. But not an older car - you really do need to match to the colour. Which might take a couple of goes, and increases the cost.

Which was what Bertie achieved through some paperwork. Their attitude was that, as a random 20-odd year old car not in their price guides, it must be nearly valueless. Which, given that it was insured as a random 20-odd year old car instead of as a classic, is fair enough.

If you have specific requirements, buy a product that meets them, not just a random one.

I know that - and that's fine if the owner crashes it under a normal policy - he can only expect the value the value the insurer wants to give him...if you don't pay the premium you can't expect magic.

But its not for the third party insurers to make that decision - as I said, the type of policy in force on the victims car is irrelevent.

If I was to break my neigbbours windows with my football, I (or my insurer) is still responsible for the full cost of repair to satisfactory standard, regardless of whether my neighbour has all risks insurance or no insurance at all. My insurer might argue that since the neigbbour only had contents cover they were only going to fit single glazed instead of double glazed, but they wouldn;t habe a leg to stand on with that arguement.

He didn't need ANY insurance - what if his car had been sorned and correctly parked in a private bay?

The facts remain that the third party would quibble the cost of the repair regardless of whether the OP had a normal policy or a classic policy, and is the OP due repairs to return his car to the value it was before. If it was a £3k mini before and now is a £2,800 mini due to poor paintmatching he has every right to expect restitution to his previous position, plus expenses.

Of course, it most likely that he will have to go to court to achieve this, but his lack of 'best policy' will not detract from his case.

Paul gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

If you recall the original threads, Bertie was claiming from his own insurance, not directly from the other party.

Without any insurance? He'd have a court date by now...

No he wasn't, I wondered if you'd confused the issue:

"Spoke to my insurance company who said that they could not expect the

Done to death, insurance and VED not required in private bay..

Paul gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Yes, he was. Like I said - if you recall the original threads...

Why, if he's not claiming from them? They wouldn't know anything about it, let alone make decisions about it.

reimburse them

As is to be expected

Fob-off, go away. You think they'd try that on a classic policyholder?

RTA applicability goes with assumption of access, remember?

Every claim I've had to make, I place firmly in the hands of my insurers and leave them to deal with, that's what they are there for!

It IS expected that they do the job to a satisfactory standard that restores the car to its previous value, OR provides a write off value equal to that of a similar model and condition.

Still not a problem - his insurer is handling the case, not funding it. The third party and/or his insurers are still liable for the repairs. The fact that his own insurers cannot be arsed putting the effort in does not prevent him from pursuing it.

Recent threads diagree and older threads argue a parked car needs no insurance...

Paul gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Yep, you claim from them, they deal with the other insurer. You claim under the Ts & Cs of your own policy.

Yep. Like I already said - an unacceptable paint match is not on. He has grounds to throw it back at 'em. If the only way to match the paint is to respray the whole car, then fine - but that's unlikely unless it's a polychromal colour.

They're funding it, then reclaiming the money from the other insurer. There's no point in them spending far more than they know they can reclaim.

Nope. He claimed from his policy, so his insurer is liable. The other insurer's just paying them back.

Correct. As I already said. The fact is, though, that it's hoops he wouldn't have to be jumping through if he'd bought the right product in the first place.

Assuming that we are talking about above average paintwork condition here (see below), then no, but you can expect the repairs to match the paint or blow-in down the side of the car, sounds like they have taken the masking to the body seams, take it back - I assume you didn't sign the satisfaction note (without which the insurance company will not, normally, pay the repairer)?...

: : Seems a bit unfair. So now I've got a car with not matching paintwork : due to an accident that blatantly wasnt my fault. : : Surely, this is not right. Shouldnt the 3rd party or their insurer be : liable to restore the car to its original condition regardless of : whether it requires a complete respray?

Not original, which could mean a lot of "betterment" which is not the fault of the 3rd party either.

What colour is the car?

That's complete bollocks.;-)

My getting on a bit (13 years old) but still in good condition BMW was damaged recently and it was touch and go about it being written off. Due to the cost of a new door. I asked why they couldn't just use a secondhand one - about 50 rather than 500 quid for the part - and they said they only use new parts.

They also had to respray more than just the damaged part to get a good match on the metallic paint. You are entitled to have the car returned to the condition it was in before the accident, and not bodged in any way.

My other car is on a classic policy. Not had any special treatment over repairs on that. Only thing might be an agreed value - but suspicious me wonders just how worthwhile these are? Because some insurers seem to accept amounts far higher than the car would fetch if sold on the open market.

That's simply not so, unless you are paying for the work yourself. And that applies to any car, new or old.

So the insurance premium for a more than two year old car drops dramatically?

A decent craftsman should manage it first time.

"Dave Plowman (News)" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Since when did insurance bodyshops employ them?

"Dave Plowman (News)" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

"Insurance value" is hardly a classic-car-only thing, though, is it?

Ever watch the Antiques Roadshow?

IME Agreed value is a good thing.

I bought an MX-5 for =A31500. Insured it for =A32000 agreed value, they asked for pics, service history etc.

I wrote it off, my own fault.

They gave me =A32000, no quibbles. This was Adrian Flux, back in 2008.

Mike P

Define "insurance bodyshop", all the ones I've worked in will do as Dave suggests, not all "insurance bodyshop" are born equal though...