I would go further than that and say that you reject the paint job as unsatisfactory, and bearing in mind that you used their recommended repairer, it is their fault, so they need to either ensure that their repairer redoes it to a satisfactory quality or allow another repairer to repaint it the colour of the rest of the car.
They are your insurer, and it is their responsibility to make sure that their customer's reasonable expectations are met.
Jim
" snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@d16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
: I dont see the relevance of my policy as someone else has : pointed out. In this case, the other insurer is liable for the : costs anway.
You sure about that, I think you will find that (unless you are TPF&F) you *are* making a claim against your insurance **unless** you have an acceptance of fault from the third party, in effect your insurance Co. will be claiming back /their/ costs.
" snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
: : Only trouble is I can see whats going to happen when : I go back... : : I'm going say it looks crap, they're going to say, no it : doesnt.
...and they would be correct, the rest of the car looks crap, this is a clear case of "Betterment", it's basically down to the morals of the bodyshop manager/owner, some will say "on your bike" whilst others will understand you complaints and try to come to some agreement - my advice would be to be prepared to meet them 70-30, perhaps even up to 50-50.
Doesn't even need a craftsman these days. Run the computerised colour scanner over the paintwork needed to be matched, stick a tin under the computer controlled paint mixer, and you've got a tin of paint that will exactly match.
Mind you, the computer is designed to mix up a colour that will *end up* matching the scanned colour *after it has aged sufficiently*. New paintwork invariably changes its colour slightly over the following few months.
So perhaps the OP will discover that the difference between the old and new paint will slowly disappear?
messagenews: snipped-for-privacy@k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
If it is Gunmetal Metallic (ARG.684 1986/87) then there is only one colour version of that particular shade, so how can the body shop get that wrong? Particularly when metallic colours don't fade that much because of the lacquered finish protecting them.
It is the sprayers responsibility to match the existing colour whatever the age, however this sort of thing happens all too often these days, a neighbour of mine had a few panels on his 13 year old Mercedes W140 S-Class resprayed at a so called reputable garage but the colour match was awful, I resprayed it in the street with a better colour match than the garage did.
The sprayer is supposed to assume the colour won't match and prepare adjacent panels ready to blend in if the colour match is slightly out, then you would get a perfect colour match, In my case the Merc was painted and lacquered panel to panel with no regard to matching if the incorrect colour variant was used, which proves it can be done if they take the time and care.
The Merc also had five colour variants and was a Pearlecent mica whereas your Mini has only one colour shade, no variants and age related to 96/97 only,
Yes take it back and demand the correct colour match or threaten to go to your local paper to name and shame.
Stephen.
Why would his insurance policy matter? I presume he is claiming from the third party, or at least he is getting the work done and then the third party will cough up the amount.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember " snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com" saying something like:
You have it right - you are entitled to have it back to the standard it was before the bump. You are entitled to reject the repair as unsatisfactory, but this might not entail a full respray - and shouldn't, if the paint shop is any good.
: >
: > 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 would his insurance policy matter? I presume he is claiming from the : third party, or at least he is getting the work done and then the third : party will cough up the amount. :
Because that is not how the insurance industry works, unless the
*policy holder makes a claim directly with the third parties insurance Co.*, they do make a claim against their own policy - this is why claiming against the third party when insured via a TPF&F policy can be so lengthy, as both insurance Companies will need to agree settlement BEFORE any repairs/money can be authorised. In this case the OP is evidently making a claim on their own insurance against the third party so his own policy (or clauses within) does have a bearing on all this.: : If it is Gunmetal Metallic (ARG.684 1986/87) then there is only : one colour version of that particular shade, so how can the : body shop get that wrong? Particularly when metallic colours don't : fade that much because of the lacquered finish protecting them. :
There is another possibility, one that I have come across before, that is the make of paint used, the colour match might be correct but the lacquered finish is causing the problem - some lacquered finishes can look, to coin a phrase, to plastic, almost to shiny IYSWIM.
"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...
: : You have it right - you are entitled to have it back to the standard it : was before the bump.
No, unless otherwise agreed with the insurance company *before* the policy was taken out, all you have a right to is the vehicle returned to it's original condition.
You are entitled to reject the repair as : unsatisfactory, but this might not entail a full respray - and : shouldn't, if the paint shop is any good.
Rubbish, how would any paint shop match 40 year old faded paintwork for example, and painting the whole car would be classed as "Betterment", something that the owner would have to pay for.
Indeed, I first came across this problem a few years ago now with a cheap thermoplastic type lacquer, it would also remain far too soft even when fully cured unless it was oven baked, I have not come across this with the higher end paint materials though.
Stephen.
It gets worse - went back to garage to complain and they said, yes, it doesnt match. It looks like the back end has been resprayed but thats all the insurance company would pay for.
Phoned insurance company and they say they said that the 3rd parties insurance co will only pay for repairs to the damaged area and not a complete respray. I argued that now it doesnt match and they said it even though it was unfair it was tough luck...
Surely, this cant be right. Surely I've got a right to have car repaired to how it was before the accident? Remember this was a show quality classic car....
I guess my only option now is to go to FOS and see what they say? No idea where I stand legally.
I must admit I wish I hadnt even gone through my insurers and gone straight to the third party. Thay way I could have argued with them directly.
Wonder if I still have the option to sue the third party or their insurers directy to get the car back to its original condition? Seems like all these insurers are in each others pockets and look after each other....
I agree. If the correct matching paint is not obtainable you are entitled to a respray. However there may be an element of "betterment" if the vehicle is improved as a result of the respray, ie if there were scratches and blemishes that have now been cured by the respray. If your car was in pristine condition then this should not arise.
I suggest you get 3 independent estimates for the cost of a respray. Present them to your insurers and say that if they aren't willing to pay the smallest of the three estimates, you will be suing them in the county court.
You can however also write to the insurers of the other driver and ask them to pay. The problem is that your own insurers have (presumably) already incurred the first bill for repainting the vehicle and if they can't recover that from the insurers of the other party they will very probably reduce your no claims discount. So it is probably best to deal with your own comprehensive insurers and not complicate the issue by going to the opposing insurers, unless you have other losses and expenses you want to claim.
What's FOS? You mean the financial ombudsman service? Only as a last resort.
You do still have the option of suing the third party, yes. If the third party has made a payment to your insurers towards the repair bill you have already incurred, it is (probably) entitled as of right to deduct that from what you are claiming.
I haven't read every reply in this thread, but ISTR you are required to sign an acceptance note, before you can drive the car away from the repairers.
If the repair is unacceptable, why didn't you refuse to sign it ?
Wife did :-(
So if my insurers cant get the money off them, I lose my no claims even though it wasnt my fault ? (wasnt even in the car).
Thought I couldnt do this once I'd started court proceedings.
Yeh. I guess at some point my insurers have or will be sending the bill for the work to them. Cant I just sue them for the additional cost of a respray?
Hang on now though. If at some point, I manage to co-erce my insurers to pay for a respray are you saying that if the 3rd party insurer then disagrees and refuses to stump up then I'll lose my no claims?
Thats fair since it wasnt my fault at all.
What would be my options then?
p.s. I'm betting theres a clause that says if they cant make a full recovery FOR WHATEVER REASON, then it counts as a fault claim?
" snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com" wrote
You're entitled to have the vehicle put back into the condition it was in before the accident - no better nor any worse.
If all the paintwork matched before the accident, then it should match after it was repaired. You should probably not have accepted the car back after the repair if it had not been done to your satisfaction. If you've signed a note accepting the work done then you may have negated any rights you might otherwise have had.
John.
John.
quoted text -
So I presume the car is still at the garage ? If that's the case, what does the garage say about it ? They should be putting pressure on the insurance co. too ....
Others may say that by signing a form signifying that she was satisfied with the repair, she waived all your rights. I'd say bollocks to that. So long as you don't delay in expressing your dissatisfaction to the garage, you should be okay.
Unless the insurance company has paid the invoice. They may have done. If they did so when you were complaining that the job was sub-standard, then that's an error by their staff and they should not penalise their customer if they can't recover the sum from the opposing insurers.
" snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... : It gets worse - went back to garage to complain and they said, yes, it : doesnt match. It looks like the back end has been resprayed but thats : all the insurance company would pay for. :
Are they saying that the shade of paint doesn't match, in which case you have a claim against the bodyshop (that you might have to fight yourself), or that the new paint doesn't match the old paint, if so carry on reading...
: Phoned insurance company and they say they said that the 3rd parties : insurance co will only pay for repairs to the damaged area and not a : complete respray. I argued that now it doesnt match and they said it : even though it was unfair it was tough luck... : : Surely, this cant be right. Surely I've got a right to have car : repaired to how it was before the accident? Remember this was a show : quality classic car....
...and they are quite entitled to take that opinion, there view is that had *you* kept the paintwork as new then there would not be a problem, why should they have to pay for the "Betterment" of your car?! Sorry.
: : I guess my only option now is to go to FOS and see what they say? No : idea where I stand legally.
You won't stand a chance in hell if the problem is "Betterment".
: : I must admit I wish I hadnt even gone through my insurers and gone : straight to the third party. Thay way I could have argued with them : directly.
And still not got the repairs done, I've known such cases drag on for a year or more...
: : Wonder if I still have the option to sue the third party or their : insurers directy to get the car back to its original condition? Seems : like all these insurers are in each others pockets and look after each : other.... :
IT IS BACK TO ORIGINAL, that is, back to OE, the fact that the paintwork is 25 years old is NOT their problem, you can't expect someone else to restore your car for you. As Adrian said, this is one reason why classic car policies help as they accept that such issues arise.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required