Thread: Advice please
View Single Post
Old 28th August 2019, 14:57   #8
timon
Avid contributor
 
Rover 75 Saloon

Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 145
Thanks: 15
Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mss View Post
I would disagree with some of the above. It is possible to derive a reasonably good estimate of the cost of repairing a car from a single photograph of the damaged side. Just as Brian has done without the benefit of a photograph.



With a 15+ year old car, a simple description of the damage would be sufficient to determine whether repairing it will be viable. It would be irresponsible of an insurer to send out an engineer to inspect the car in such circumstances and indulgent of the owner to try to insist that this occurs - all it would do is lead to unnecessary increased premiums for all.


I doubt that the other party's insurers would have offered to repair this car. I suspect they would have been in touch (possibly left a message) offering a hire car and to follow-up action.


Insurers aim to keep costs of processing claims down by running very tight timebound processes. I for one do not think it is underhand that the settlement offer is overridden by another action asking the claimant to call customer services after 24 hours.


Finally, a claimant cannot insist that his/her car is repaired if repair would be uneconomic. The most sensible course of action for an owner would be to contact the other party's insurers, inform them that you wish to retain the car, and present a solid case for a higher settlement than their offer.


Personally, I have made three no-fault claims on my and wife's behalf over the past 15 years and have found insurer decisions and assessments to be spot on. Remember - they do this day-in day-out and are usually pretty good at it!
I must admit I forgot the average cost for a physical inspection in the UK. Here in Holland the cost for a photos based report is 45 EUR versus 90 EUR for one that derives from a phyiscal inspection. I worked for insurances for years and we'd use photos in those cases where the damages were relatively small and there was no suspicion of exaggeration.

Photos may give a reasonable overall impression of the car and its damages but can also be very deceptive. I remember indemnifiying amounts of 30 000 Euros as well as 500 EUR in damages for equal cars (old BMWs) that were both considered a total loss. The first was heavily invested into, while the latter was just a means of transport. Photos don't succeed well in making the distinction (unless maybe you add photos of all the invoices the first owner presented).

Photos also miss details. Consider a rear ended car, what you see is a folded bumper but you miss the exhaust that took a hit and is bent in 10 places, as well as the broken brackets behind the bumper and who knows what more. These are things that are even missed on physical inspection and often lead to extra costs in the form of a supplementary report. In Germany, they're kind of smart and just add an extra percentage to the indemnity to cover unexpected costs.

UK insurers shouldn't be so reluctant and be happy they're not in Germany where the average price for an inspection is a whopping 1 000 EUR.

Last edited by timon; 28th August 2019 at 14:59..
timon is offline   Reply With Quote