Quotation rights after car accident

eoindarcy

Hi All

I was involved in an accident this morning where I was parking my car into a space and I scraped the side of the car in the next space, I stopped straight away but the scrap is along the back door. I was going into work and as the other car was empty I left a note with my contact details.

The other car owner rang me and we met up are the cars, I told him that I would pay for the damage as it was my fault, I asked him if he would send me on 3 quotations and he said he didn't have to do that and that 1 quotation should be enough.

The other owner was a visitor to my workplace on that day and lives in another part of the country. I didn't mind if the 3 quotes were from his locality, I just thought I was entitled to 3 quotes.

My question is do I have the right to 3 quotations or his he right in saying that 1 quotation is all I am entitled to?

Thanks in advance.

JaMarcusHustle

eoindarcy wrote: »

Hi All

I was involved in an accident this morning where I was parking my car into a space and I scraped the side of the car in the next space, I stopped straight away but the scrap is along the back door. I was going into work and as the other car was empty I left a note with my contact details.

The other car owner rang me and we met up are the cars, I told him that I would pay for the damage as it was my fault, I asked him if he would send me on 3 quotations and he said he didn't have to do that and that 1 quotation should be enough.

The other owner was a visitor to my workplace on that day and lives in another part of the country. I didn't mind if the 3 quotes were from his locality, I just thought I was entitled to 3 quotes.

My question is do I have the right to 3 quotations or his he right in saying that 1 quotation is all I am entitled to?

Thanks in advance.

I imagine if you're offering to pay for it so you can avoid going through your insurance, then you really have no rights at all. He can get a quote from whoever he wants to do the job and you either agree and pay for it, or disagree and it goes through your insurance.

biko

You don't have any particular right to 3 quotes.

In your case I'd go through your insurer to avoid any more hassle.
Ask your insurer if you can pay them back to avoid a claim.

eoindarcy

Hi JaMarcusHustle

Yeah thats right I wanted to see if I could pay for this by cash before I went through my insurance, hence the 3 quotes, and also so that I could get a balanced view of the repair costs.

I have admitted liability but as I am paying for the repairs I still think I have some rights, and I also said that he could get the quotations from whoever and where ever he wants, so I presume what your saying is that once I admit liability I wave goodby to any rights?

eoindarcy

Thanks

biko

Even if you admit liability it doesn't mean you get to choose anything.
The injured party can use whoever they like to restore car back to original condition.

Depending on the brand, age etc of the car it may cost a little or a lot.
They may have to get the door resprayed.

You can ask some local places for quotes on respraying door for such a car so you will know ballpark cost.

If you decide to pay outside insurance ask for the receipt of the place that fixed the car.
Don't pay 100s and then they just don't bother fixing car.


If in any doubt, use your insurer. That's why you pay them every year.

mikeybrennan

biko wrote: »

You don't have any particular right to 3 quotes.

In your case I'd go through your insurer to avoid any more hassle.
Ask your insurer if you can pay them back to avoid a claim.

This came up on another thread

Apparently when you pay back the claim you still have to notify potential insurers that you had a claim

I think it may still affect your premium afterwards

Sue Pa Key Pa

mikeybrennan wrote:

Apparently when you pay back the claim you still have to notify potential insurers that you had a claim

You have to notify them you had an accident

_Brian

I expect your idea on getting three quotes is to use the cheapest. I don't think it's fair to expect the other person to get the cheapest possible job done.

If your being obliged by being allowed not go through insurance then you kinda need to suck it up and pay out.

If you want the easy life go through insurance.

Sixtoes

You're asking this person to give up a lot of their time to go and get 3 quotes. Do you expect them to take a few hours off work to do this? Will you pay them for the time? Remember they did nothing wrong, it was your mistake.

eoindarcy

I had a good look around the web regarding my question "My question is do I have the right to 3 quotations or his he right in saying that 1 quotation is all I am entitled to?" and I cant find any details around having the right to 3 quotes, and I also know from experience that the other person can go and have the car repaired by who ever they wish.

rex-x

eoindarcy wrote: »

I had a good look around the web regarding my question "My question is do I have the right to 3 quotations or his he right in saying that 1 quotation is all I am entitled to?" and I cant find any details around having the right to 3 quotes, and I also know from experience that the other person can go and have the car repaired by who ever they wish.

You have no rights at all really, except to pay what they ask or go through insurance.

coylemj

biko wrote: »

The injured party can use whoever they like to restore car back to original condition.

At any price? Don't think so.

I don't believe that the OP is entitled to three quotes but neither is the injured party entitled to get the repairs done by anyone he chooses at any cost. Isn't that why insurance companies send out assessors to view the damage - to check that they're not getting screwed by inflated estimates?

My take on the situation is this: you can let the injured party go and get an estimate and show it to you but if you feel that it's too high, you are entitled to get an estimate of your own and show it to the injured party. If you can't meet somewhere in the middle, it's time to let the insurance sort it out.

NUTLEY BOY

The claimant has the absolute right to have his car repaired wherever he pleases. He has an obligation to minimise his losses but that does not mean that he must accept a cheaper repair. If the repair costs are reasonable any judge will allow them.

As others point out quite rightly the advantage of a motor assessor is that he can negotiate with the repairers and may well secure agreed reductions on the overall price for which the car can be repaired. A reduced agreed repair cost does not imply a lower quality repair or a balance bill to the claimant/customer.

The defendant just has no right to require the plaintiff/claimant to secure any number of repair estimates or to have it repaired at any particular garage.

Hopefully, this arrangement will work out. It is a popular refrain on this topic area that you do not handle third party claims directly. If it works out reasonably consider yourself fortunate as these arrangements often turn sour.

BTW people need to remember generally that under the terms of their motor insurance policies an accident must be reported to the insurers. Failure to do so is a breach of policy conditions. Negotiating directly with third parties is also a breach of policy conditions. Failure to notify an accident at renewal is probably also an act of non-disclosure as the duty of disclosure revives at renewal.

coylemj

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

The claimant has the absolute right to have his car repaired wherever he pleases. He has an obligation to minimise his losses but that does not mean that he must accept a cheaper repair. If the repair costs are reasonable any judge will allow them.

If he has an 'absolute right' then he can get it repaired wherever he pleases and at any price. Otherwise it is not an 'absolute right'.

And why do the repairs costs have to be 'reasonable' - if he has rights which are 'absolute' then he can operate with no constraints - isn't that what an 'absolute right' entails?

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

As others point out quite rightly the advantage of a motor assessor is that he can negotiate with the repairers and may well secure agreed reductions on the overall price for which the car can be repaired. A reduced agreed repair cost does not imply a lower quality repair or a balance bill to the claimant/customer.

What happens if the assessor tells the insurance company that the estimate is off the scale but the repair shop refuses to lower their estimate and the claimant insists on using that repair shop? Does the insurance cough up the amount of the estimate and leave their customer to foot the difference?

Henry Ford III

Body shop and assessor both know roughly how much a repair will cost. Parts, labour, prep and paint. They will fight their corner but they will always settle.

Quazzie

biko wrote: »

You don't have any particular right to 3 quotes.

In your case I'd go through your insurer to avoid any more hassle.
Ask your insurer if you can pay them back to avoid a claim.

Insurance companies are charged much increased rates by crash repair companies than your standard Joe off the street. I tried to do that "pay back the insurance company" option and the price was triple what I was quoted at first. When I asked why the massive difference I was told that all crash repair companies have two prices. Normal price and Insurance price. Once Insurance is involved everything is new, whereas before he was willing to respray a cheaper second hand wing.

NUTLEY BOY

coylemj wrote: »

If he has an 'absolute right' then he can get it repaired wherever he pleases and at any price. Otherwise it is not an 'absolute right'.

And why do the repairs costs have to be 'reasonable' - if he has rights which are 'absolute' then he can operate with no constraints - isn't that what an 'absolute right' entails?



What happens if the assessor tells the insurance company that the estimate is off the scale but the repair shop refuses to lower their estimate and the claimant insists on using that repair shop? Does the insurance cough up the amount of the estimate and leave their customer to foot the difference?

A judge will not allow the full repair costs if they are unreasonable. A judge is not a motor assessor. It is up to the defendant to establish, by evidence, that a lower sum is the reasonable figure at which the plaintiff can be made whole again / indemnified.

If the defendant's assessor and the plaintiff's repairer cannot negotiate an agreed cost of repairs that does not mean that the claimant will be balance- billed by the repairers. If the item cannot be agreed it has to be argued out in court and the judge decides. In practice, repair costs are usually agreed between the parties and the judge can be informed before trial that the quantum of the particular item has been agreed and that she will not have to adjudicate on that specific.

Skatedude

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

A judge will not allow the full repair costs if they are unreasonable. A judge is not a motor assessor. It is up to the defendant to establish, by evidence, that a lower sum is the reasonable figure at which the plaintiff can be made whole again / indemnified.

If the defendant's assessor and the plaintiff's repairer cannot negotiate an agreed cost of repairs that does not mean that the claimant will be balance- billed by the repairers. If the item cannot be agreed it has to be argued out in court and the judge decides. In practice, repair costs are usually agreed between the parties and the judge can be informed before trial that the quantum of the particular item has been agreed and that she will not have to adjudicate on that specific.

None of which applies here as he wants to sort it without getting the insurance companies involved.

coylemj

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Body shop and assessor both know roughly how much a repair will cost. Parts, labour, prep and paint. They will fight their corner but they will always settle.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

A judge will not allow the full repair costs if they are unreasonable. A judge is not a motor assessor. It is up to the defendant to establish, by evidence, that a lower sum is the reasonable figure at which the plaintiff can be made whole again / indemnified.

Yes, I can see your points but an assessor only gets called in if the insurance is running with the case and a judge only gets involved if it goes to law which would be very rare for a relatively simple fender bender.

I guess the question is this: What is a person supposed to do if they want to avoid involving the insurance but the other guy insists on using his repair shop and the price seems excessive for the work involved?

My answer is that you ask him to bring the car to a place (not three, just one!) nominated by you and if you get a lower estimate, you try to get him to see sense but .... what if he says your guy is a chancer and sticks to his guns?

Henry Ford III

coylemj wrote: »

Yes, I can see your points but an assessor only gets called in if the insurance is running with the case and a judge only gets involved if it goes to law which would be very rare for a relatively simple fender bender.

I guess the question is this: What is a person supposed to do if they want to avoid involving the insurance but the other guy insists on using his repair shop and the price seems excessive for the work involved?

My answer is that you ask him to bring the car to a place (not three, just one!) nominated by you and if you get a lower estimate, you try to get him to see sense but .... what if he says your guy is a chancer and sticks to his guns?

In that case you hire an assessor.

challengemaster

biko wrote: »

If you decide to pay outside insurance ask for the receipt of the place that fixed the car.
Don't pay 100s and then they just don't bother fixing car.

May be wrong here but I think they're under no obligation to actually repair the car - they're just supposed to be reimbursed so they have suffered no monetary loss from the accident.

Sue Pa Key Pa

As a claims handler, I have rarely seen a claim settled privately without problems. Let your insurer settle with the 3rd party and repay them to avoid any loading or loss of NCB. You don't have to dry repay any investigation costs such as motor assessor fees

Quazzie

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

As a claims handler, I have rarely seen a claim settled privately without problems. Let your insurer settle with the 3rd party and repay them to avoid any loading or loss of NCB. You don't have to dry repay any investigation costs such as motor assessor fees

If he does that I guarantee he will end up paying more than if he stays private

hognef

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

As a claims handler, I have rarely seen a claim settled privately without problems. Let your insurer settle with the 3rd party and repay them to avoid any loading or loss of NCB. You don't have to dry repay any investigation costs such as motor assessor fees

Presumably, as a claims handler, you wouldn't generally see the 'claims' that are settled privately without problems?

NUTLEY BOY

coylemj wrote: »

Yes, I can see your points but an assessor only gets called in if the insurance is running with the case and a judge only gets involved if it goes to law which would be very rare for a relatively simple fender bender.

I guess the question is this: What is a person supposed to do if they want to avoid involving the insurance but the other guy insists on using his repair shop and the price seems excessive for the work involved?

My answer is that you ask him to bring the car to a place (not three, just one!) nominated by you and if you get a lower estimate, you try to get him to see sense but .... what if he says your guy is a chancer and sticks to his guns?

The practical difficulty is that you cannot impose a repairer on the claimant by right. The only option is as, you point out correctly, to try and get him to see sense. However, if he is resolved not to use your repairer there is nothing that can be done to force the issue.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Quazzie wrote:

If he does that I guarantee he will end up paying more than if he stays private

Staying private can end up costing far more in the long run when it goes pear shaped

Sue Pa Key Pa

hognef wrote:

Presumably, as a claims handler, you wouldn't generally see the 'claims' that are settled privately without problems?

True, but the amount of claims that come back to bite people in the ass is huge. They think they have gone away, but up to 2 years later and an injury claim is lodged and a whole heap of bother descends

Quazzie

Aren't injury claims and damages claims totally separate and individual cases?

Gazzmonkey

eoindarcy wrote: »

Hi All

I was involved in an accident this morning where I was parking my car into a space and I scraped the side of the car in the next space, I stopped straight away but the scrap is along the back door. I was going into work and as the other car was empty I left a note with my contact details.

The other car owner rang me and we met up are the cars, I told him that I would pay for the damage as it was my fault, I asked him if he would send me on 3 quotations and he said he didn't have to do that and that 1 quotation should be enough.

The other owner was a visitor to my workplace on that day and lives in another part of the country. I didn't mind if the 3 quotes were from his locality, I just thought I was entitled to 3 quotes.

My question is do I have the right to 3 quotations or his he right in saying that 1 quotation is all I am entitled to?

Thanks in advance.

I would have no issue giving you three quotes.... but all three quotes would be from three main dealers

eoindarcy

UPDATE:
I asked for 3 quotes - I only got one (fair enough)

I asked if he would consider taking the middle man out (the Main Dealer) because they just send it to the CRG anyway - he said no - (fair enough)

He sent me the quote from the main dealer (fair enough)

I contacted the main dealer about making the payment (fair enough)

I contacted my insurance about this but not making a claim, just got it noted (lets see)

Waiting for the bill to arrive (often called sucking it up)

Thanks for your interest.