Car Damaged at Work

Lundstram

Lundstram wrote: »

Myth.

Insurance company have no right to insist on where a car gets repaired. I sent them a quote and they returned it along with a cheque.

That's not really correct. The insurance company would have been under no obligation to accept the quote you sent them.

Lundstram

Ward J. Littell wrote: »

That's not really correct. The insurance company would have been under no obligation to accept the quote you sent them.

And I would be under no obligation to accept theirs or where I get it repaired.

holyhead

The fact that you are trying to make money out of a genuine accident in your workplace stinks. I don't blame the manager for playing cautious. It is not his job to help you make money out of a unfortunate accident. It's his job to account for money paid out. He is perfectly entitled to invoices for work done. It's a business and revenue require any monies paid out to be accounted for.

cannotlogin

I'm not sure it's your employer that's being the prick.

Captain Flaps

Given the OPs quotes in this thread I'd say the manager is keen to avoid handing over any cash at all

cruizer101

holyhead wrote: »

He is perfectly entitled to invoices for work done. It's a business and revenue require any monies paid out to be accounted for.

They are not entitled to invoices, maybe quotes.
The op has to be compensated for the damage done, they do not have to get it repaired, that is their choice.
How the company deal with accounting for it is none of the OPs concern.

Turbohymac

The employer for many reasons here is spot on..the delay of months was probably your doing ..in not swiftly issuing your employer with a quote from preferably a ford main dealer with all genuine parts supplied and fitted and if they couldn't repair dent and spray it themselves they would include cost of a reputable body shop..also they would give you replacement vehicle for duration that your car is being repaired and even if there was a charge to transfer insurance etc the whole package would be covered by your employer in a timely manner..otherwise you could seek legal advice and I'm almost certain then that your employer would play fair..
As it stands you're employer isn't to blame..its your approach..
Just do the above..provide genuine and accurate quote and stop moaning..

ZiabR

Lundstram wrote: »

If they insist on paying directly, I'll be for sure getting a genuine Ford one and for them to fit it aswell which will bring the bill to near €1k.

Then please do that so this thread can be closed and I don't have to see any more of your posts on the matter. It really is quite simple.

1) Company vehicle hits your car and damages it.
2) You approach the manager and the company agrees to repair your car.
3) Company says they have no problem in paying the repair garage directly via a company CC so that there is a record for VAT etc.

You essentially don't like the fact that the company wants to pay to fix your car and instead you try to be a smart a**e and attempt to gouge the company out of cash so you can pocket some on the side. And then you come on here to moan about that very fact.

If you think you are "entitled" to more, take your "employer" to the small claims court over what is essentially a couple of hundred euro and see where you end up. I think its time to wise up OP.

CruelCoin

daheff wrote: »

OP is entitled to be compensated for the damage done to the vehicle. Either the company pays the cash for the cost of doing the job to the op, or directly to the repairer.

If paid to the OP, the op is not under any onus to have repairs carried out. The OP has received cash equivalent to the damage done to the vehicle so is no better or worse off than if no damage was done. If the OP then decides to repair the vehicle with lesser quality materials then the difference between the cost and the amount received should be roughly equivalent to the loss in value on the vehicle.

That's not true.
You can't have a situation where 5k of damage is done to a car worth 1k on the open market and expect the 5k to be paid.
If you make any kind of insurance claim, the insurer pays the repair cost, on proof of repairs/quote. It's not a cash windfall as you put it.

CruelCoin

holyhead wrote: »

The fact that you are trying to make money out of a genuine accident in your workplace stinks.

Unless he's a complete mong, the manager would have had "parked at owners risk signs around the place".
He'd better have them now.

CruelCoin

ZiabR wrote: »

If you think you are "entitled" to more, take your "employer" to the small claims court over what is essentially a couple of hundred euro and see where you end up. I think its time to wise up OP.

The "worth 10 million" quote from earlier was pretty illuminating.

ghost of ireland past

I don't understand why the OP is getting such abuse.

He didn't ask for his car to be damaged.

The employer should compensate the OP. The OP can do what he wants with the money. He is not obliged to fix his car. The employer owes him the money even if he doesn't get the car fixed. The employer is not entitled to claim back VAT on this money.


If the employer damages their own car and gets it fixed they can reclaim the VAT.
If an employer damages someones else's car they pay compensation which doesn't include VAT. Therefore, they cannot claim VAT back. If the third party spends the money and pays VAT that is not the employer paying VAT and the employer cannot claim it back.

The employer has to tell the truth to his own accountant, and perhaps also to his own insurance company (which covers third party liability and public liability). It is not petty cash to pay 600 euro legal compensation, it is legal compensation and should be recorded as such in the books.


Why hasn't the employer paid up already?
He owes the man, pay the man. Stop making excuses.



It is complicated as to whether the ocmpany can claim back the VAT. If you allow them to pay the bill they would likely be able to reclaim VAT but is it totally legal?
Paying you compensation is a genuine business expense. Paying your bill for you and reclaiming the VAT is different from that and I'm not sure of the legality.

I don't think the employer can insist that the OP must spend the compensation money on a service that attracts VAT and then give the receipt to the employer.

The employer should cop on and stop damaging their employee's cars.



edit: I think now that the employer could pay the bill and reclaim the VAT, but the employer cannot force you to actually spend the compensation money on the repair. If you damage something irreplacable, like a work of art which cannot be replaced as it's unique you still have to pay compensation, and the money can't be spent on the same piece of art as the piece was unique. Therefore, compensation paid, but no sale, and no VAT.

Jim2007

Lundstram wrote: »

I'm thinking he's being a prick about this now as he knows I'll fix it myself or get it done cheaper, which I proably will to be honest.

And you think he is being a prick

Lundstram wrote: »

I am chasing the employer.

So you are chasing both the driver and the company, look up the definition of fraud and note it is a crimial offense.

Jim2007

CruelCoin wrote: »

Unless he's a complete mong, the manager would have had "parked at owners risk signs around the place".
He'd better have them now.

Well if he has then the OP is entitled to nothing.

Bikerman2019

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well if he has then the OP is entitled to nothing.

Indeed. The OP appears to be trying to commit fraud. Trying to charge for repairs but trying to get more than is real. Saying it costs X but then trying to pocket cash by getting it done cheaper


I say bravo employer, the OP appears to be trying to dishonestly con them.

jimmycrackcorm

Lundstram wrote: »

No it's not. I've had a cheque sent to me from an insurance company in 2014 after a van clipped my rear.

They do this if your estimate is cheaper than what a garage will charge or they're is a write off. You just happened to be the cheapest garage.

holyhead

cruizer101 wrote: »

They are not entitled to invoices, maybe quotes.
The op has to be compensated for the damage done, they do not have to get it repaired, that is their choice.
How the company deal with accounting for it is none of the OPs concern.

I couldn’t see quotes cutting much ice with revenue

Bikerman2019

holyhead wrote: »

I couldn’t see quotes cutting much ice with revenue

And quite rightly so. Repairs to the car are a legitimate expense. But you need a receipt showing work done. Not a quote. The quote would be fraudulant anyway as the OP has already said he will pocket some of the cash. Unless he declares it as income to revenue ?

Jim Root

this is gas, he offered to pay it directly, what's the problem?

CruelCoin

Jim Root wrote: »

this is gas, he offered to pay it directly, what's the problem?

The problem is the OP wouldn't be able to get some booze money out of it. Sure, they deserve no less, being worth 10 mill and all.

_Brian

Lundstram wrote: »

I am chasing the employer.

It's a company worth about €10 million, I won't lose sleep by profiting a few hundred euro from them.

In your first Post your extorting extra cash from the other employee.

Bad form.

Captain Flaps

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

absolute waffle

If I claim off my insurance I bring the car for a quotation, I supply that, and the insurer pays the garage. If I claim off my health insurance for a procedure I submit receipts or else the hospital claims directly from the insurer. If I have a vet bill I submit that to my insurer who will either reimburse me if I paid out of pocket, or else they pay the vet directly.

I am at a complete loss as to why you think OP would want or need anything beyond having his car repaired to the condition it was in before the accident. I recently had a bike nicked from work due to negligence on their part, and I'm hoping to get a replacement bike or a contribution towards the same. If they come through I'd imagine they'll either order one for me or else give me cash upon provision of a copy of the receipt but they're not just going to hand me a wedge of cash that I may or may not use towards the bike.

Bikerman2019

Captain Flaps wrote: »

If I claim off my insurance I bring the car for a quotation, I supply that, and the insurer pays the garage. If I claim off my health insurance for a procedure I submit receipts or else the hospital claims directly from the insurer. If I have a vet bill I submit that to my insurer who will either reimburse me if I paid out of pocket, or else they pay the vet directly.

I am at a complete loss as to why you think OP would want or need anything beyond having his car repaired to the condition it was in before the accident. I recently had a bike nicked from work due to negligence on their part, and I'm hoping to get a replacement bike or a contribution towards the same. If they come through I'd imagine they'll either order one for me or else give me cash upon provision of a copy of the receipt but they're not just going to hand me a wedge of cash that I may or may not use towards the bike.

But the OP wants cash and also the ability to pocket some of it.....

Captain Flaps

I know WHY OP wants it.

I just don't think how anyone else thinks that this is a reasonable expectation or why his work is being unreasonable by refusing to do this.

the_syco

Lundstram wrote: »

Nothing wrong with it but it's not his call.

I'm not looking for cash specifically, I've no problem with bank transfer or any paper trail. It's compensation.

Actually, you are. You want money. The company has said that they'll pay the garage to fix your car.

I'm guessing that the company have dealt with this situation before, and have found that paying the garage to get the car fixed is cheaper. Paying cash to the OP would encourage people to have "accidents" to claim cash. When the person doesn't gain financially, such claims don't happen.

raxy

CruelCoin wrote: »

Unless he's a complete mong, the manager would have had "parked at owners risk signs around the place".
He'd better have them now.

A sign like that would not mean anything in this case. Those signs are in relation to other people damaging your car while parked in their carpark. This is damaged caused by a company employee in a company vehicle, a sign would not take away their liability.

Lundstram

To clear a few things up for the people not arsed reading beyond the OP. I am in no way “chasing” the employee. It’s the company!

There a no signs up.

To end this story, he paid up today via cheque which leaves a paper-trail for us both and will be accounted for appropriately on both sides as we both have the quotes.

So to the people calling it “fraud”, educate yourselves.

Thanks to the helpful posters.

holyhead

Lundstram wrote: »

To clear a few things up for the people not arsed reading beyond the OP. I am in no way “chasing” the employee. It’s the company!

There a no signs up.

To end this story, he paid up today via cheque which leaves a paper-trail for us both and will be accounted for appropriately on both sides as we both have the quotes.

So to the people calling it “fraud”, educate yourselves.

Thanks to the helpful posters.

That people called it 'fraud' is based on how you put your own story across.

Purple Mountain

holyhead wrote: »

That people called it 'fraud' is based on how you put your own story across.

Bingo!

Captain Flaps

Lundstram wrote: »

So to the people calling it “fraud”, educate yourselves.

Thanks to the helpful posters.

You gave them a phoney estimate, and you will now repair the car cheaper and pocket the change.

You have defrauded your employer.