Child's car seat to be replaced following accident

tandraig

Ive lurked on this thread but really have to post here!
so pew pew pew lasers - If it was YOUR car involved in a rear ender, you have a couple of expensive kiddie seats in back costing £150 each which the insurance co insist on you having replaced - you would snatch their hand off for £100? er - do you understand basic arithmetic at all?
or even the principles of insurance?
if the insurance company insist on the seats being replaced then they are liable to replace them to an equivalant value.
I am not going to get into the argument as to whether they NEED to be replaced - that isnt the issue - its already been decided by the insurance company.
the OP wasnt at fault - therefore its not up to op to ante up for the new seats - its up to insurance.

mikey72

dacouch wrote: »

Civil law is not like a home policy, claims are not paid on a new for old basis, the principle of putting someone in the basis they were in prior to the claim would generally mean wear and tear is taken into account when assessing the amount paid out for a replacement. Generally the age of the item and life expectancy are taken into account. This can mean that the full new price is paid but there is no guarantee of this.

So there is a chance the third party may take into account wear and tear, although depending on the value of the item they may just pay the new price

We've been here before on this thread.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

tandraig wrote: »

Ive lurked on this thread but really have to post here!
so pew pew pew lasers - If it was YOUR car involved in a rear ender, you have a couple of expensive kiddie seats in back costing £150 each which the insurance co insist on you having replaced - you would snatch their hand off for £100? er - do you understand basic arithmetic at all?
or even the principles of insurance?
if the insurance company insist on the seats being replaced then they are liable to replace them to an equivalant value.
I am not going to get into the argument as to whether they NEED to be replaced - that isnt the issue - its already been decided by the insurance company.
the OP wasnt at fault - therefore its not up to op to ante up for the new seats - its up to insurance.

The insurance company are not insisting that they are replaced. They are insisting that legally they are required to offer a replacement, and that they will offer £100 per seat. Except there is nothing illegal about using a child seat from a car that has been involved in an accident. Therefore their insistence is a contractual matter, and is based not on reliable solid evidence, but on a guess (as has already been demonstrated).

So yes, I'd take the £100 per seat, put it in my pocket, and continue to use the undamaged seats I already have. So you can see I understand arithmetic quite well, thanks.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

The insurance company are not insisting that they are replaced. They are insisting that legally they are required to offer a replacement, and that they will offer £100 per seat. Except there is nothing illegal about using a child seat from a car that has been involved in an accident. Therefore their insistence is a contractual matter, and is based not on reliable solid evidence, but on a guess (as has already been demonstrated).

So yes, I'd take the £100 per seat, put it in my pocket, and continue to use the undamaged seats I already have. So you can see I understand arithmetic quite well, thanks.

what you dont get is that the child seats will be removed by the insurance company if the 100 is accepted as they wont release the old ones to the op.
in easy terms they are effectively buying the old seats from OP so OP can get new ones but limited to £100. in wich case we all agree this is wrong as the accident wasnt the OP's fault and the £150 refunded to get same seats.

so the op wont be able to pocket the cash and keep the £150.00 car seats she has paid for as she wont have them in the car when its returned as the insurance company will of disposed of them as damaged seats if agreed to the £100.00 offer. if op doesnt agree then the seats will remain in the vehicle when returned it is then up to the OP to use them or get new ones at her own cost.

tandraig

atrix-blue is correct - the car seats would be removed and if the op wanted to replace them then they would either have to have cheaper seats or pay the excess - and as they werent at fault they are entitled to have equivalent seats!
and personally, as a parent if my car was rear ended - I wouldnt use the seats as i wouldnt know if there was any unseen damage. just as if i had dropped my bike helmet - responsible riders know not to use a lid thats been bumped. when you depend on equipment to save your life you treat it with respect and if there is ANY doubt at all - replace!

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

So I take it you'd be replacing all the seats in your vehicle then? Including the driver and passenger seats? And the seatbelts? And the airbags, which may have been damaged? And the brakes, because they may have been damaged also?

vaio

I’d do whatever the safety professionals recommended so yep, if ROSPA and the 10+ ten insurance companies listed in post 6 recommended it I would replace the items you mentioned (or rather an insurance company would do it on my behalf)

It’s called repairing a car, anything obviously damaged get changed and any safety critical items gets changed if there is a possibility that it has been latently damaged such that its future performance might be affected.

Being just a random bloke on the web I don’t have the expertise to assess this so I would rely on the safety professionals/insurance companies/equipment manufacturers advice.

Kurtis_Blue

He obviously desperately needs to win this let him have it, think of it as charity, he is not well.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

vaio wrote: »

safety professionals

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

mikey72

Can just imagine pew pew going round the scrapyards and tips for things like seat belts and cycle helmets.
It passes the pew pew test, so it must be safe.