Not all Car Insurance policies are the same

mike_the_rate_tart

Posting this as I've had a bit of a shock when dealing with a very recent claim for my wife's car.

To begin with, the accident was her fault and we are not disputing this. Also, as will become apparent further down, we should have read the policy docs through before buying the policy, but we didn't.

To summarise, the car has received damage to the front bumper, both front alloy wheels are buckled, the tyres are destroyed, steering is damaged and there may be more to come as the car is still being looked at today.

We're going through the insurance and my expectation of all insurance policies is that in the event of an accident your car is repaired to the same condition as it was in before the accident, so in other words you get it back as if nothing had happened.

We're insured through Swiftcover and from what I can tell this isn't going to be the case.

For those who don't know, Swiftcover policies are underwritten by Axa, and Axa have the same wording (I know because our other car is through Axa direct and I've been through the policy this weekend).

The Swiftcover and Axa policies have the same statements in the section dealing with repairs to the car after an accident:

"We may choose to repair your car with recycled parts, where appropriate. Parts used
may not have been made by the car’s manufacturer but will be of a similar standard."

There are two words I was surprised to read:
"recycled" - i.e. taken from another car
"similar" - I was expecting "equivalent"

We always drive fairly new cars, normally under three years old, and I always have them worked on at either a main dealer or at an independent garage who uses genuine parts. I would expect the same when it comes to accident repairs, but it seems this is how Swiftcover and Axa can offer such fantastically cheap insurance...they don't fit genuine replacement parts! We need a bit of a respray too and I'm very concerned about the standard of workmanship that is going to be present on this job.

We can choose to have the car repaired at a garage of our own choice, but if we do this Swiftcover will only pay out up to whatever it would have cost had we used their "approved" repairer.

To give a bit of context here, Swiftcover have agreed a labour rate of £24/ hour with their repairers, and add to that the fact they aren't going to be using genuine parts (so the parts will be cheaper) and it is going to be nowhere near what the main dealer, or even an Indie would charge. VW charge around £90/hour labour, but have said they will be prepared to negotiate on this for us, but have also already said they'll never get anywhere near £24/hour as they'd end up making a loss.

Although, as I've already said, I should have read through the policy before parting with my hard earned, I am amazed and disgusted that they can be allowed to get away with this.

It feels like they are providing a "second class" insurance policy best suited to old cars where such cheap repairs would make sense. We've got a VW Golf and Audi A4 both two years old insured through them at the moment. The Audi will be re-insured as a priority today.

I'm posting this for two reasons:
1) PLEASE make sure you read your policy docs carefully, and before you need to call on them in the event of an accident
2) Does anyone know of a good reasonably priced insurance company who will use genuine parts?

I've changed my outlook on car insurance. I used to trawl the comparison sites and buy the cheapest policy from a brand name I recognised. I resented paying any more than absolutely necessary to get the car insured.

I now realise that, as with almost everything else, you get what you pay for. If the standard of work, and type of parts used, are important to you then avoid Axa/ Swiftcover at all costs!

I guess you only find out how good your insurance really is when you come to use it!

missile

Cheapest is not always best. You might want to consider AVG insurance, see here > http://www.insurewithaudi.co.uk/Car-Insurance.asp?ccode=AUPPC&gclid=CMiu5_2RrKMCFRNBlAod6Az_3g

foggytown

mike_the_rate_tart wrote: »

Posting this as I've had a bit of a shock when dealing with a very recent claim for my wife's car.

To begin with, the accident was her fault and we are not disputing this. Also, as will become apparent further down, we should have read the policy docs through before buying the policy, but we didn't.

To summarise, the car has received damage to the front bumper, both front alloy wheels are buckled, the tyres are destroyed, steering is damaged and there may be more to come as the car is still being looked at today.

We're going through the insurance and my expectation of all insurance policies is that in the event of an accident your car is repaired to the same condition as it was in before the accident, so in other words you get it back as if nothing had happened.

We're insured through Swiftcover and from what I can tell this isn't going to be the case.

For those who don't know, Swiftcover policies are underwritten by Axa, and Axa have the same wording (I know because our other car is through Axa direct and I've been through the policy this weekend).

The Swiftcover and Axa policies have the same statements in the section dealing with repairs to the car after an accident:

"We may choose to repair your car with recycled parts, where appropriate. Parts used
may not have been made by the car’s manufacturer but will be of a similar standard."

There are two words I was surprised to read:
"recycled" - i.e. taken from another car
"similar" - I was expecting "equivalent"

We always drive fairly new cars, normally under three years old, and I always have them worked on at either a main dealer or at an independent garage who uses genuine parts. I would expect the same when it comes to accident repairs, but it seems this is how Swiftcover and Axa can offer such fantastically cheap insurance...they don't fit genuine replacement parts! We need a bit of a respray too and I'm very concerned about the standard of workmanship that is going to be present on this job.

We can choose to have the car repaired at a garage of our own choice, but if we do this Swiftcover will only pay out up to whatever it would have cost had we used their "approved" repairer.

To give a bit of context here, Swiftcover have agreed a labour rate of £24/ hour with their repairers, and add to that the fact they aren't going to be using genuine parts (so the parts will be cheaper) and it is going to be nowhere near what the main dealer, or even an Indie would charge. VW charge around £90/hour labour, but have said they will be prepared to negotiate on this for us, but have also already said they'll never get anywhere near £24/hour as they'd end up making a loss.

Although, as I've already said, I should have read through the policy before parting with my hard earned, I am amazed and disgusted that they can be allowed to get away with this.

It feels like they are providing a "second class" insurance policy best suited to old cars where such cheap repairs would make sense. We've got a VW Golf and Audi A4 both two years old insured through them at the moment. The Audi will be re-insured as a priority today.

I'm posting this for two reasons:
1) PLEASE make sure you read your policy docs carefully, and before you need to call on them in the event of an accident
2) Does anyone know of a good reasonably priced insurance company who will use genuine parts?

I've changed my outlook on car insurance. I used to trawl the comparison sites and buy the cheapest policy from a brand name I recognised. I resented paying any more than absolutely necessary to get the car insured.

I now realise that, as with almost everything else, you get what you pay for. If the standard of work, and type of parts used, are important to you then avoid Axa/ Swiftcover at all costs!

I guess you only find out how good your insurance really is when you come to use it!

I'm finding it difficult to appreciate whatever point you're trying to make. First, you have to define "part". If you're talking about metal panels (doors, bonnets, wings, etc.) there probably aren't any non-genuine parts being made by someone other than VW/Audi. I would be surprised to find that there are big operations in China stamping out "compatible" rear decks for Audis.

As far as recycled parts are concerned, what's the big deal? Plenty of Audis like yours lying around in bone yards with perfectly good skins that only have to be repainted to match yours.

(42 years ago when I began my career I spent a few years doing damage appraisals on damaged cars. Many the arguments I had with repairers about whether a panel could be straightened out or had to be replaced. Many car owners were "appalled" that a used (we used to call it LKQ - Like Kind & Quality) wing would be put on their "pristine" car. What they didn't realise was that brand new panels would often arrive at the repairers with almost as much transit damage on them than the panel to be replaced; OR the repairer would be paid for a new panel and use a second-hand one anyway and pocket the difference.)

In short, you had a two/three year old panel, bumper, grille, and it's being replaced with the same thing. Exactly how are you being hard done by?

If you are talking about replacement of eletrical/mechanical parts that is a slightly different story. Repairers doing work which they guarantee normally will resist using used parts (generators, shock absorbers, tyres, etc.) It's also a potential headache for insurers.

mike_the_rate_tart

Thanks for the reply FoggyTown,

My issue isn't so much with the bumper replacement, but more the other damaged components to do with steering, suspension and who knows what else they're going to find when they get the car on the ramps today.

There must be a reason why Swiftcover/ Axa have chosen the word "similar" instead of "equivalent" which you normally find in policies. Given the budget nature of the job they want to do, I dare say "similar" will turn out to be "nearly the same, but inferior to some degree".

Also, the prospect of a recycled part is something I would never contemplate on a car of this age. It's new or nothing as far as I'm concerned.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a substantial difference in the level of cover offered by the Axa companies, and I suspect the vast majority of people holding these policies are unaware, as I was.

For some of those unaware they will no doubt have no issue with this, but when there's >£20k's worth of car being insured I think it deserves better than "recycled" and "similar" parts being installed. There will be reasons why these parts are cheaper, and the same goes for the labour rates of the people fitting them (even if they are good mechanics, have they got the full suite of workshop equipment and tools available to them to work on the car properly?)

Some reading this are probably thinking that if we can afford these cars we can afford to pay more insurance. You are right, and I've just taken up a new policy direct through Audi (underwritten by Allianz) that guarantees Audi approved garages only, and genuine parts only. All for £200 more in premium. Money well spent in my opinion!

mike_the_rate_tart

missile wrote: »

Cheapest is not always best. You might want to consider AVG insurance, see here >

Thanks missile!

I've just taken a policy out with these guys and cancelled the Axa one. They are surprisingly competitive in terms of price considering the vastly improved level of cover.

Quentin

mike_the_rate_tart wrote: »

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a substantial difference in the level of cover offered by the Axa companies, and I suspect the vast majority of people holding these policies are unaware, as I was.

You were unaware because you didn't read the policy before buying it, no more, no less!

That should be the point of your thread!

(Other companies apart from axa use recycled parts - it's up to the buyer of the policy to make sure they are happy with what they are buying!)

missile

mike_the_rate_tart wrote: »

Thanks missile!

I've just taken a policy out with these guys and cancelled the Axa one. They are surprisingly competitive in terms of price considering the vastly improved level of cover.

Pleased to be of assistance.

For your info: If and when you do make a claim. After repairs, a nice girl from Audi will contact you to confirm you are satisfied with the work carried out. Audis are expensive, but I guess you get the service you pay for :T

PS: You might like to tick the thanks box?

mike_the_rate_tart

Quentin wrote: »

You were unaware because you didn't read the policy before buying it, no more, no less!

That should be the point of your thread!

(Other companies apart from axa use recycled parts - it's up to the buyer of the policy to make sure they are happy with what they are buying!)

Quentin,

I held my hands up at the start of my original post and said I should have read the policy through before buying. No one else other than me can be to blame for that.

The thing is, I never imagined that the cheap insurance companies would make savings in this way. I imagined buying into offshore call centres, long waits to have calls answered, slow claims processing etc etc...not substandard parts!

I'm trying to bring this to the attention of as many people as I can so that others don't fall into the same position I'm in now. I wonder how many people like me use a comparison website, check things like excess, windscreen cover, courtesy car etc etc and never go anywhere near the detailed policy wording...?

Quentin

mike_the_rate_tart wrote: »

I held my hands up at the start of my original post and said I should have read the policy through before buying. No one else other than me can be to blame for that.

Exactly.

So why did you post that this was the point of your thread:

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a substantial difference in the level of cover offered by the Axa companies..

It's not just buyers of axa policies who need to beware!

And you say you checked their windscreen cover - yet still went with them, despite the unusual way they deal with windscreen claims and NCD?

mike_the_rate_tart

Quentin - exactly what point are you trying to make?

I deliberately started my original post with a hands up blaming myself for ending up in this mess. I'm not trying to lay blame elsewhere and so am surprised you are pulling my posts apart and diverting the thread away from my original point, that being (as per the original post title) that:

I wanted to share my surprise that not every insurance policy will put your car back on the road with 100% genuine/ approved/ equivalent parts installed within it.

In the case of reasonably new, non-budget marques I would say this is a significant variation to the overall standard and value of the car, and that people should be aware of this when selecting an insurer.

You won't see this difference on the comparison websites, only by reading their detailed policy wording documents.

If this wasn't clear in my original post then I apologise.

As for the glass claims and NCD - I'm really unclear as to what is strange about either. I submitted my proof of NCD to Swift (and Axa for that matter) as I have done with any other insurer and they accepted it...nothing unusual there.

I've also had a replacement windscreen fitted to a previous car that was also covered through Swiftcover. In that instance I chose to use a company of my own choice because Swift's approved company were flooded with work and currently had a one month wait time. I was aware that I could only claim a maximum of £100, I was happy with this, and I duly received my £100 from Swift. Nothing unusual there either...

{EDIT} Just remembered I also had that same previous car broken into. In that case the entire glass claim was handled through Swiftcover's approved glass company (AutoGlass at that time IIRC) and in that case I just rang swift, explained I needed a new passenger window, AutoGlass arrived within two hours, fitted it, I paid my £60 excess and signed it was complete, job done. Swift paid AutoGlass and I never heard any more about it. {/EDIT}

foggytown

mike_the_rate_tart wrote: »

Thanks for the reply FoggyTown,

My issue isn't so much with the bumper replacement, but more the other damaged components to do with steering, suspension and who knows what else they're going to find when they get the car on the ramps today.

There must be a reason why Swiftcover/ Axa have chosen the word "similar" instead of "equivalent" which you normally find in policies. Given the budget nature of the job they want to do, I dare say "similar" will turn out to be "nearly the same, but inferior to some degree".

Also, the prospect of a recycled part is something I would never contemplate on a car of this age. It's new or nothing as far as I'm concerned.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a substantial difference in the level of cover offered by the Axa companies, and I suspect the vast majority of people holding these policies are unaware, as I was.

For some of those unaware they will no doubt have no issue with this, but when there's >£20k's worth of car being insured I think it deserves better than "recycled" and "similar" parts being installed. There will be reasons why these parts are cheaper, and the same goes for the labour rates of the people fitting them (even if they are good mechanics, have they got the full suite of workshop equipment and tools available to them to work on the car properly?)

Some reading this are probably thinking that if we can afford these cars we can afford to pay more insurance. You are right, and I've just taken up a new policy direct through Audi (underwritten by Allianz) that guarantees Audi approved garages only, and genuine parts only. All for £200 more in premium. Money well spent in my opinion!

Many insurers adopt the same approach as Axa. An auto policy is not the same as a contents policy which contains a "new for old" feature. As I said, mechanical items which have safety implications will probably not be replaced by used parts, simply because the insurer or repairer would then be assuming the "guarantee" burden (and the resulting liability for the consequences of a failed used part) instead of it resting with the manufacturer of a new part. That's the reality.

Your attitude is unreasonable and ill-considered. If we take your expectations to a logical (albeit extreme) extension, if your 3-year-old Audi were damaged so badly it was a write-off, would you expect a brand new Audi in return?