Does anyone know this answer please?

Triskaidekaphobia

Wig wrote: »

I think it all started with the way you wrote your first reply, it doesn't read very politely.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the fact is that there was nothing wrong with the reply I gave - pointing out that the OP was the 'guilty party' is not impolite, it is merely the reality of the situation and the reason why the OP is wrong to believe that she can in some way force the 'victim' to have the damage she caused to his vehicle repaired more cheaply to save her money.

The OP's brusque attitude has been been pointed out by a number of others so your implication that I have somehow created this situation is misguided I'm afraid.

Again your opinion is your own though.

Triskaidekaphobia

andygb wrote: »

Yes, I would advise you to expect him to make a perfectly legitimate claim against you, and for you to see your premium go up next year.
Probably not the advice you were looking for, but as you seemed to adopt a certain "attitude" with posters giving you advice, then take it or leave it!
The truth sometimes hurts, and in this case it will probably hurt your bank account.
You may wish to brush up on your reversing technique as well!;)

The voice of common sense here guys!

harveybobbles

denyse_marston wrote: »

oh and by the way the repairer he has chosen is not the approved repairer of his insurance company as he is refusing to go there because he fell out with them on an earlier repair which he did himself.

He fell out with a company because he repaired the car himself?

Are you for real...?!

By the way, is the OP related to this [STRIKE]troll[/STRIKE] person...?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2760774

Quentin

andygb wrote: »

This is not a "case", it is a very simple insurance matter, where there are clear guidelines and procedures available to both parties.

Accident where one party is clearly at fault
Both parties exchange insurance details, and do not start a slanging match over choice of repairer.
The person whose car is damaged waits for the other side to admit liability, and then has his car repaired, by a repairer which his insurer recommends.

So simple, what is the problem?

On a point of fact, you do NOT have to use a repairer recommended by your insurer at all!

Wig

andygb wrote: »

This is not a "case", it is a very simple insurance matter, where there are clear guidelines and procedures available to both parties.

Accident where one party is clearly at fault
Both parties exchange insurance details, and do not start a slanging match over choice of repairer.
The person whose car is damaged waits for the other side to admit liability, and then has his car repaired, by a repairer which his insurer recommends.

So simple, what is the problem?

It does not matter that this is a 'case' or not, it has the potential to become a 'case' -as you put it-. Like it or not all of our everyday business dealings with third parties are based on law and case law. Knowledge is power, the OP came here to get that knowledge. Rolling over and letting someone !!!!!! on you without a fight is stupid and not MSE style. And those 'guidelines and procedures' you mention are all based on case law, this doesn't stop insurance companies bending the truth and using tactics to save themselves money.

The problem would arise when the third party does not get multiple quotes to show that their claim costs are reasonable. We all know that stealerships will charge more. How then is it reasonable to expect someone to pay over the odds for the repair?

The OP also brought up the fact that the 3rd party had said "can I have an Insurance repair quote". A lot of us would expect repairers to have double standards between insurance contracts and private contracts, and this has been confirmed by one of our users in this thread.

To repeat myself both the OPs questions are perfectly reasonable.

The OP for their own reasons has indicated that they don't want to claim on their insurance. So your 'simple' overview of the situation involving insurers may not be appropriate.

The OP may be able to photograph the damage and take it to a few qualified bodyshops to get an informal quote on a 'private' basis and then try to persuade the owner to be more reasonable by letting them know that they could "get it repaired at either of these two places for around £800, and it would be professional and meet any warranty concerns that the owner has. And persuade the owner to at least take the car there for a quote.

andygb

Quentin wrote: »

On a point of fact, you do NOT have to use a repairer recommended by your insurer at all!

I agree with what you have said entirely, but for this occasion where the guilty party is causing a fuss, I would have no hesitation about going down that route.

andygb

Wig wrote: »

The OP for their own reasons has indicated that they don't want to claim on their insurance. So your 'simple' overview of the situation involving insurers may not be appropriate.

The OP may be able to photograph the damage and take it to a few qualified bodyshops to get an informal quote on a 'private' basis and then try to persuade the owner to be more reasonable by letting them know that they could "get it repaired at either of these two places for around £800, and it would be professional and meet any warranty concerns that the owner has. And persuade the owner to at least take the car there for a quote.

It really does not matter how the OP feels about this, because they have hit someone else's car and have admitted liability. It is therefore not the place of the OP to have any say where the other party's car is repaired.
I have dealt with reasonable people after they have hit me, and we have settled quickly, but if I came across someone like the OP, then I would have no hesitation about letting my insurers deal with it.

Wig

Yes and an insurer would require more than 1 quote OR to use their approved repairer BOTH of which would be acceptable to the OP. What is not acceptable (without at least objecting) is the 3rd party getting an inflated quote from a single stealership.

Even if 3rd party used his insurer, this does not stop OP from settling in private.

Triskaidekaphobia

Wig wrote: »

Yes and an insurer would require more than 1 quote OR to use their approved repairer BOTH of which would be acceptable to the OP. What is not acceptable (without at least objecting) is the 3rd party getting an inflated quote from a single stealership.

Even if 3rd party used his insurer, this does not stop OP from settling in private.

But surely this is the risk or pitfall of paying for someone's repairs 'off the books' in the manner being described by the OP?

Yes insurers would require more than one quote before authorising payment but you can't realistically expect to enforce such a policy during an 'off the books' arrangement such as this between two members of the public?

The OP would prefer to pay for the repairs rather than go through the insurance - it seems to me that the person whose car has been damaged has already been good enough to allow this when they could simply demand that the matter be referred to the insurers. He has already had his property damaged by the OP and taken time out of his day to obtain a quote to repair the damage incurred - now the OP is essentially demanding that he take further time out to obtain more quotes because they find the original one unacceptable?

Excuse me but who is at fault here? The gentleman in question seems to have more than met the OP halfway in my opinion.

Wig

Triskaidekaphobia wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion, but the fact is that there was nothing wrong with the reply I gave - pointing out that the OP was the 'guilty party' is not impolite, it is merely the reality of the situation and the reason why the OP is wrong to believe that she can in some way force the 'victim' to have the damage she caused to his vehicle repaired more cheaply to save her money.

That is that not the part I found impolite -that part was merely stating the obvious and was completely unecessary, which of course didn't help the situation- no, the impolite part was this part

Triskaidekaphobia wrote: »

If I reverse into your car and damage it why do you think I would have the right to dictate to you where you have your car repaired or make you get your car repaired somewhere cheaper?

This part IMHO could have been written better, because it infers the OP has a less than reasonable position to take on this. I understand you might not have intended it to be impolite, and it is partly in the eye of the reader that it appears impolite, which is why I said both of you needed to take a chill pill.

In fact your opinion on this is wrong. The OP has every right to expect the 3rd party to have their car repaired at a reasonable cost. The way to do that would be to obtain more than one quote and arguably from at least one independent repairer, especially if the OP can show evidence that the vehicle could have been repaired equally well with an independent for a much reduced cost. The person paying for the repair can not force the 3rd party to use a certain repairer, but they can reasonably choose to only pay the amount of the cheaper quote, leaving the 3rd party to pay the difference.