Does anyone know this answer please?

Triskaidekaphobia

Wig wrote: »

That is that not the part I found impolite -that part was merely stating the obvious and was completely unecessary- no, the impolite part was this part
This part IMHO could have been written better, because it infers the OP has a less than reasonable position to take on this.

I see no reason to bring this up again as we are retreading old ground - your opinion is that it was impolite, my opinion is that it was simply a statement of fact.

Continuing to rehash this over and over is pointless.

Wig wrote: »

In fact your opinion on this is wrong.

Why to you insist on telling me my opinion is wrong? It isn't wrong, it is my opinion.

What a ridiculous statement.

Wig wrote: »

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...

The OP has every right? Are you sure?

What rights are these? Could you point me in the direction of that particular right because I feel you're confusing 'rights' with your opinion of the situation.

The OP doesn't have 'every right' to expect several quotes for repairs presented to them in order to decide which one to take up on behalf of the gentleman whose car she damaged - to infer that she does is very silly.

She has chosen to try to deal with the situation without involving her insurers - the gentleman whose car she damaged has been helpful enough by allowing her to do this - now she wants to quibble over the quote he took time out to obtain and wants him to spend further time obtaining more quotes?

The OP wants this done 'off the books' and therefore needs to accept that the ball is in the gentleman's court - if this isn't acceptable to her then the alternative is to go through the insurance, not expect this man whose car she damaged to jump through hoops when he is the victim in the situation.

Quentin

The thing is, the injured party is obliging the OP by not involving her insurer.

No-one knows if the quote is reasonable or not (eg maybe it includes a complimentary courtesy car thereby saving the OP the cost of a hire car whilst the repairs are being done), but until the OP offers to reimburse the cost of the injured party running round getting more quotes for her, and until the OP agrees to pay for all the other costs involved maybe the innocent party is wise to dig his heels in!

Wig

Triskaidekaphobia wrote: »

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?

There's no pitfall, because you always have your fallback position to take if the 3rd party is not being reasonable, that of refusing to pay so the 3rd party is forced to either become resonable OR forced into using their insurer, who you can deal with directly instead of dealing with the unreasonable 3rd party. There is always a further fallback position to take, if it costs more than you were expecting even when "Mr Reasonable" becomes involved, you can always claim off your own insurer.

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.

But this would not matter to the OP because the insurer has a duty to be reasonable and will ensure their client is reasonable.

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?

All perfectly reasonable.

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

You are entitled to your opinion, but IMHO the 3rd party has not acted reasonably.

Triskaidekaphobia

Quentin wrote: »

The thing is, the injured party is obliging the OP by not involving her insurer.

Thank goodness for that - I was beginning to think I was the only person to see this!

Wig

Quentin wrote: »

The thing is, the injured party is obliging the OP by not involving her insurer.

It is up to the OP if she involves her insurer or not. No-one can force you to make a claim from your insurer. If the injured party claims against your insurer, your insurer may decided to make sure the claim is reasonable and pay out but that does not mean the OP cannot settle with the her insurer and not make a claim out of it.

Triskaidekaphobia

Wig wrote: »

You are entitled to your opinion, but IMHO the 3rd party has not acted reasonably.

Unfortunately your opinion seems irrelevant to the reality of the situation - however unreasonable the man whose car was damaged is being in your opinion there is no way the OP can compel him to obtain further quotes to repair his car.

As myself and now Quentin have pointed out to you, the gentleman is obliging the OP by allowing this to be rectified without involving the insurers.

Wig

Triskaidekaphobia wrote: »

Why to you insist on telling me my opinion is wrong? It isn't wrong, it is my opinion.

What a ridiculous statement.

It's wrong because you are incorrect. An injured party can only claim for reasonable costs. Therefore the OP can in effect force the injured party to use the cheaper repair service -which is what you said the OP cannot do more than once- If the injured party does not mitigate their losses the OP will only have to pay what would have been reasonable leaving the injured party to pick up the tab for the rest.

The OP has every right? Are you sure?

What rights are these? Could you point me in the direction of that particular right because I feel you're confusing 'rights' with your opinion of the situation.

Perfectly sure as already explained.

The OP doesn't have 'every right' to expect several quotes for repairs presented to them in order to decide which one to take up on behalf of the gentleman whose car she damaged - to infer that she does is very silly.

Not at all, why do you think insurers demand more than one quote? It's the same thing.

SNIP
The OP wants this done 'off the books' and therefore needs to accept that the ball is in the gentleman's court - if this isn't acceptable to her then the alternative is to go through the insurance, not expect this man whose car she damaged to jump through hoops when he is the victim in the situation.

The alternative is to force the gentleman to use his insurer which will ensure a reasonable repair quote. Well, not entirely reasonable but it will be the best she can get and will not usually be open to challenge.

Triskaidekaphobia

I'll ask again, could you point me in the direction of the 'rights' you're "perfectly sure" of that will allow the OP to demand more than one quote please?

Once we are aware of these rights then we can better advise the OP on how she compels this gentleman to go out and obtain more quotes.

Wig

Triskaidekaphobia wrote: »

Unfortunately your opinion seems irrelevant to the reality of the situation - however unreasonable the man whose car was damaged is being in your opinion there is no way the OP can compel him to obtain further quotes to repair his car.

I never said she could.

As myself and now Quentin have pointed out to you, the gentleman is obliging the OP by allowing this to be rectified without involving the insurers.

As I have said, there is a fallback position after hitting an unreasonable wall from the injured party, of making him use his insurer. It's not the ideal solution for the OP but she is unlikely to be worse off and could actually be better off than the stalemate position offered currently by the 3rd party.

neilmcl

Quentin wrote: »

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

Which is what I was trying to get through to the OP from the start.