Does anyone know this answer please?

andygb

Wig wrote: »

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

Yes it does, because the person who has admitted liability does not have any choice in the matter. It is down to the "victim" to dictate matters, and that almost certainly will stop the matter being settled in private.

mikey72

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.

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.

There is actually.
If he insists on a dealer repair, which is reasonable to keep warranties intact etc, the insurer can insist on at least two quotes from different dealers.
We had the same when my wife damaged my car when she was driving. Our insurers wanted to use there repairer, I said no, I wanted a main dealer. They agreed, but insisted we had two different quotes, and did let us take the one we wanted in the end. It wasn't the cheaper of the two, but there wasn't a lot in it.
We just had to show it was a reasonable price I imagine, and not vastly inflated.

Triskaidekaphobia

mikey72 wrote: »

There is actually.
If he insists on a dealer repair, which is reasonable to keep warranties intact etc, the insurer can insist on at least two quotes from different dealers.
We had the same when my wife damaged my car when she was driving. Our insurers wanted to use there repairer, I said no, I wanted a main dealer. They agreed, but insisted we had two different quotes, and did let us take the one we wanted in the end. It wasn't the cheaper of the two, but there wasn't a lot in it.
We just had to show it was a reasonable price I imagine, and not vastly inflated.

All good points if you disregard the rather glaring fact that the OP isn't an insurance company, doesn't want to go through the insurance and wants to pay for the repairs themselves.

mikey72

Triskaidekaphobia wrote: »

All good points if you disregard the rather glaring fact that the OP isn't an insurance company, doesn't want to go through the insurance and wants to pay for the repairs themselves.

I was just reading the first post, seemed quite clear.

BOOM_3

So you reversed into some guys car and now youre trying to get out of paying for a proper job to be done repairing it!? Nice! :cool:

mikey72

BOOM wrote: »

So you reversed into some guys car and now youre trying to get out of paying for a proper job to be done repairing it!? Nice! :cool:

Well, saying as the quote is about the same as re skinninng two doors, and re shaping the frame of one, then spraying the side of mine when it was two years old at a main vauxhall dealer, through the insurance, I'd be thinking twice about handing over the cash.
I'd be more inclined to pass it to the insurers now.

BOOM_3

mikey72 wrote: »

Well, saying as the quote is about the same as re skinninng two doors, and re shaping the frame of one, then spraying the side of mine when it was two years old at a main vauxhall dealer, through the insurance, I'd be thinking twice about handing over the cash.
I'd be more inclined to pass it to the insurers now.

Rammed the thing at 40mph did they!? :cool:

neilmcl

mikey72 wrote: »

There is actually.
If he insists on a dealer repair, which is reasonable to keep warranties intact etc, the insurer can insist on at least two quotes from different dealers.

Actually they can't. They can ask but there is no legal requirement for the non-fault party to provide more than one quote. In point of fact they can go ahead and get the repair done without offering any quote and then go after the insurers who will be obliged to pay. How do you think these credit-hire/accident management companies work.

mikey72

neilmcl wrote: »

Actually they can't. They can ask but there is no legal requirement for the non-fault party to provide more than one quote. In point of fact they can go ahead and get the repair done without offering any quote and then go after the insurers who will be obliged to pay. How do you think these credit-hire/accident management companies work.

No they won't. It's not a blank cheque regardless.
The insurers can quite happily contest your claim, you can take them to court, and then they can then provide evidence that your cost was twice the going rate. You won't get the bill paid.
Why do you think so many people fall foul of credit hire companies, when the other party refuse to pay for the hired BMW 7 series you got when the micra was being repaired?

neilmcl

mikey72 wrote: »

No they won't. It's not a blank cheque regardless.
The insurers can quite happily contest your claim, you can take them to court, and then they can then provide evidence that your cost was twice the going rate. You won't get the bill paid.
Why do you think so many people fall foul of credit hire companies, when the other party refuse to pay for the hired BMW 7 series you got when the micra was being repaired?

I don't disagree that you are obliged to mitigate your losses but my point still stands there is no legal requirement for a non-fault party to provide more than one quote if any.