Suing 3rd party for car repair

lisyloo

:beer:

Well obviously it's difficult for anyone to say, but I'd be relatively confident it's do-able if you are willing to be a little pragmatic.
There may be cosmetic damage that is not particularly important to you and could be left completely or patched up more cheaply but the insurer would be looking at doing a proper repair.
This is not always necessary on an older car.

We had a bumper repaired by a franchise called "chips away".
They are a mobile company that come round and patch up small paintwork repairs, whereas a proper repair would require removal and resparying a whole panel/bumper and drying in an oven.
The costs are typiclly £125 rather than much higher costs for a proper job.

It's more hassle for you but it ought to be do-able.

oscarward

Just be wary that if you have the car back it will be marked as a write off so the value if you part exchange in the future will be less and insurers may be picky about insuring it. Also you may have to have it inspected before being allowed to put it back on the road.

There are threads on here about write off categories and what's the effect.

My previous car was a cat d write off , I was offered the wreck and did think about it but decided it wasn't worth the hassle in the end even though I absolutely loved the car. Peugeot 407c GT 2.7d. really gutted when it was written off, headlamps alone were £1000 each.:eek:

But as the chassis needed straightening I decided that was a tad too risky.

The insurers repaired and someone bought it 'cos they came to see me and talk about the car.

lisyloo

headlamps alone were £1000 each

A lot of storage places will let you go and replace parts on your car back to the original (or just remove them).
If they are going to scrap it they don't care.
So don't forget to ask if you can go and pick up and bits you want before it's scrapped.

property.advert

It is a long time since I went through the legal minutiae, insurance and liability but one thing hasn't changed. Whether a third party has representation through an insurer or not, you are not claiming against the faceless insurer but rather against the third party. People seem to forget that.

Another seemingly forgotten fact is that if you are the injured party, there is a need, in so far as it is possible, to put you back in the same position as you were before you suffered at the hands of the guilty third party. Insurers love the idea of betterment but if one turns the idea of betterment inside out and upside down, it actually means that you cannot be made to suffer loss either. What is good for the goose is good for the gander so to speak.

In the era of multi billion dollar faceless global insurers, the little guy can get overlooked and pushed aside. However, a small thorn in the foot of a large lion did once a roaring giant reduce to a whimpering wreck. You can be that thorn and just as in Deal or no Deal, the Banker's perception of just how far you are going to push things is paramount.

British Airways may well offer the rank and file a few dollars per kilo for lost and destroyed baggage quoting some outdated convention whilst compensating the Beckhams to the tune of £100,000 not because they had to under any law but simply because it made sense to do so, and quickly. You are not David Beckham but neither are you asking for £100k.

Of course you cannot claim that your car was worth twice the going rate but you can find out what it would cost to create your car from the best available, should it prove impossible to match it exactly. At the end of the day you are likely going to be a few thousand apart at most, perhaps less and you can cause them a lot more problems than the marketing and advertising cost of that imbalance in values.

pippa0_2

property.advert wrote: »

...................Another seemingly forgotten fact is that if you are the injured party, there is a need, in so far as it is possible, to put you back in the same position as you were before you suffered at the hands of the guilty third party........

That's a great peice of info. Thanks.

I'm not going to do battle over this (probably) but, are you saying that I would have a leg to stand on if I for example could demonstrate that putting me back in the original position involved fixing my very pampered and very good condition old car? rather than buying another identical one (and would be difficult to find another pampered one) Is there any case law example?

Quentin

property.advert wrote: »

Whether a third party has representation through an insurer or not, you are not claiming against the faceless insurer but rather against the third party. People seem to forget that.

No-one has "forgotten" that.

The OP has been advised that he does have the right to pursue the third party.

But the third party's insurer would defend any proceedings issued against the third party, so your point is irrelevant.

kingstreet

I don't know where you are, but I use a Mercedes specialist scrapyard based in Oldham, for parts for my wife's old A160.

As mentioned by others, when a car gets to a certain age, you need to maintain it, but it doesn't need new parts which are expensive to come by.

I've recently replaced the fuel tank, radiator and waterpump for a fraction of the price of new parts.

If you do decide to keep your car, work out what parts you'll need and see if there's a local specialist scrapper near you. If you want to talk to the one I mentioned, it's Prestige Allparts in Oldham.

adamc260

pippa0 wrote: »

My car was damaged by a garage mechanic. The car is worth 2000.

Their insurer wants to right off car as it will cost 2500 to repair.

Question:

I love my car, had it for 10 years and pampered it (an old merc estate ). can I sue the garage to make them repair my car even tho it will cost more than its replacement value?????????

Please only answer if you are able to, not just becasue you have an opinion!

Thanks.

If the repairs exceed the value of the car, you cannot reasonably expect the insurer to pay for repairs if they can replace your vehicle for less. Sorry but no, you cannot

(Previous Claims Handler)

adamc260

pippa0 wrote: »

Hmmm... do you have law/ins industry experience?

I don't mean to be rude. Its just that I was told by a barrister friend that my dispute is between me the garage and not their insurance company, and so if I want them to put right my car I am perfectly within my rights to sue them (assuming they refuse) to make sure this is done, irrispective of what their ins company says.

So, for example, if the ins pays 2000 but the repair cost 3000 then I can sue for the 1000 (or whatever it was).

That's a lawyer's point of view! But I am not convinced!?!?

Is your friend really a barrister because, the liability lies with the insurer not the garage.. The garage acts as a repairer on behalf of the insurer, who gets paid by the insurer for the work.

The insurer indemnifies their client in relation to a collision, not the garage? All the garage have done is provide a quote for what they feel the work would cost to do.

So sorry, hes talking through his behind! Are you sure he's not a paralegal ...

You have to mitigate your losses and as said in my above post, if your car can be replaced for less than repairing your car... its not reasonable to expect them to pay the higher figure of the 2?

The difference with an insurers approved bodyshop is that they have to use new parts and supply a guarentee whereas a garage of your choice could perhaps use second hand/scraped parts at a cheaper cost... Insurers don't have this luxury as they don't want anything coming back on them. In turn, this obviously pushes up the price of the estimate but a garage isn't going to price themselves out of a job if they COULD do it as they're losing out on money then

dacouch

adamc260 wrote: »

Is your friend really a barrister because, the liability lies with the insurer not the garage.. The garage acts as a repairer on behalf of the insurer, who gets paid by the insurer for the work.

The insurer indemnifies their client in relation to a collision, not the garage? All the garage have done is provide a quote for what they feel the work would cost to do.

So sorry, hes talking through his behind! Are you sure he's not a paralegal ...

The friend had probably read it from Honest John, he used to quote it as gospel that you could insist they repair the car or go and buy you a direct replacement. He oddly quoted a legal case that was a battle over the rights and wrongs of credit hire as justification. He has now realised he was wrong (I did not notice an apology) and amusingly goes to town stating you are not entitled to the car being repaired (assuming it's a write off) and quotes a legal case that is actually relevant.

We've had a few posters on MSE stating the above and justifying it that HJ says so