No fault accident now car is a total loss

arcon5

I wonder if we'll ever see an insurance company open their own garage to bring costs down significantly...

dacouch

arcon5 wrote: »

I wonder if we'll ever see an insurance company open their own garage to bring costs down significantly...

If you mean accident repairs then Aviva already have their own network https://www.solusarc.co.uk/ and I think Direct Line have their own as well

AdrianC

prowla wrote: »

Seems like that's the definition of a Cat D.

Which? That was three scenarios... And, yes, one of them was the definition of a Cat D. There was a clue as to which one in the bit you quoted.

Well, some of the items listed in the MOT are:

• Headlamps
• Headlamp aim
• Steering control
• Steering system
• Power steering
• Suspension - general
• Tyres
• Seatbelts
• Vehicle Structure, Body and General Items
• Seats and Doors
• Vehicle Structure, Body and General Items
• Seats and Doors

Are you saying that an accident causing a write-off could not have affected any of them?

Another clue: No.

• Vehicle Structure, Body and General Items
• Seats and Doors
• Vehicle Structure, Body and General Items
• Seats and Doors

So good they test 'em twice?

arcon5

dacouch wrote: »

If you mean accident repairs then Aviva already have their own network www.solusarc.co.uk/ and I think Direct Line have their own as well

I did and that's real interesting to know.

Usually insurers go for false economy by engaging with expensive companies in return for kickbacks then go complaining when it's them having to pay the over inflated bill. About time the industry started mitigating losses.

colino

If you want the definitions, google ABI. Their chart, hand on heart is what individual insurance companies work to. Sure, in this era of online and telephone quotes pointing users to dozens of companies with only a handful of head offices the "assessment" is between a real assessor -often just looking at garage photographs, or a desk jockey applying the inhouse criteria with not a jot of skill, knowledge or experience in the business. Faster, lower skills and fewer people add up to lower quotes (comparatively) and bigger profits.
On the subject of inhouse repairs, been done and done catastrophically. it crippled the bodyshop trade. When RBS launched the business model of modern insurance with Directline, all bases were covered. They initially offered guaranteed supply of work, at handsome prices, to the best bodyshops all over the UK. They honoured that, gaining loyalty and quite quickly, monopoly for about a year, then started slashing the rates they would pay. Most businesses having all but given up their marketing arms with this abundance of supply knuckled under, and continue to be "insurance repairers". Low cost production lines of average repair work ensued and the insurers scrap the rest (having also developed the income stream of salvage sales).
There used to be the question at all bodyshops, "Is it insurance?" That meant, we'll pad the bill and we both win. Now the question should be asked, do you want the job done thoroughly, well and first time. Good job most punters sign off the happy sheets and accept repaired cars that others would reject on sight.

vaio

arcon5 wrote: »

.......Usually insurers go for false economy by engaging with expensive companies in return for kickbacks then go complaining when it's them having to pay the over inflated bill. About time the industry started mitigating losses.

If anything, the opposite is true. Insurers seems to be screwing bodyshops down on price to the point where quality suffers, using non OEM parts and, as above, running their own bodyshops.

Similar thing to insurers setting up/buying legal firms once referral fees were outlawed

prowla

AdrianC wrote: »

Which? That was three scenarios... And, yes, one of them was the definition of a Cat D. There was a clue as to which one in the bit you quoted.

Well, the £500 initial value was a bit contrived, but OK.

AdrianC wrote: »

Another clue: No.

OK, so an accident causing a write-off could have affected those items which are inspected in the MOT.

Therefore who confirms that they are now repaired?

I'm not sure if that explains why the MOT should be re-done in the event of such collisions.

But if not, why don't you quote examples of collisions which would not affect items tested in the MOT?

AdrianC wrote: »

So good they test 'em twice?

You can say that again!

Aretnap

prowla wrote: »

OK, so an accident causing a write-off could have affected those items which are inspected in the MOT.

Therefore who confirms that they are now repaired?

Nobody in particular. The people who do the repairs I suppose. Same as with any other repairs you get done between MOTs.

The point is that an accident which doesn't cause a write off can just as easily affect those items which are inspected in the MOT. A £30K brand new Mercedes can suffer serious, but repairable, structural damage and not be written off. A fifteen year old £500 "reliable runner" can suffer minor damage, or even cosmetic damage, and be written off. It wouldn't make much sense to single out the latter car as requiring a new MOT, but not the former, would it? There's no general requirement to get a new MOT after an accident, and if there was "insurance write off" would be a fairly arbitrary criterion to decide whether one was needed.

AdrianC

prowla wrote: »

Well, the £500 initial value was a bit contrived, but OK.

This might come as a shock to you, but there's a lot of £500 cars out there.

OK, so an accident causing a write-off could have affected those items which are inspected in the MOT.

Therefore who confirms that they are now repaired?

So could an accident that DOESN'T cause the car to be written off. The non-write-off damage may well be worse. What then?

I'm not sure if that explains why the MOT should be re-done in the event of such collisions.

I don't think the write-off status is the most important factor in your logic, tbh.

But if not, why don't you quote examples of collisions which would not affect items tested in the MOT?

Perhaps I could pick something like a cracked bumper skin, y'mean? That wouldn't affect the MOT in the slightest. Oh, wait. That's precisely what I _did_ pick.

arcon5

vaio wrote: »

If anything, the opposite is true. Insurers seems to be screwing bodyshops down on price to the point where quality suffers, using non OEM parts and, as above, running their own bodyshops.

Similar thing to insurers setting up/buying legal firms once referral fees were outlawed

Not at all... insurers don't use by far the cheapest contractors. For starters most use the likes of National for windscreens, and anybody whose ever got a quote from them versus more local/smaller suppliers will know how significant the price is.

Same situation when they supply courtesy cars to customers and bill the third party insurer.... nobody on this planet would pay the rates some of these insurance companies would pay for vehicle hire!!