Cash In Lieu of Repairs

debtdebt

OP, you still need to notify your insurers of the incident.

Why don't you just ask them for the money when you get the repairs done?

Aretnap

AdrianC wrote: »

Not necessarily, and it's impossible to quantify anyway.

Perhaps the OP is in the habit of running his cars into the ground then scrapping them - zero devaluation.

This is a misunderstanding of the situation. The loss in value occurs immediately, and it's this that the OP is entitled to recompense for. What he might or might not subsequently do with the car is neither here nor there. The loss of value is normally quantified in terms of the reasonable cost of repairing the damage - whether or not the repairs were actually carried out at that price. (In all cases of damage to property it's the diminution of value that you're claiming for - the repair cost is only relevant because it provides a measure of that diminution).

The key case law on this point seems to be Coles v Hetherton. That case involved an insurance company which was having repairs done at the heavily discounted rate charged by their approved repairers - and then billing the third party insurers for the full market cost of the repairs which would be paid by the average punter turning up at a bodyshop. In other words, they were claiming more than they actually paid for repairs. The court of appeal ruled that this was all entirely legal. As it's the diminution in value that's being claimed for, measured in terms of the reasonable repair cost, it doesn't matter that you actually managed to pay a lower price for repairs (or by extension, didn't pay for them at all) - you can still claim for the full market rate for repairs. Arguably not a great result for the consumer, as higher repair claims ultimately mean higher premiums for us all, but consistent with the way the law on property has developed over the years.

By extension, if the OP decides to put up with a big dent in his car, or bodges it up with gaffer tape, he's still entitled to claim the money that repairing it properly would have cost him - as compensation for the fact that instead of a nice shiny new car, he now has a crappy one which is covered in dents and is held together with gaffer tape. So yes, he is entitled to cash in lieu of repairs. He's not obliged to spend his payout on repairs, any more than he'd be obliged to spend the money on an identical car, or indeed any sort of car at all, if his car were written off.

OTOH he does have to provide evidence of the cost of repairs, and an invoice for work which is actually done is better evidence than an estimate from a garage based on a quick once over by a mechanic. There seem to have been some cases where people have tried to take the mickey, been evasive about whether they actually had the repairs done or what they actually paid, and ended up not getting payouts (linky). I'd have thought that if he has multiple quotes from different garages and is honest about his reasons for not having the repairs done immediately then that should be acceptable evidence... but ultimately "it depends" as a lawyer would say.

One other option open to him would be to go through a claims management company who will provide a like for like replacement vehicle for him while his is being repaired, ensuring that there is no disruption to his business. That would probably work out considerably more expensive for the third party's insurer than just handing over the money now - something that he could point out when he suggests that he's thinking of it...?

caprikid1

Aretnap wrote: »

This is a misunderstanding of the situation. The loss in value occurs immediately, and it's this that the OP is entitled to recompense for. What he might or might not subsequently do with the car is neither here nor there. The loss of value is normally quantified in terms of the reasonable cost of repairing the damage - whether or not the repairs were actually carried out at that price. (In all cases of damage to property it's the diminution of value that you're claiming for - the repair cost is only relevant because it provides a measure of that diminution).

The key case law on this point seems to be Coles v Hetherton. That case involved an insurance company which was having repairs done at the heavily discounted rate charged by their approved repairers - and then billing the third party insurers for the full market cost of the repairs which would be paid by the average punter turning up at a bodyshop. In other words, they were claiming more than they actually paid for repairs. The court of appeal ruled that this was all entirely legal. As it's the diminution in value that's being claimed for, measured in terms of the reasonable repair cost, it doesn't matter that you actually managed to pay a lower price for repairs (or by extension, didn't pay for them at all) - you can still claim for the full market rate for repairs. Arguably not a great result for the consumer, as higher repair claims ultimately mean higher premiums for us all, but consistent with the way the law on property has developed over the years.

By extension, if the OP decides to put up with a big dent in his car, or bodges it up with gaffer tape, he's still entitled to claim the money that repairing it properly would have cost him - as compensation for the fact that instead of a nice shiny new car, he now has a crappy one which is covered in dents and is held together with gaffer tape. So yes, he is entitled to cash in lieu of repairs. He's not obliged to spend his payout on repairs, any more than he'd be obliged to spend the money on an identical car, or indeed any sort of car at all, if his car were written off.

OTOH he does have to provide evidence of the cost of repairs, and an invoice for work which is actually done is better evidence than an estimate from a garage based on a quick once over by a mechanic. There seem to have been some cases where people have tried to take the mickey, been evasive about whether they actually had the repairs done or what they actually paid, and ended up not getting payouts (linky). I'd have thought that if he has multiple quotes from different garages and is honest about his reasons for not having the repairs done immediately then that should be acceptable evidence... but ultimately "it depends" as a lawyer would say.

One other option open to him would be to go through a claims management company who will provide a like for like replacement vehicle for him while his is being repaired, ensuring that there is no disruption to his business. That would probably work out considerably more expensive for the third party's insurer than just handing over the money now - something that he could point out when he suggests that he's thinking of it...?

As has been stated, it's quite clear what the legal position is but merely asking is not always going to get you to the legally stated position, only a court can confirm that followed by potentially bailiffs to enforce it.


The threat of accident management companies does really not seem to phase insurance companies any more. Having dealt with Direct Line recently he is most likely to end up out of pocked unless he is willing to exhaust huge amounts of time.


All you can do is ask and then decide.

Aretnap

caprikid1 wrote: »

As has been stated, it's quite clear what the legal position is but merely asking is not always going to get you to the legally stated position, only a court can confirm that followed by potentially bailiffs to enforce it.

True, if the other side doesn't give him what he wants it becomes a question of how much time and effort he's willing to put into it. However it's more than a little melodramatic to suggest that he'd need bailiffs to enforce a judgement against an insurance company.

The threat of accident management companies does really not seem to phase insurance companies any more.

Perhaps. But if he does go to an AMC he gets a replacement car while the repairs on his are being done, which means no (or minimal) disruption to his work whenever the repairs get done. So getting an AMC involved solves his problem either way.