Damage to Car, insurers not authorising works

Sandtree

neptunio said:
Well it's good to hear you say that, the garage it's with now are saying the whole bumper needs replacing. But when I looked at it, like you, I thought, oh that bit at the bottom just needs replacing surely!

Is this the only damage to the bumper or would the bumper have needed replacing irrespective of this aspect of the damage?

I've never been good at looking car damage photos but is it actually ripped damaged etc? It almost looks like its just been pulled and so has dropped down in front of the exhaust and that it could be encouraged to go back above/behind the front of the exhaust pipes.

neptunio

Sandtree said:

neptunio said:
Well it's good to hear you say that, the garage it's with now are saying the whole bumper needs replacing. But when I looked at it, like you, I thought, oh that bit at the bottom just needs replacing surely!

Is this the only damage to the bumper or would the bumper have needed replacing irrespective of this aspect of the damage?

I've never been good at looking car damage photos but is it actually ripped damaged etc? It almost looks like its just been pulled and so has dropped down in front of the exhaust and that it could be encouraged to go back above/behind the front of the exhaust pipes.

Yeah the whole thing is warped, and there is a rip:


The only damage I can see is to this black plastic bit that sits at the bottom of the bumper though.

Were_Doomed

neptunio said:

Were_Doomed said:

Sandtree said:

I wouldnt describe the tow eye behind the rear bumper panel as "something under the car"

I agree .. and the cover for the towing eye can be clearly seen in the photo above. Did you @neptunio have the towing hook with you in the car? (Would normally be in the boot near the spare wheel).

Yeah we had a look for it but couldn't find it in the car. No idea where it has gone to to be fair I never remember removing it etc.

I would be amazed if an RAC patrol didn't have a towing eye/bolt that would fit a Mazda ... they're pretty universal across almost all makes and models.

neptunio

I suppose if it ends up going down as two claims I'll be required to pay my excess twice as well? Which would be another £400!
The insurer seems to keep requesting a quote from the garage, then the garage sends the quote, then the insurer refuses to authorise it. I'm now in this loop for the third time. I've tried to get in touch with my 'claim handler' but she never seems to be answering the phone when I get put through!
I think the frustrating part is just being left out of the loop the whole time, I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes between insurer and garage etc., and every time it's been refused the insurer hasn't given me any explanation, I've just had to call the garage, and then the garage says, yeah they didn't authorise it again. 

Sandtree

Is this their approved repairer or a garage of your own choosing?

If they counted it as a second claim then it would be a second excess, if they are able to make a recover from the RAC then your excess could also be recovered. However if they cannot you'd then have two fault accidents within a policy year that is likely to have a fairly hard hit on your premiums and would potentially mean your NCD goes down even if you have NCDP (you'd need to check the exact terms of the protection). 

neptunio

Sandtree said:

Is this their approved repairer or a garage of your own choosing?

If they counted it as a second claim then it would be a second excess, if they are able to make a recover from the RAC then your excess could also be recovered. However if they cannot you'd then have two fault accidents within a policy year that is likely to have a fairly hard hit on your premiums and would potentially mean your NCD goes down even if you have NCDP (you'd need to check the exact terms of the protection). 

Yeah this is their approved repairer.
If they came back and said its a second claim, and the garage come back and say for sure £700, I might just pay for it myself, even though it's £300 more than claiming minus excess, just since it will keep at least one claim off my record.
I only had 2 years NCD anyway, so that's all gone with this first claim.

Sandtree

Ultimately put in a complaint that you strongly believe that the damage was sustained during the original incident... it was not pre-existing damage and that there is no evidence that the RAC caused the damage as you were with them and you'd have expected to heard such significant damage being caused.

neptunio

Sandtree said:

Ultimately put in a complaint that you strongly believe that the damage was sustained during the original incident... it was not pre-existing damage and that there is no evidence that the RAC caused the damage as you were with them and you'd have expected to heard such significant damage being caused.

Yes thanks, I seem to be moving up through their escalation process, which ultimately ends with the financial ombudsman. If it gets to that point and I still haven't been able to prove the accident caused the damage I suppose I'll just have to cough up and pay. It just seems so harsh that I have taken out insurance, had an accident and they might get out of paying for the damages. What is insurance for if that's the case?
It also seems strange that I have to prove the accident caused the damage, rather than the insurer having to prove it was pre-existing etc. It's back with their engineers to look over my explanations and extra photos, but I don't have much faith they will suddenly change their tune. It feels like their mind has been made up already.

Sandtree

neptunio said:

Sandtree said:

Ultimately put in a complaint that you strongly believe that the damage was sustained during the original incident... it was not pre-existing damage and that there is no evidence that the RAC caused the damage as you were with them and you'd have expected to heard such significant damage being caused.

Yes thanks, I seem to be moving up through their escalation process, which ultimately ends with the financial ombudsman. If it gets to that point and I still haven't been able to prove the accident caused the damage I suppose I'll just have to cough up and pay. It just seems so harsh that I have taken out insurance, had an accident and they might get out of paying for the damages. What is insurance for if that's the case?
It also seems strange that I have to prove the accident caused the damage, rather than the insurer having to prove it was pre-existing etc. It's back with their engineers to look over my explanations and extra photos, but I don't have much faith they will suddenly change their tune. It feels like their mind has been made up already.

A little unfair to criticise that insurance wont cover it because they will, its just not cost effective for you to have two claims when the second claim is low value. The concept of insurance is to exchange the risk of a big loss (eg your home burns down) for a definite small loss (ie the premiums), as many find out the economics of insurance means little claims are not cost effective to make but insurance isnt really for little claims (and indeed the excess was created to stop silly little claims in personal lines and for commercial lines where an excess can be £1m or more to ensure they arent paying a profit margin and tax to the insurer for what is guaranteed losses)

In civil law there is no "innocent til proven guilty" type concept and its really for both sides to be able to evidence their conclusions... the ultimate resolution being it going before a judge who has to then decide "on the balance of probabilities" who does he believe.

Jack_Cork

AdrianC said:

I presume they pulled you out using the towing eye visible under the NS tail light?

NS? Not OS?