Disputing TPV works

Caramelb

I need advise to see if this is something that I should take further.
I allowed someone to drive my car who I thought had insurance and he got into a accident. He said that it was just the bumper that was damaged. He sent me photo of both cars. I requested for all my data and they sent me some details of the claim

Initially it says 

‘Circumstances - PH vehicle has served across the path of TP vehicle and hit them.’ 

‘TPV Damage - wheel arch drivers side has been dislodged and touches wheel, front wing mirror pushed in, headlight drivers side broken, front bumper damaged.’

‘Uninsured drivers VOE - UD came out of the tunnel & was indicating to move into the left lane. TP was behind the PHV & didn’t see PHV before they hit PHV in the rear.’

 ‘TPI outlay received

Repairs £4004.69

Front driver side bumper Grille wing bonnet and lights damaged Full est and images on file

Matches head on collision with our uninsured driver.

Outlay Paid’

 My concern is that the TP has charged for works not related to the accident and my insurance has just paid out as they will be recovering the full amount from me. I asked the why was the right-wing mirror, the wheelhouse trim, washer jets, front outer door handle, outer door channel moulding, and bumper griddle replaced? When I look at the location of where the damage occurred and also the photos of mine and the Ford Focus it doesn’t seem right to me. It says it was a head on collision but the wing mirror is on the side of the car.  Even still how can the wing mirror get damaged! 

 Also, they have a charge to repair the front bumper but it was replaced! And then there charges on the invoice listed under ‘EXTRAS’ for corrosion protection, Covid 19, alloy wheel refurb, Door foil, Car care kit, E.P.A charge, Diagnostic reset, Tech data + methods, and Sundry services. Should these have been charged? This is all what I asked my insurance company to answer. 

 

it looks like they didn’t even inspect the TP vehicle themselves. They just accept the first invoice and price to close the claim quickly. 
 

angrycrow

Looking at the images there is clear damage to the bumper, front wing and scuffing on the wheel. The wing mirror also has scuffing on the outer edge. There is not a high enough image of your car to show if the wing mirror connected but given the extent of damage to the focus it is higher likely. The light looks to have moved to the right as you look at it and is touching the bonnet, this suggests the headlight brackets are broken, I would expect that anyway given the point of impact and damage to the bumper, the bottom edge of the light forms part of the bumper bracket. 

The door handle and moulding were not replaced they were r+r which is remove and refit. When painting the wing they blend the paint into the door, surface painting. This requires removal of the handle and trim from the door. The door foil is the plastic membrane inside the door that stops water getting into the car. It has to be removed to take off the door handle and they often rip. 

Corrosion protection is to the inside of the new wing to stop it rusting. Epa is disposal of the broken bits and waste materials generated in the repair. Care kit is all the masking materials for when they paint the car. 

You are right in that they have allowed 10 units (around an hour) to repair the bumper but they have also replaced it. I suspect they attempted a repair before giving up and replacing it. You could argue for the repair cost being knocked off but it would only be about £25 dependent on the labour rate.

The better question is why allow wheel refurb appears twice. 

Jenni_D

And the bigger question is ... will you be chasing your "friend" to recover your losses?

marlot

As said by angrycrow, you're mis-reading slightly in that R+R is remove (before painting) and replace (after painting).

>> The better question is why allow wheel refurb appears twice. 
They seem to have photographed both front wheels.  I wonder if the third party vehicle was shunted over into a kerb?

Jumblebumble

Caramelb said:

 

it looks like they didn’t even inspect the TP vehicle themselves. They just accept the first invoice and price to close the claim quickly. 
 

I think you need to look at this a bit more closely from your insurers perspective
You entered into a contract with them to provide insurance and to deal with any issues
You then have created a problem which is outside the contract.
In a normal business transaction  the insurance company would  wish to wash their hands of the issue but the RTA insists they pay and claim back from .

You could have and still could settle up with the TP and keep  your insurers out of this and debate the invoice afterwards  as much as you like with the TP

Now given the above why do you think the insurers would want to be further out of pocket by paying for an inspection and engaging in a dispute at their cost  to lower your liability?
They are already out of pocket as a result of your "friends"  behaviour as they have incured costs in dealing with the issue as well as shelling out money on your behalf.

Caramelb

angrycrow said:

Looking at the images there is clear damage to the bumper, front wing and scuffing on the wheel. The wing mirror also has scuffing on the outer edge. There is not a high enough image of your car to show if the wing mirror connected but given the extent of damage to the focus it is higher likely. The light looks to have moved to the right as you look at it and is touching the bonnet, this suggests the headlight brackets are broken, I would expect that anyway given the point of impact and damage to the bumper, the bottom edge of the light forms part of the bumper bracket. 

The door handle and moulding were not replaced they were r+r which is remove and refit. When painting the wing they blend the paint into the door, surface painting. This requires removal of the handle and trim from the door. The door foil is the plastic membrane inside the door that stops water getting into the car. It has to be removed to take off the door handle and they often rip. 

Corrosion protection is to the inside of the new wing to stop it rusting. Epa is disposal of the broken bits and waste materials generated in the repair. Care kit is all the masking materials for when they paint the car. 

You are right in that they have allowed 10 units (around an hour) to repair the bumper but they have also replaced it. I suspect they attempted a repair before giving up and replacing it. You could argue for the repair cost being knocked off but it would only be about £25 dependent on the labour rate.

The better question is why allow wheel refurb appears twice. 

Thank you for explaining. It’s more clearer to me now. I know nothing about cars but I just wanted to know if it was fair

Caramelb

Jenni_D said:

And the bigger question is ... will you be chasing your "friend" to recover your losses?

Yes I have been chasing my friend as I feel that he should be the one paying for this

Caramelb

Jumblebumble said:

Caramelb said:

 

it looks like they didn’t even inspect the TP vehicle themselves. They just accept the first invoice and price to close the claim quickly. 
 

I think you need to look at this a bit more closely from your insurers perspective
You entered into a contract with them to provide insurance and to deal with any issues
You then have created a problem which is outside the contract.
In a normal business transaction  the insurance company would  wish to wash their hands of the issue but the RTA insists they pay and claim back from .

You could have and still could settle up with the TP and keep  your insurers out of this and debate the invoice afterwards  as much as you like with the TP

Now given the above why do you think the insurers would want to be further out of pocket by paying for an inspection and engaging in a dispute at their cost  to lower your liability?
They are already out of pocket as a result of your "friends"  behaviour as they have incured costs in dealing with the issue as well as shelling out money on your behalf.

How are they out of pocket as I’m literally going to be paying everything back. 

I just simply wanted some clarity on what works was done to the TP. I was never disputing whether I had to pay. If the insurance company had explained as angrycrow did that I wouldn’t have seeked advice elsewhere.