Car Insurance Question

DullGreyGuy

Lablovezel2 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Lablovezel2 said:

I have been told by the garage whos doing the bodyrepair on my car, it's not allowed to keep the parts coming off the car, due to the insurance company will pay for the repair. I was the non-fault party and the thrid party insurance company will sort this out. But. The parts on my car is still my property and they only pay for the new parts and the labour. So why can't i keep them? Are they right on this?

Yes, you had a car with a wing in good condition, after the repair you will still have a car with a wing in good condition and so have been indemnified which is what the law states has to happen. 

If you got the car repaired and were allowed to keep the old parts that you'd mean you have a car with a wing in good condition and now also a spare damaged wing which isn't indemnity but betterment which you have no legal right to. 

Personally, I doubt the insurer cares as there isn't a big market for damaged wings but the garage may have reduced their hourly rate in exchange for them keeping the parts for their non-insurance work. If you want them then either speak to the garage or insurer about buying the parts from them. 

Thank you for the answer.

That's a really good perspective it make sense.

But still a bit dodgy this part because. As i said, that is my propertry, i paid for it. If i can have some benefit from this accident why does it bothers anyone? Yes i will be indemnified but how they know i can really get something from the parts? This is a risk for me as well not a guaranteed "income". The insurance company or the garage can have some benfits (from my parts)? By the way, the repair costs is 2 grand for really minor damages whats barely visible. (thats is why i want to keep them) I don't think a garage reduced the price because at the time when i got the qoute they thought it will be sorted out outside the insurance but when the guy saw the qoute he changed his mind and claimed it. It wasn't my fault but i was one who took extra miles to get it fixed. emails, calls, travel, time, etc. If there isn't a big market for damaged parts than why is illegal to keep them anyway. Probably because sometimes it's not heavily damaged.
So basically even though I own something, the system doesn't let me do well.

"As the owner of the vehicle, you are entitled to keep any parts that are removed from your car during a service or repair, regardless of their condition. When booking in your car for work, it is important that you notify the garage at this stage not to dispose of any old parts that are taken off your vehicle." -from the motor ombudsman website. (However it's not mentioned when an insurance company are involved.)

Thanks again

The Motor Ombudsman is a different scenario, this is when you are paying for the repairs yourself and so the baseline there is they remain your however you could agree with the garage that they keep the parts in exchange for a 10% discount on the bill. 

There are two ways to look at it in this scenario...

1) Insurance Law - would require a bit of digging but for example Insurance Act 1906 S79 states that once an insurer has indemnified someone they i) obtain the right of subrogation and ii) become the owners of any salvage (your used car parts)

2) Common Law - you will be going even further back for the basis of indemnity and the torte of negligence, starts around the 1600s. The legal principle has been established that if someone has caused you a loss you are only entitled to claim back what you have actually loss, you aren't entitled to more than that else that is betterment. 

As mentioned above, after your insurers deal with your claim they get the right of subrogation which means they can step into your shoes and sue the other driver as if they were you. So if they paid the garage £1,000 and let you keep the parts whereas they could have paid the garage £900 had they retained the parts then they are only entitled to reclaim the £900 from the third party insurer as the third party insurer is under no obligation to cover the loss of salvage value.

This would mean at the end of the claim your insurers have a £100 outstanding balance on the claim which in insurance terms would make it a fault claim. 

sheramber

Lablovezel2 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Lablovezel2 said:

I have been told by the garage whos doing the bodyrepair on my car, it's not allowed to keep the parts coming off the car, due to the insurance company will pay for the repair. I was the non-fault party and the thrid party insurance company will sort this out. But. The parts on my car is still my property and they only pay for the new parts and the labour. So why can't i keep them? Are they right on this?

Yes, you had a car with a wing in good condition, after the repair you will still have a car with a wing in good condition and so have been indemnified which is what the law states has to happen. 

If you got the car repaired and were allowed to keep the old parts that you'd mean you have a car with a wing in good condition and now also a spare damaged wing which isn't indemnity but betterment which you have no legal right to. 

Personally, I doubt the insurer cares as there isn't a big market for damaged wings but the garage may have reduced their hourly rate in exchange for them keeping the parts for their non-insurance work. If you want them then either speak to the garage or insurer about buying the parts from them. 

Thank you for the answer.

That's a really good perspective it make sense.

But still a bit dodgy this part because. As i said, that is my propertry, i paid for it. If i can have some benefit from this accident why does it bothers anyone? Yes i will be indemnified but how they know i can really get something from the parts? This is a risk for me as well not a guaranteed "income". The insurance company or the garage can have some benfits (from my parts)? By the way, the repair costs is 2 grand for really minor damages whats barely visible. (thats is why i want to keep them) I don't think a garage reduced the price because at the time when i got the qoute they thought it will be sorted out outside the insurance but when the guy saw the qoute he changed his mind and claimed it. It wasn't my fault but i was one who took extra miles to get it fixed. emails, calls, travel, time, etc. If there isn't a big market for damaged parts than why is illegal to keep them anyway. Probably because sometimes it's not heavily damaged.
So basically even though I own something, the system doesn't let me do well.

"As the owner of the vehicle, you are entitled to keep any parts that are removed from your car during a service or repair, regardless of their condition. When booking in your car for work, it is important that you notify the garage at this stage not to dispose of any old parts that are taken off your vehicle." -from the motor ombudsman website. (However it's not mentioned when an insurance company are involved.)

Thanks again

That implies you are oaying for the service or repair.

The insurance company are paying for your repair so they can keep the damaged part.

If you were paying for the repair you could keep the parts and sell them to off set the cost.

BarelySentientAI

Lablovezel2 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Lablovezel2 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Lablovezel2 said:

I have been told by the garage whos doing the bodyrepair on my car, it's not allowed to keep the parts coming off the car, due to the insurance company will pay for the repair. I was the non-fault party and the thrid party insurance company will sort this out. But. The parts on my car is still my property and they only pay for the new parts and the labour. So why can't i keep them? Are they right on this?

Yes, you had a car with a wing in good condition, after the repair you will still have a car with a wing in good condition and so have been indemnified which is what the law states has to happen. 

If you got the car repaired and were allowed to keep the old parts that you'd mean you have a car with a wing in good condition and now also a spare damaged wing which isn't indemnity but betterment which you have no legal right to. 

Personally, I doubt the insurer cares as there isn't a big market for damaged wings but the garage may have reduced their hourly rate in exchange for them keeping the parts for their non-insurance work. If you want them then either speak to the garage or insurer about buying the parts from them. 

Thank you for the answer.

That's a really good perspective it make sense.

But still a bit dodgy this part because. As i said, that is my propertry, i paid for it. If i can have some benefit from this accident why does it bothers anyone? Yes i will be indemnified but how they know i can really get something from the parts? This is a risk for me as well not a guaranteed "income". The insurance company or the garage can have some benfits (from my parts)? By the way, the repair costs is 2 grand for really minor damages whats barely visible. (thats is why i want to keep them) I don't think a garage reduced the price because at the time when i got the qoute they thought it will be sorted out outside the insurance but when the guy saw the qoute he changed his mind and claimed it. It wasn't my fault but i was one who took extra miles to get it fixed. emails, calls, travel, time, etc. If there isn't a big market for damaged parts than why is illegal to keep them anyway. Probably because sometimes it's not heavily damaged.
So basically even though I own something, the system doesn't let me do well.

"As the owner of the vehicle, you are entitled to keep any parts that are removed from your car during a service or repair, regardless of their condition. When booking in your car for work, it is important that you notify the garage at this stage not to dispose of any old parts that are taken off your vehicle." -from the motor ombudsman website. (However it's not mentioned when an insurance company are involved.)

Thanks again

You don't own the old parts.  Those bits became the property of the insurer when they gave you the new ones.

Can you support your statement? Can't find anything states that. Neither in my policy.

Because that's how insurance works.  It doesn't need to be in your policy.

They repair or replace the damaged thing.  They don't give you an extra one.

You can offer to buy the old parts off the insurer though if you're so keen to have them.

For the extreme case (which is the same principle) look up "can I keep my written off car".  There are more articles about that for you to read.

Lablovezel2

DullGreyGuy said:

Lablovezel2 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Lablovezel2 said:

I have been told by the garage whos doing the bodyrepair on my car, it's not allowed to keep the parts coming off the car, due to the insurance company will pay for the repair. I was the non-fault party and the thrid party insurance company will sort this out. But. The parts on my car is still my property and they only pay for the new parts and the labour. So why can't i keep them? Are they right on this?

Yes, you had a car with a wing in good condition, after the repair you will still have a car with a wing in good condition and so have been indemnified which is what the law states has to happen. 

If you got the car repaired and were allowed to keep the old parts that you'd mean you have a car with a wing in good condition and now also a spare damaged wing which isn't indemnity but betterment which you have no legal right to. 

Personally, I doubt the insurer cares as there isn't a big market for damaged wings but the garage may have reduced their hourly rate in exchange for them keeping the parts for their non-insurance work. If you want them then either speak to the garage or insurer about buying the parts from them. 

Thank you for the answer.

That's a really good perspective it make sense.

But still a bit dodgy this part because. As i said, that is my propertry, i paid for it. If i can have some benefit from this accident why does it bothers anyone? Yes i will be indemnified but how they know i can really get something from the parts? This is a risk for me as well not a guaranteed "income". The insurance company or the garage can have some benfits (from my parts)? By the way, the repair costs is 2 grand for really minor damages whats barely visible. (thats is why i want to keep them) I don't think a garage reduced the price because at the time when i got the qoute they thought it will be sorted out outside the insurance but when the guy saw the qoute he changed his mind and claimed it. It wasn't my fault but i was one who took extra miles to get it fixed. emails, calls, travel, time, etc. If there isn't a big market for damaged parts than why is illegal to keep them anyway. Probably because sometimes it's not heavily damaged.
So basically even though I own something, the system doesn't let me do well.

"As the owner of the vehicle, you are entitled to keep any parts that are removed from your car during a service or repair, regardless of their condition. When booking in your car for work, it is important that you notify the garage at this stage not to dispose of any old parts that are taken off your vehicle." -from the motor ombudsman website. (However it's not mentioned when an insurance company are involved.)

Thanks again

The Motor Ombudsman is a different scenario, this is when you are paying for the repairs yourself and so the baseline there is they remain your however you could agree with the garage that they keep the parts in exchange for a 10% discount on the bill. 

There are two ways to look at it in this scenario...

1) Insurance Law - would require a bit of digging but for example Insurance Act 1906 S79 states that once an insurer has indemnified someone they i) obtain the right of subrogation and ii) become the owners of any salvage (your used car parts)

2) Common Law - you will be going even further back for the basis of indemnity and the torte of negligence, starts around the 1600s. The legal principle has been established that if someone has caused you a loss you are only entitled to claim back what you have actually loss, you aren't entitled to more than that else that is betterment. 

As mentioned above, after your insurers deal with your claim they get the right of subrogation which means they can step into your shoes and sue the other driver as if they were you. So if they paid the garage £1,000 and let you keep the parts whereas they could have paid the garage £900 had they retained the parts then they are only entitled to reclaim the £900 from the third party insurer as the third party insurer is under no obligation to cover the loss of salvage value.

This would mean at the end of the claim your insurers have a £100 outstanding balance on the claim which in insurance terms would make it a fault claim. 

Ok i get it. But still don't think its a fair law.. and my quote gone up by 10% for the next year insurance as a non-faulter... dodgy.
Thx for the answer anyway.

BarelySentientAI

Lablovezel2 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Lablovezel2 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Lablovezel2 said:

I have been told by the garage whos doing the bodyrepair on my car, it's not allowed to keep the parts coming off the car, due to the insurance company will pay for the repair. I was the non-fault party and the thrid party insurance company will sort this out. But. The parts on my car is still my property and they only pay for the new parts and the labour. So why can't i keep them? Are they right on this?

Yes, you had a car with a wing in good condition, after the repair you will still have a car with a wing in good condition and so have been indemnified which is what the law states has to happen. 

If you got the car repaired and were allowed to keep the old parts that you'd mean you have a car with a wing in good condition and now also a spare damaged wing which isn't indemnity but betterment which you have no legal right to. 

Personally, I doubt the insurer cares as there isn't a big market for damaged wings but the garage may have reduced their hourly rate in exchange for them keeping the parts for their non-insurance work. If you want them then either speak to the garage or insurer about buying the parts from them. 

Thank you for the answer.

That's a really good perspective it make sense.

But still a bit dodgy this part because. As i said, that is my propertry, i paid for it. If i can have some benefit from this accident why does it bothers anyone? Yes i will be indemnified but how they know i can really get something from the parts? This is a risk for me as well not a guaranteed "income". The insurance company or the garage can have some benfits (from my parts)? By the way, the repair costs is 2 grand for really minor damages whats barely visible. (thats is why i want to keep them) I don't think a garage reduced the price because at the time when i got the qoute they thought it will be sorted out outside the insurance but when the guy saw the qoute he changed his mind and claimed it. It wasn't my fault but i was one who took extra miles to get it fixed. emails, calls, travel, time, etc. If there isn't a big market for damaged parts than why is illegal to keep them anyway. Probably because sometimes it's not heavily damaged.
So basically even though I own something, the system doesn't let me do well.

"As the owner of the vehicle, you are entitled to keep any parts that are removed from your car during a service or repair, regardless of their condition. When booking in your car for work, it is important that you notify the garage at this stage not to dispose of any old parts that are taken off your vehicle." -from the motor ombudsman website. (However it's not mentioned when an insurance company are involved.)

Thanks again

The Motor Ombudsman is a different scenario, this is when you are paying for the repairs yourself and so the baseline there is they remain your however you could agree with the garage that they keep the parts in exchange for a 10% discount on the bill. 

There are two ways to look at it in this scenario...

1) Insurance Law - would require a bit of digging but for example Insurance Act 1906 S79 states that once an insurer has indemnified someone they i) obtain the right of subrogation and ii) become the owners of any salvage (your used car parts)

2) Common Law - you will be going even further back for the basis of indemnity and the torte of negligence, starts around the 1600s. The legal principle has been established that if someone has caused you a loss you are only entitled to claim back what you have actually loss, you aren't entitled to more than that else that is betterment. 

As mentioned above, after your insurers deal with your claim they get the right of subrogation which means they can step into your shoes and sue the other driver as if they were you. So if they paid the garage £1,000 and let you keep the parts whereas they could have paid the garage £900 had they retained the parts then they are only entitled to reclaim the £900 from the third party insurer as the third party insurer is under no obligation to cover the loss of salvage value.

This would mean at the end of the claim your insurers have a £100 outstanding balance on the claim which in insurance terms would make it a fault claim. 

Ok i get it. But still don't think its a fair law.. and my quote gone up by 10% for the next year insurance as a non-faulter... dodgy.
Thx for the answer anyway.

Dodgy that your insurance goes up after you've been involved in an accident?  Pretty much the opposite of dodgy.

Lablovezel2

BarelySentientAI said:

Lablovezel2 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Lablovezel2 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Lablovezel2 said:

I have been told by the garage whos doing the bodyrepair on my car, it's not allowed to keep the parts coming off the car, due to the insurance company will pay for the repair. I was the non-fault party and the thrid party insurance company will sort this out. But. The parts on my car is still my property and they only pay for the new parts and the labour. So why can't i keep them? Are they right on this?

Yes, you had a car with a wing in good condition, after the repair you will still have a car with a wing in good condition and so have been indemnified which is what the law states has to happen. 

If you got the car repaired and were allowed to keep the old parts that you'd mean you have a car with a wing in good condition and now also a spare damaged wing which isn't indemnity but betterment which you have no legal right to. 

Personally, I doubt the insurer cares as there isn't a big market for damaged wings but the garage may have reduced their hourly rate in exchange for them keeping the parts for their non-insurance work. If you want them then either speak to the garage or insurer about buying the parts from them. 

Thank you for the answer.

That's a really good perspective it make sense.

But still a bit dodgy this part because. As i said, that is my propertry, i paid for it. If i can have some benefit from this accident why does it bothers anyone? Yes i will be indemnified but how they know i can really get something from the parts? This is a risk for me as well not a guaranteed "income". The insurance company or the garage can have some benfits (from my parts)? By the way, the repair costs is 2 grand for really minor damages whats barely visible. (thats is why i want to keep them) I don't think a garage reduced the price because at the time when i got the qoute they thought it will be sorted out outside the insurance but when the guy saw the qoute he changed his mind and claimed it. It wasn't my fault but i was one who took extra miles to get it fixed. emails, calls, travel, time, etc. If there isn't a big market for damaged parts than why is illegal to keep them anyway. Probably because sometimes it's not heavily damaged.
So basically even though I own something, the system doesn't let me do well.

"As the owner of the vehicle, you are entitled to keep any parts that are removed from your car during a service or repair, regardless of their condition. When booking in your car for work, it is important that you notify the garage at this stage not to dispose of any old parts that are taken off your vehicle." -from the motor ombudsman website. (However it's not mentioned when an insurance company are involved.)

Thanks again

The Motor Ombudsman is a different scenario, this is when you are paying for the repairs yourself and so the baseline there is they remain your however you could agree with the garage that they keep the parts in exchange for a 10% discount on the bill. 

There are two ways to look at it in this scenario...

1) Insurance Law - would require a bit of digging but for example Insurance Act 1906 S79 states that once an insurer has indemnified someone they i) obtain the right of subrogation and ii) become the owners of any salvage (your used car parts)

2) Common Law - you will be going even further back for the basis of indemnity and the torte of negligence, starts around the 1600s. The legal principle has been established that if someone has caused you a loss you are only entitled to claim back what you have actually loss, you aren't entitled to more than that else that is betterment. 

As mentioned above, after your insurers deal with your claim they get the right of subrogation which means they can step into your shoes and sue the other driver as if they were you. So if they paid the garage £1,000 and let you keep the parts whereas they could have paid the garage £900 had they retained the parts then they are only entitled to reclaim the £900 from the third party insurer as the third party insurer is under no obligation to cover the loss of salvage value.

This would mean at the end of the claim your insurers have a £100 outstanding balance on the claim which in insurance terms would make it a fault claim. 

Ok i get it. But still don't think its a fair law.. and my quote gone up by 10% for the next year insurance as a non-faulter... dodgy.
Thx for the answer anyway.

Dodgy that your insurance goes up after you've been involved in an accident?  Pretty much the opposite of dodgy.

I wouldn't even call this an accident when i didn't even sit in my car when my neighbour reversed into it by 1 mile/hr causing a 2000 pound damage. YES its DODGY. Ohh. the insurance company has to pay?? This is what they do. I don't care about their profit or loss. I do care about my one. I was sitting at home doing whatever while some broke my car and my insurance rate goes up??? c'mon.

BarelySentientAI

Lablovezel2 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Lablovezel2 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Lablovezel2 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Lablovezel2 said:

I have been told by the garage whos doing the bodyrepair on my car, it's not allowed to keep the parts coming off the car, due to the insurance company will pay for the repair. I was the non-fault party and the thrid party insurance company will sort this out. But. The parts on my car is still my property and they only pay for the new parts and the labour. So why can't i keep them? Are they right on this?

Yes, you had a car with a wing in good condition, after the repair you will still have a car with a wing in good condition and so have been indemnified which is what the law states has to happen. 

If you got the car repaired and were allowed to keep the old parts that you'd mean you have a car with a wing in good condition and now also a spare damaged wing which isn't indemnity but betterment which you have no legal right to. 

Personally, I doubt the insurer cares as there isn't a big market for damaged wings but the garage may have reduced their hourly rate in exchange for them keeping the parts for their non-insurance work. If you want them then either speak to the garage or insurer about buying the parts from them. 

Thank you for the answer.

That's a really good perspective it make sense.

But still a bit dodgy this part because. As i said, that is my propertry, i paid for it. If i can have some benefit from this accident why does it bothers anyone? Yes i will be indemnified but how they know i can really get something from the parts? This is a risk for me as well not a guaranteed "income". The insurance company or the garage can have some benfits (from my parts)? By the way, the repair costs is 2 grand for really minor damages whats barely visible. (thats is why i want to keep them) I don't think a garage reduced the price because at the time when i got the qoute they thought it will be sorted out outside the insurance but when the guy saw the qoute he changed his mind and claimed it. It wasn't my fault but i was one who took extra miles to get it fixed. emails, calls, travel, time, etc. If there isn't a big market for damaged parts than why is illegal to keep them anyway. Probably because sometimes it's not heavily damaged.
So basically even though I own something, the system doesn't let me do well.

"As the owner of the vehicle, you are entitled to keep any parts that are removed from your car during a service or repair, regardless of their condition. When booking in your car for work, it is important that you notify the garage at this stage not to dispose of any old parts that are taken off your vehicle." -from the motor ombudsman website. (However it's not mentioned when an insurance company are involved.)

Thanks again

The Motor Ombudsman is a different scenario, this is when you are paying for the repairs yourself and so the baseline there is they remain your however you could agree with the garage that they keep the parts in exchange for a 10% discount on the bill. 

There are two ways to look at it in this scenario...

1) Insurance Law - would require a bit of digging but for example Insurance Act 1906 S79 states that once an insurer has indemnified someone they i) obtain the right of subrogation and ii) become the owners of any salvage (your used car parts)

2) Common Law - you will be going even further back for the basis of indemnity and the torte of negligence, starts around the 1600s. The legal principle has been established that if someone has caused you a loss you are only entitled to claim back what you have actually loss, you aren't entitled to more than that else that is betterment. 

As mentioned above, after your insurers deal with your claim they get the right of subrogation which means they can step into your shoes and sue the other driver as if they were you. So if they paid the garage £1,000 and let you keep the parts whereas they could have paid the garage £900 had they retained the parts then they are only entitled to reclaim the £900 from the third party insurer as the third party insurer is under no obligation to cover the loss of salvage value.

This would mean at the end of the claim your insurers have a £100 outstanding balance on the claim which in insurance terms would make it a fault claim. 

Ok i get it. But still don't think its a fair law.. and my quote gone up by 10% for the next year insurance as a non-faulter... dodgy.
Thx for the answer anyway.

Dodgy that your insurance goes up after you've been involved in an accident?  Pretty much the opposite of dodgy.

I wouldn't even call this an accident when i didn't even sit in my car when my neighbour reversed into it by 1 mile/hr causing a 2000 pound damage. YES its DODGY. Ohh. the insurance company has to pay?? This is what they do. I don't care about their profit or loss. I do care about my one. I was sitting at home doing whatever while some broke my car and my insurance rate goes up??? c'mon.

There is now proof that you live in a place where your car is more likely to be damaged (because it has actually happened), and that your repairs are expensive (if a 1mph incident caused thousands of pounds of damage).

You are now a bigger risk than you were before, so you should pay more to be insured.

If you think that's dodgy, you might be beyond our help on this forum.

Lablovezel2

BarelySentientAI said:

Lablovezel2 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Lablovezel2 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Lablovezel2 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Lablovezel2 said:

I have been told by the garage whos doing the bodyrepair on my car, it's not allowed to keep the parts coming off the car, due to the insurance company will pay for the repair. I was the non-fault party and the thrid party insurance company will sort this out. But. The parts on my car is still my property and they only pay for the new parts and the labour. So why can't i keep them? Are they right on this?

Yes, you had a car with a wing in good condition, after the repair you will still have a car with a wing in good condition and so have been indemnified which is what the law states has to happen. 

If you got the car repaired and were allowed to keep the old parts that you'd mean you have a car with a wing in good condition and now also a spare damaged wing which isn't indemnity but betterment which you have no legal right to. 

Personally, I doubt the insurer cares as there isn't a big market for damaged wings but the garage may have reduced their hourly rate in exchange for them keeping the parts for their non-insurance work. If you want them then either speak to the garage or insurer about buying the parts from them. 

Thank you for the answer.

That's a really good perspective it make sense.

But still a bit dodgy this part because. As i said, that is my propertry, i paid for it. If i can have some benefit from this accident why does it bothers anyone? Yes i will be indemnified but how they know i can really get something from the parts? This is a risk for me as well not a guaranteed "income". The insurance company or the garage can have some benfits (from my parts)? By the way, the repair costs is 2 grand for really minor damages whats barely visible. (thats is why i want to keep them) I don't think a garage reduced the price because at the time when i got the qoute they thought it will be sorted out outside the insurance but when the guy saw the qoute he changed his mind and claimed it. It wasn't my fault but i was one who took extra miles to get it fixed. emails, calls, travel, time, etc. If there isn't a big market for damaged parts than why is illegal to keep them anyway. Probably because sometimes it's not heavily damaged.
So basically even though I own something, the system doesn't let me do well.

"As the owner of the vehicle, you are entitled to keep any parts that are removed from your car during a service or repair, regardless of their condition. When booking in your car for work, it is important that you notify the garage at this stage not to dispose of any old parts that are taken off your vehicle." -from the motor ombudsman website. (However it's not mentioned when an insurance company are involved.)

Thanks again

The Motor Ombudsman is a different scenario, this is when you are paying for the repairs yourself and so the baseline there is they remain your however you could agree with the garage that they keep the parts in exchange for a 10% discount on the bill. 

There are two ways to look at it in this scenario...

1) Insurance Law - would require a bit of digging but for example Insurance Act 1906 S79 states that once an insurer has indemnified someone they i) obtain the right of subrogation and ii) become the owners of any salvage (your used car parts)

2) Common Law - you will be going even further back for the basis of indemnity and the torte of negligence, starts around the 1600s. The legal principle has been established that if someone has caused you a loss you are only entitled to claim back what you have actually loss, you aren't entitled to more than that else that is betterment. 

As mentioned above, after your insurers deal with your claim they get the right of subrogation which means they can step into your shoes and sue the other driver as if they were you. So if they paid the garage £1,000 and let you keep the parts whereas they could have paid the garage £900 had they retained the parts then they are only entitled to reclaim the £900 from the third party insurer as the third party insurer is under no obligation to cover the loss of salvage value.

This would mean at the end of the claim your insurers have a £100 outstanding balance on the claim which in insurance terms would make it a fault claim. 

Ok i get it. But still don't think its a fair law.. and my quote gone up by 10% for the next year insurance as a non-faulter... dodgy.
Thx for the answer anyway.

Dodgy that your insurance goes up after you've been involved in an accident?  Pretty much the opposite of dodgy.

I wouldn't even call this an accident when i didn't even sit in my car when my neighbour reversed into it by 1 mile/hr causing a 2000 pound damage. YES its DODGY. Ohh. the insurance company has to pay?? This is what they do. I don't care about their profit or loss. I do care about my one. I was sitting at home doing whatever while some broke my car and my insurance rate goes up??? c'mon.

There is now proof that you live in a place where your car is more likely to be damaged (because it has actually happened), and that your repairs are expensive (if a 1mph incident caused thousands of pounds of damage).

You are now a bigger risk than you were before, so you should pay more to be insured.

If you think that's dodgy, you might be beyond our help on this forum.

"There is now proof that you live in a place where your car is more likely to be damaged"
Do you really think one regular car park is more dangerous than others in the case when someone reverse into an unoccupied car?
"and that your repairs are expensive"
Still not my fault, thats why paid for the insurance before and this why THE OTHER DRIVERS quote should go up NOT my.
"You are now a bigger risk than you were before, so you should pay more to be insured."
thats the key Not me but the other driver.... (this is why the question "at fault or not).

But still thank you for the answer simply don't agree how the system works. 
bye

DullGreyGuy

Lablovezel2 said:
Ok i get it. But still don't think its a fair law.

It may not seem "fair" to you but then you are talking about some damaged car parts and already said, if you speak to the insurer they may well say you can have them and instruct the garage appropriately. 

Think about a bigger claim, a policyholder had a pair of 10ct diamond earrings worth just under £250,000. They lost 1 of the earrings and they were branded so we couldn't just make a single replacement one. So we paid out £250,000 less the £100 or whatever it was. Under insurance law that means the remaining earring becomes our property as salvage, we can sell the platinum for scrap and sell the 5ct diamond for £90,000 or so.

How would it be fair that the customer would get £250,000 from us plus £90,000 from selling the stone? 
If that is how it worked there would be a massive moral risk as if you needed a quick £90k you could but a pair, drop one down the drain outside the shop and instantly your £90k up.