Insurer refusing manufacturer‑approved repair on a car under warranty

TWDave

Insurer demanding several‑thousand‑pound payment unless I use their non‑approved repairer – normal for a car still under warranty?

Hi all,

I’m in a dispute with my insurer and would appreciate views on whether this is normal or acceptable.

The car is a 4‑year‑old Kia, still covered by the standard 7‑year manufacturer warranty. After an accident (fault shared between both parties), I followed the insurer’s process and asked them to confirm whether their chosen repairer was manufacturer‑approved. They confirmed it was not.

I then asked whether using that repairer could affect my warranty. They said they did not agree it would cause a warranty issue, but they also refused to guarantee in writing that it wouldn’t.

Because of that uncertainty, I arranged for the car to be taken to a manufacturer‑approved bodyshop. Their estimate was in the region of £8k+, and they said the repair simply couldn’t be done to manufacturer standards for the much lower “fixed price” the insurer was quoting (around £1–2k).

It’s also worth mentioning that the insurer’s nominated repairer has never seen the car and has provided no breakdown of the £1–2k figure. They have confirmed that this is not the cost of the repair itself — it is simply the amount they would bill the insurer under a fixed‑price internal agreement. The insurer and the repairer have common ownership, so it appears the repairer accepts a loss on the job while the insurer then asks me to pay the difference, which is far more than the combined group would actually “lose” if I used the manufacturer‑approved repairer.

When I’ve looked into this, it seems fairly common for insurers to charge an additional excess of a couple of hundred pounds if you choose your own repairer. But in this case, the insurer isn’t talking about a modest additional excess — they are effectively asking me to fund a several‑thousand‑pound difference. The manufacturer‑approved repairer currently holding the car has told me they have never known an insurer to ask for a payment on this scale before.

My policy does say that if I choose an alternative repairer, I may have to pay any difference. But I am only choosing the manufacturer‑approved repairer because the insurer’s option does not come with any guarantee that my manufacturer warranty will remain intact. If their repairer could unambiguously preserve the warranty, I would have no reason to go elsewhere. My understanding is that comprehensive insurance should return the car to its pre‑accident condition, including the warranty being preserved and the car retaining its pre‑accident value.

I also paid the several‑hundred‑pounds excess as soon as the insurer requested it, which was about a month ago. The car is still unrepaired, and given the dispute over the repair route, I’m now feeling a bit aggrieved that the excess has been taken while no progress has been made on actually fixing the vehicle.

I’m now in the complaints process with the car unrepaired and at risk of losing the courtesy car while this drags on. I’ve tried to take it to the Financial Ombudsman, but the insurer hasn’t issued a final response letter. They’ve held the same position for over two weeks, but are saying they have up to 8 weeks before they need to close the complaint. The Ombudsman has said they won’t look at it until the insurer confirms they’ve finished considering the complaint, or the 8 weeks has passed.

Has anyone seen this before? What’s the usual position when a car is still under manufacturer warranty but the insurer wants to use a non‑approved repairer?

Happy to provide more detail if helpful.

XRS200

What has the manufacturer said about any possible future warranty issues?

TWDave

It’s not clear to me how I would get a clear view on this from Kia. I called Kia Accident Assist, but they simply passed me straight to my local Kia‑approved repairer. I was hoping the insurer would be able to confirm that their proposed repair route would preserve the warranty, but they’ve refused to give any written assurance.

From the correspondence I’ve had, the insurer has said they “cannot guarantee, control, or assume liability for any future warranty decisions made by Kia” and that any future warranty decision would be “solely at the discretion of the manufacturer”. They’ve also said they can’t guarantee only Kia‑sourced parts and can’t accept liability if Kia were to reject a future warranty claim.

So I’m genuinely confused about whether the insurer’s repair route would be fine in all scenarios, including niche ones. I can’t seem to get a clear answer from anyone. I feel like the insurer should be able to unambiguously state that their repair is manufacturer‑approved and warranty‑safe — and if they can’t, then they should meet the cost of a repair that is.

Are you under the impression that I should be able to independently get Kia to approve a repair carried out at a repairer that isn’t Kia‑approved? That’s the part I’m struggling with, because Kia Accident Assist just redirected me back to the approved repairer, and the insurer won’t give the detail of how their repairer would repair the car for the Kia approved repairer to confirm whether it would be warranty‑compliant.

When I asked the insurer for a full breakdown of the work they would do and the parts they would use, the only response I got was:

“Our vehicle damage assessors are fully qualified, and all repairs are completed in accordance with the manufacturer’s approved repair methods and industry standards.”

But when I asked for assurance around genuine parts and a written guarantee that the repair would unambiguously preserve the manufacturer warranty, they refused to give either of those assurances — essentially just telling me everything would be fine.

So the choice I’m being given is: accept a repair where it’s unclear whether there may be future warranty issues, or pay several thousand pounds to guarantee that isn’t the case.

eskbanker

Putting aside the point of principle, what's the extent of the damage, i.e. is it solely bodywork panels, etc, or is there mechanical work to be done - in other words, what's the likelihood of any repairs actually impacting areas where warranty could realistically come into play?

MattMattMattUK

Some insurers have repair deals with garages, so it is £2k regardless, the garage charges them £2k for a basic single panel spray, as well as something costing the garage £8k, they win because most are small scrapes, the insurer likes the fixed cost.

Baldytyke88

I don't know anything about Kia warranty, but a quick Google says this is a manufacturer warranty/insurance?

TWDave

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82043254#Comment_82043254

I don't really understand? When you buy a Kia, as standard it comes with a 7 year Warranty whereby Kia will fix all issues (beyond standard wear and tear) that occur in the first 7 years, provided the car is maintained and repaired (when necessary, for example after an accident) by a Kia approved workshop, or a non Kia-approved workshop who can evidence the work is equivalent standard (e.g. using genuine Kia parts, or parts that can be evidenced to be of the same standard). Over the last 4 years I have paid a slight premium to have the car serviced at a Kia Dealer so I have no doubt the warranty is preserved. The 7 year Warranty was a primary reason I bought a Kia. The actions of my insurer are being casual about whether the warranty will be fully retained or not or asking me to pay several thousand pounds if I want to be sure. I don't think that is acceptable.

TWDave

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82043199#Comment_82043199

It's the front corner of the car so includes headlights and areas that parking sensors, radar,.cable looms would be in. I think there is a reasonable chance that a sub standard repair could create problems in the electrical systems that could present in the central system (radar system, cruise control, electric drive system etc) and it be unclear whether that is as a result of the repair.

My concern is there is a future problem where Kia says that the fault is because of the repair that was conducted by an unapproved workshop and the insurer says the problem is in a part of the car we didn't touch. At that point what do I do?

I don't see why when I have comprehensive insurance I should have to accept the risk of that happening in the future.

TWDave

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82043244#Comment_82043244

Yes this is what they have said.

It does seem a bit odd that they do that when the repairer network seems to be owned by the same parent company as the insurer so any profit or loss on that stays within the same overall organisation anyway.

I think this is a side point though when I think it through. Shouldn't an insurer that insurers a car that is under a standard manufacturers warranty that would have been known at the point I purchased the insurance policy, expect to have to repair it in a way that unambiguously preserved the warranty and be able to evidence and guarantee that? Shouldn't the insurers default repairer be manufacturer approved? Or if not should it not pass the job to a manufacturer approved repairer as standard. I don't really understand why I'm having to have this fight with them.

MattMattMattUK

That depends entirely on the terms and conditions, but generally they have the right to repair the vehicle in a garage of their choice, provided the work is done to a sufficient standard.

TWDave

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82043266#Comment_82043266

Thank you, but what is a sufficient standard? For a car under the manufacturer warranty that should be a standard that preserves the warranty right? Otherwise the car is devalued as compared to other similar cars it doesn't have a intact standard manufacturer warranty? If the car is devalued they haven't returned us to our pre-accident condition which we should expect under comprehensive insurance shouldn't we?

How can they give confidence that it is repaired to that standard if they are not manufacturer approved, or can't give guarantees that the work is to a standard that will unambiguously preserved the warranty?