Car Insurers and recommended repairers

Correct however if the insurers repair company is not approved by the manufacturer then the APW becomes viod , some manufacturers now offer

In which case the insurers should take every care to ensure that the work done conforms to the warranty needs, hence *their* choice of repairer is put forward. If the insured wishes to sail his own boat, well let him get on with it - provided that, some years down the line, he is willing to accept the consequences of his actions.

The principle of indemnity in insurance policies in such circumstances only goes as far as the claimant allows it to go.

It doesnt matter how carefully the ins co selects a repairer if that garage is not approved by the manufacture of the vehicle then the APW will be void .No company will honour a warranty on anothers repair work unless they exert some form of quality control over that company

Which is why I had my bike repaired at one of the approved service centre's for Yamaha. The insurance company was happy to pay for this, so I fail to understand why people think they would force people to accept their own service centre.

Exactly, and insurers are far more aware of this need than "some bloke down the pub"' hence their choice of repairer would usually take this into account.

What does it say in your policy document? Is it not the case that you signed up to the policy and its T&C when you paid your premium. If you don't like the terms, take your business elsewhere (once the claim is completed, obviously!). Caveat emptor.

FWIW, my car insurance (Norwich Union) says that I can use any repairer I like, but if I want the courtesy car available on the policy while repairs are being done, I have to use their authorised repairers.

I must admit I did think that the reason the only authorised repairer is miles away from me is possibly because they are the only ones willing to the job as cheap as the insurer wants which obviously calls into question the quality of the work....

Yes. I'll be more careful next time. And I certainly wont be using this insurer - Swiftcover - again.

They're still trying to get me to use their recommended repairer. And now they're saying they only just recieved the quote etc from my chosen repairer, even though I know, for a fact, that it was sent over a week ago. Looks like they're deliberately delaying things to prove a point and trying to get me to change my mind.

They;re also saying now that they'll only pay whatever their recommended repairer was going to charge and if my repairer want more I'll have to pay the difference.

Seems a bit of a con this. Find a garage that'll do the work for next to nothing, then refuse to pay anyone else more than this.

Unless your quote is unreasonably high, they can't do this. If you are unhappy with their repairer, you should authorise your repairer now and pay him yourself. Then require your insurer to reimburse you. If they pay you less than the full amount, take them to court for the difference.

Ronald Raygun wrote: [snip]

IIRC, the FOS obliges insurers to stand over work done by their approved contractors.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Nah, take them to the FOS (Financial Ombudsman Service) instead. [You can always take them to court afterwards!]

In fact, tell them *now* that if they won't pay the (reasonable charge of the) local repairer, then you'd be taking them to the FOS. That would incur a fee for the insurer (from FOS) of several hundred pounds, which they can't get away from, so might give them more inclination to accept your repairer's quote!

Is that legally correct then? Would the FOS back me up on this?

I'll have to wait and see what the insurer says first I think...

Surely FOS would have to take into account the policy wording which (on mine) states:

"If Your Car is damaged We will use one of Our Recommended repairers to repair it. If You choose not to use them We may not pay more than Our Recommended repairer would have charged and We may choose to settle the claim by a financial payment."

AIUI this means Swiftcover would simply send the policyholder a cheque for what their recommended repairer would have charged.

"may" is the word

Yep. Thats what they're saying...

It might depend on whether the Ombudsman thinks that is fair. Fortunately, AIUI, the Ombudsman doesn't just look at the law -- they try to reach a fair outcome from looking at all the facts.

"AnthonyL" wrote

At which point the OP makes an official complaint to the insurer, goes through their complaints procedure, they still say they won't pay any more, so he goes to the FOS. It's free to the OP, costs several hundred pounds for the insurer, and even if the Ombudsman finds in the insurer's favour, they are still several hundred pounds down. It'd be cheaper for them to pay a bit more to the OP and not have to go through the FOS, even if they are going to win!

Reminds me of an experience a friend of mine had with a well known firm of VW tuners in the Oxford area with his Passat. Went in for a gearbox change and some engine mods. Driving back down the motorway a wobble developed which got so bad he soon had to pull over. At this point he found three of the wheelnuts on one front wheel missing and the fourth about to fall out. He got home by pinching one nut from each of the other three wheels. Next morning it wouldn't even start. Turned out they'd trapped the wiring loom between the engine and box when fitting the box and buggered the cold start circuit. Their response was to decline to answer any of his emails.

You sure? Is it not that they look at what's fair because the law says it must be? I'd have thought an insurance contract is a consumer contract within the scope of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (or whatever they're called) which makes unfair terms therein legally unenforceable?

That can't be right. The insurers would then be at the mercy of all manner of disgruntled customers who would make unfounded complaints just out of spite. Or would they then have to sue the customers for their fine back?