Car Insurers and recommended repairers

You are allowed to take it to a VAT registered garage of your choice as long as the quote is reasonable and the work to sufficient standard.

OK. Thanks for the clarification.

The insurers are spouting all sorts of stuff like:- There'll be a considerable delay while they get authorisation, I'll only get the amount for repairs that the authorised repairer was going to charge, the work wont be guaranteed etc.

"paulfoel" wrote

Hmmm. Has the authorised repairer actually seen the car, to be able to give a good view on how much they *would* actually charge?

"paulfoel" wrote

Eh? It's not up to your insurer to tell your local garage whether they can guarantee their own work or not!

No way can it be "the law" that the garage you use must be VAT registered, although it's pretty unlikely you would find a garage which isn't.

There isn't really any law as such. What matters is what's in the agreement between you and the insurer. Read your insurance policy.

The problem lies in who decides what is "reasonable". It may be that they can say that the quote by their preferred repairer is substantially more favourable than the one you can obtain independently, and that would make your local repairer's quote unreasonable in their view.

But it would be unreasonable of them to expect you to suffer any inconvenience as a result of using theirs. It shouldn't matter to you how far away they are, though, as you need never visit them. The repairers should collect the car from you and return it to you. If this is not possible, your insurers would need to reimburse your taxi fare there and back. That may be enough to redress the balance, and make your local garage suddenly become "reasonable" again.

OK. Thanks for the clarification.

The insurers are spouting all sorts of stuff like:- There'll be a considerable delay while they get authorisation, I'll only get the amount for repairs that the authorised repairer was going to charge, the work wont be guaranteed etc.

The suggestion that you are entitled to take it where you like is completely wrong. The insurers are paying so they are entitled to choose who will do the repairs. They use approved repairers because having been approved they guarantee the repair and also have a decent scheme of inspection so that the insurers don't have to send an inspector to check that each job has been done properly. The bottom line is that by doing this they keep the price of repairs lower and therefore the premiums are as well.

Peter Crosland

Its irelevant what the contract says about who repairs your car , its a restrictive practice which is unenforceable , it doesnt even matter if there quote is cheaper , as long as the garage you choose meets all the required repair standards and thier price is reasonable then you can ignore the insurance company gibberish (most companie will send an assessor out anyway)

What you have to watch out for with the insurers recomended garages is they cant cover anticorrsion warranties offered by the manufactuers , it will viod any manufactuers anticorrsion warranty and they often use patent instead of oem parts .Car manufacturers usally have a list of recomended repair centres that will cover any warranties or the manufacturer themselves will continue cover if your vehicle is repaired by thier recomended repair centre

"Peter Crosland" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

It's nothing whatsoever to do with quality.

The big bodyshops sign up to do cheap rates for the big insurers, in return for having work channelled their way. Because the rates are cheap, they're forced to churn the jobs through, which results in lower quality

- and let's hope not many complain.

If the OP is at fault on the claim, then he's stuffed. His insurance are paying, they can point him at whoever they want, and he's stuck. He would almost certainly have agreed to that by taking the policy out, if he'd read the paperwork.

If, otoh, he is not at fault, then he doesn't even need to get his own insurance company involved. Claim direct from the other party or use a third-party "accident management" company. You are then much more in control.

Peter your wrong on this one the insurance company can not make you use one of thier repair centres , its a restrictive practice in the same way car dealerships cant make you have your car service with them to avoid warranty loss

I went through this with norwich union 6 years ago . As long as the price is reasonable then they can not refuse to pay out

The final crunch came when i asked them if they would honour the manufacturers anticorrsion warranty (6 years) and garentee that only oem components would be used in both instances they said no they couldnt .

Its nothing to do with keeping prices for insurance down its more to do with keeping insurance companies profits up

You will also find that many insurance companies actually own thier own repair centres or are heavily invested within them

AIUI the policyholder is legally entitled to have whoever he likes repair his car whether or not the insurance company use 'approved' repairers. The contract terms cannot exclude this right.

The notion that the insurers are paying is a fallacy. The basis of an insurance contract is generally one of indemnity. That means (in theory) that *he* incursr the costs, and his insurers refund them (even if in practice the insurers end up paying the repairer directly). It is *his* car and *he*, not the insurers, is entitled to choose to whom to entrust the repairs, provided the cost is not unreasonable. In making that choice he is entitled to take into account the reputation of the various competing repairers, and if appropriate to dismiss the insurers' preferred repairers as unsuitable.

My experience of 'approved' repairers are that they are s**te. Worse than s**te, in fact.

FWIW, I have read that it is your choice alone, and that has been by experience as well. The Ins Co usually want you to use their scheme, but don't *insist* upon it.

According to the docs I've seen that is one of the stipulations. I couldn't find the docs on-line but a bit of googling reveals what you'd expect....repair centres saying you have the legal right to get your car repaired where you want, and warranty companies saying you must use their repair centre :) However some warranty companies do state that you have the choice but it must be VAT registered and they would "prefer" you to use their recommended garage. I think the VAT registered is so you don't get your mate down the pub to repair it and claim top whack.

I'm quite sure I'm right though, you can take your car where you want and insurance companies that say otherwise are just doing what companies always do...incorrectly inform you of your rights for their own gain. If there was no such law then the OP's company would say flat out it must be done at their repair centre rather than just dragging their heels.

Hmm. If your car has an anti-perforation warranty which is much longer than the mechanical one some makers insist on repair work being checked by their dealer for it to be honoured in the event of a claim. And rightly so

- I can't imagine the average body shop bothering to replace wax etc that doesn't show from the outside.

Why shouldn't your mate down the pub do it and claim *reasonable* whack? It might perhaps be reasonable for the insurers to wish to be satisfied that whoever does it is in fact running an established bona fide business, and has experience of that sort of work, but merely being VAT registered doesn't necessarily correlate well with not being a cowboy.

In any case one might ask what concern it is of the insurer whether the repairers are cowboys or not (given that *their* preferred repairers are likely to be more cowboy-like than *your* preferred repairers). After all, if you're happy with the job, and it works out cheaper, the insurers ought to be happy. If the repair later turns out to have been badly done, it will be your problem to fight it out with the repairers, not the insurers'.

Care to provide a cite for that assertion?

Peter Crosland

Peter , it falls foul of the varoius laws which prohibit restrictive practices and anticompetitive behavour , very similar to tied serviceing of vehicles to retain manufacturers warranty which was ruled against about 5 years ago

Thier are also warranty issues , most manufacturers anticorrosion warranties will be viod if the work is not performed by manufacturer approved companies using oem parts , the insurance companies and thier approved garages will not honour such warranties either so the contract terms making you effectively sign this away are unfair

As i posted earlier had this issue with norwich union some years back

But the anti-perforation warranty has nothing to do with one's motor insurer. That is provided by the vehicle manufacturer and is more of a wear and tear situation, which is not usually covered by motor insurance policies.

Quite so, but the point is that you are entitled to such repair as will reinstate the vehicle to the way it was before the accident, which includes having an intact manufacturer's warranty. The insurer cannot insist that you get work done in such a way as to invalidate your pre-existing warranty.

But OEM parts are and should be fitted. I would not accept anything less when my bike was repaired under insurance. Why should I accept an after market exhaust to replace an OEM?