CL500 2008

[DSM10000]

I would not know where the law stands on car valuations
I have legal cover on the policy and all excesses are waved, everything being claimed from the other partys insurer.

You are missing the point, we are not talking about valuation here.

Your vehicle was damaged by a third party who admit liability, the Insurance company they use have a responsibility to repair your car to the stanadard it was prior to the incident. The costs are for them to bear .

 

[DSM10000]

As I had originally posted in bodywork but then found insurance heading, Not sure how you would choose.

Spliting the thread makes it harder to keep track of replies etc and may affect the number of replies you get.

Your issue is purely an insurance matter. Hopefully a Moderator will try to merge the threads.

 

[Atavus]

The TP Insurer just has to indemnify. No obligation on them to repair.

 

[markjay]

Further to posts posted in your other thread.

I *think* that what may have happened here is that your own insurer are simply providing you with an accident management service, i.e. your own policy with them is not involved.

If this is true, than your own insurers will be the ones who provided you the hire car (through one of the rental car firms they work with), with the expectation of claiming the cost, possibly with some margin for themselves, off the other party insurer.

This would explain why dealing with your claim is taking so long. I would check with your insurer if it was possible to remove them from the process at this stage (with no cost to you), and for you to work on a resolution directly with the other party's insurer.

With regards the repair cost, you can't force the other party's insurer to repair your car and not write it off, they are well within their rights when they offer you 'market value' for the car, as this is the limit of their liability in respect of direct loss incurred.

You can either disagree with their valuation, but then your own valuation will have to be reasonably explained, or you can offer them a settlement figure then keep the car and repair it yourself. It is likely that they will agree to pay you the cost as per the garage's quote, not including the VAT.

The question you should ask yourself is whether you will be happy with the getting paid this this amount and keeping the car.

Also, the quote you had will be based on replacing the rear wing, which involves cutting and welding and quite a lot of dismantling and reassembly, not to mention fitting a new bumper, and respraying it all.

If you can find someone who is willing to beat the wing back into shape (the bumper can potentially be removed and repaired), then respray it, then the repair cost will be significantly lower.

 

[Jockcl500]

This is a good idea, however trade prices (or quotes from the likes of WBAC) are likely to be lower than a private sale asking price.

The insurer can't really oppose the higher private sale price (as long as they can't claim that the other car is a better/newer model, in better condition, has less mileage etc).

That is a problem because out the 7 2008 CL500 cars that are for sale in the UK all have lower mileage, so would be "better" I can't widen the search to compare something that is not available.

Further to posts posted in your other thread.

I *think* that what may have happened here is that your own insurer are simply providing you with an accident management service, i.e. your own policy with them is not involved.

If this is true, than your own insurers will be the ones who provided you the hire car (through one of the rental car firms they work with), with the expectation of claiming the cost, possibly with some margin for themselves, off the other party insurer.

This would explain why dealing with your claim is taking so long. I would check with your insurer if it was possible to remove them from the process at this stage (with no cost to you), and for you to work on a resolution directly with the other party's insurer.

With regards the repair cost, you can't force the other party's insurer to repair your car and not write it off, they are well within their rights when they offer you 'market value' for the car, as this is the limit of their liability in respect of direct loss incurred.

You can either disagree with their valuation, but then your own valuation will have to be reasonably explained, or you can offer them a settlement figure then keep the car and repair it yourself. It is likely that they will agree to pay you the cost as per the garage's quote, not including the VAT.

The question you should ask yourself is whether you will be happy with the getting paid this this amount and keeping the car.

Also, the quote you had will be based on replacing the rear wing, which involves cutting and welding and quite a lot of dismantling and reassembly, not to mention fitting a new bumper, and respraying it all.

If you can find someone who is willing to beat the wing back into shape (the bumper can potentially be removed and repaired), then respray it, then the repair cost will be significantly lower.

#
I don't really want cheapo repair, just repaired properly.
I have been losing the will to live recently, knackered and can't sleep with the hassle involved and considering handing back the hire car provided to me(not sure if I can do that), although a very nice car I'm sick of looking at it a constant reminder that mine after 18 days is still not fixed, or even started to be fixed.
This is correct my insurer has provided me a car from a hire company and the accident management service arranging the repair, I thought the repair would just happen, then the repair and all other costs would be claimed from the other partys insurance company. how wrong was I.
The management company, my insurer, the salvage auction site all seem to work on the repair up to 60% of the value of the car, instead of "lets get it fixed" and claim the other insurer for the costs.
I'm not sure how I stand now that my insurer has arranged hire car and all this stuff, they wanted to send my car to the salvage company and asked the bodyshop to contact me for to collect items from my car.
I told the bodyshop it's not going to the salvage yard and not to let anyone take it.
The bodyshop seems to be the only one I can trust because as far as I can tell all the rest are trying to screw me.
If I could gather the money together I could instruct the repairer to fix it, although I don't know how this would pan out with my insurance company.

Sorry everyone for inflicting all this rambling.

 

[Atavus]

I think you are driving a car provided by the accident management company. You likely have a contract that covers all this.

You are right to be suspicious of them and the repairer and feel they are working together. They don’t necessarily represent your interests as well as they should, sadly.

Regarding the car and value, what about this one near me? Used Mercedes-benz Cl Coupe 5.5 Cl500 2dr in Morden, Surrey | Lucky Dale Cars Ltd

This is for the purposes of discussion and I’m no Mercedes expert. Their criteria for what you may compare are completely arbitrary. They can’t dictate up to 100 miles away, for example. I once bought a car 200 miles away, so what.

I’m not convinced you’ll get them to move up much on the value. You have a second option of taking a cash in lieu payment and sorting out the repair yourself, with a trusted garage.

There is quite a bit of useful advice in this thread.

As far as unhooking from the Accident Management Company, I doubt you can do that. They are running up a considerable bill for your hire car and they want to get that back. From the TP Insurer, or you, they won’t mind.

Like a lot of people you probably didn’t really understand what you were getting into.

 

[Jockcl500]

I think you are driving a car provided by the accident management company. You likely have a contract that covers all this.

You are right to be suspicious of them and the repairer and feel they are working together. They don’t necessarily represent your interests as well as they should, sadly.

Regarding the car and value, what about this one near me? Used Mercedes-benz Cl Coupe 5.5 Cl500 2dr in Morden, Surrey | Lucky Dale Cars Ltd

This is for the purposes of discussion and I’m no Mercedes expert. Their criteria for what you may compare are completely arbitrary. They can’t dictate up to 100 miles away, for example. I once bought a car 200 miles away, so what.

I’m not convinced you’ll get them to move up much on the value. You have a second option of taking a cash in lieu payment and sorting out the repair yourself, with a trusted garage.

There is quite a bit of useful advice in this thread.

As far as unhooking from the Accident Management Company, I doubt you can do that. They are running up a considerable bill for your hire car and they want to get that back. From the TP Insurer, or you, they won’t mind.

Like a lot of people you probably didn’t really understand what you were getting into.

You are right about the distance issue, it was the salvage company that told me this was set by my insurer, which could be a pack of lies as I have not had it confirmed yet.
I suppose that car for sale is similar in mileage to compare that but slightly older with different spec 17inch wheels instead of the 20 inch amg ones on mine.
As far as cash in lieu of payment, I don't really understand who would be giving me this, my insurance company are supposed to be claiming back costs, like repair bill, hire car etc from the TP Insurer, if the management company isn't getting repairs done, then what are they doing? as far as I can tell all they have done was contact a specialist repairer(not one of their own repair network as the repair is beyond them)
It was the specialist bodyshop who collected the car and have produced an estimate, and are now waiting to start repairs.
I wish I had refused the hire car it complicates things, as far as I know it's my insurer that has provided that although they have so many departments and farmed out services, I don't know for sure.
I have recently found that yet another department (recovery claims team) are the ones dealing with the TPI and cost recovery, I assume this is the legal element of my insurance cover, I had some emails from them but there doesn't seem to be any progress with them. It has not helped that I reply to the emails, which apparently no one reads, unless as I have now sent to the generic email address, I have now found a phone number for them which is something else to try on Monday if they have not contacted me first.
Since the car is mine, technically I can do what I want with it, so could get the repair done paying on a credit card and hope the claim and costs are settled before it needs to be paid, very risky I know but that's the sort of thing you think about, when you have had no sleep, in theory if the legal team are recovering all costs it shouldn't make a difference who supplied or paid for what.

 

[Atavus]

The Accident Management Company are meant to be the one stop shop for you. Your Insurer might be one of those that just points you their way automatically (for a non-fault claim).

Cash in lieu of repairs generally would come from the TP Insurer. Own Insurer can do it, but it’s not as common.

You can provide the TP Insurer with a quote, give them a chance to inspect, then pay for your own repairs. Provided the costs are below the value of the car, they are likely to settle with you. I don’t view that as risky.

On the face of it, you have a reasonable case for repair. The estimate is well below the value they assessed the car at.

Make very sure they are clear that you are not giving up the car and that it must not leave the repair place. Be wary of the salvage company.

 

[Jockcl500]

The Accident Management Company are meant to be the one stop shop for you. Your Insurer might be one of those that just points you their way automatically (for a non-fault claim).

Cash in lieu of repairs generally would come from the TP Insurer. Own Insurer can do it, but it’s not as common.

You can provide the TP Insurer with a quote, give them a chance to inspect, then pay for your own repairs. Provided the costs are below the value of the car, they are likely to settle with you. I don’t view that as risky.

On the face of it, you have a reasonable case for repair. The estimate is well below the value they assessed the car at.

Make very sure they are clear that you are not giving up the car and that it must not leave the repair place. Be wary of the salvage company.

The risky part is paying £5200 on a credit card and hoping the claim is settled and I would then have the money to pay the bill when it arrives.
I contacted the TP insurance underwriters, they said they would contact my insurance and call me back.. still waiting for the call.
I'm not sure that there is an accident management company involved, I searched Vizion network(2.7 stars) and they seem to be a garage repair franchise, they could not do the job at their local garages and pointed my car in the direction of a specialist who contacted me and collected the vehicle, then my insurance company instructed Copart who seem to be a salvage auction, to value the car as salvage and they wanted to collect it, the specialist bodyshop contacted me and said they were instructed to contact me to collect any personal items before it was taken away, so I instructed them that I don't need to remove anything as one way or the other they will be fixing it and it's not getting salvaged and under no circumstances are they to let my car be taken, they are happy with that and say they will keep it until I instruct them otherwise.
So I only really trust the specialist bodyshop.
Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but most people would be in this situation.

 

[Atavus]

Vision Network, amongst other things, work as an Accident Management Company. They also provide courtesy cars.

Generally, getting paid is straightforward when the TP Insurer is not denying liability.

You should continue to be cautious. You ought to clearly establish which companies are involved and understand fully their role in the process.

 

[markjay]

Copart are the salvage company dealing with the auditioning of insurance write-offs.

The reason it is done this way is to prevent ringing and other types of fraud.

 

[markjay]

Full Accident Management

"Vizion offer a full Accident Management package to insurers, accident managers, fleet managers and individual owners of vehicles"

I have nothing against Vizion Network, but on a general note I avoid using accident management firms - my own experience is that they are focused on maximising their own revenue rather than look after your interests.

 

[Jockcl500]

Full Accident Management

"Vizion offer a full Accident Management package to insurers, accident managers, fleet managers and individual owners of vehicles"

I have nothing against Vizion Network, but on a general note I avoid using accident management firms - my own experience is that they are focused on maximising their own revenue rather than look after your interests.

Trolling though emails I have found some that I missed after the initial bombardment of calls, text messages and emails.
My insurer claims handler instructed the hire company to provide the rental car and vizion to deal with the repair.
I wish I had been a bit more organised from the start to keep track of everything.

 

[oldguy57]

Trolling though emails I have found some that I missed after the initial bombardment of calls, text messages and emails.
My insurer claims handler instructed the hire company to provide the rental car and vizion to deal with the repair.
I wish I had been a bit more organised from the start to keep track of everything.

This is the problem when so many parties get involved on a claim. The intention is to make life easier for you, but often has the opposite effect.
I would check your policy wording carefully. If there is no mention of this 60% rule on repairs, Insurers are not entitled to apply this condition. It's not enough for them to say it's normal practice. Insurers are very good at trying to apply conditions which are not included in the policy. Hope it gets resolved to your satisfaction.

 

[markjay]

...I would check your policy wording carefully. If there is no mention of this 60% rule on repairs, Insurers are not entitled to apply this condition. It's not enough for them to say it's normal practice. Insurers are very good at trying to apply conditions which are not included in the policy. Hope it gets resolved to your satisfaction.

He is not claiming on his own policy, but on the other party's policy (with his own insurer acting in accidents management capacity).

The other-party's insurer must reach a satisfactory settlement with him, or it goes to court.

The issue is that as much as we love our cars, from the legal perspective they are just a pile of cash on wheels, and the upper limit of the other insurer's liability is the 'market value' of the vehicle - the insurer can therefore object to a resolution that can end-up costing them more than the value of the car (keeping in mind that there additional costs may come to light once dismantling the car).

So the exact percentage of value where a repair is considered not viable is a bit of a grey area - if the insurer can convince the court that the car was 'beyond economic repair' then their offer of 'market value' would be deemed to have been fair and reasonable.

I think that the OP's best option at current is to stick to his guns regarding the higher valuation, on the premise that they will not want to go to court over this, and that the cost to them of the S-Class rental will make them want to settle. This could mean totalling the car, or if they accept the higher value they might authorise the repair.

In the meantime they do have the upper hand because insurers do these negotiations all the time, but us car owners lose sleep over it.

 

[oldguy57]

He is not claiming on his own policy, but on the other party's policy (with his own insurer acting in accidents management capacity).

The other-party's insurer must reach a satisfactory settlement with him, or it goes to court.

The issue is that as much as we love our cars, from the legal perspective they are just a pile of cash on wheels, and the upper limit of the other insurer's liability is the 'market value' of the vehicle - the insurer can therefore object to a resolution that can end-up costing them more than the value of the car (keeping in mind that there additional costs may come to light once dismantling the car).

So the exact percentage of value where a repair is considered not viable is a bit of a grey area - if the insurer can convince the court that the car was 'beyond economic repair' then their offer of 'market value' would be deemed to have been fair and reasonable.

I think that the OP's best option at current is to stick to his guns regarding the higher valuation, on the premise that they will not want to go to court over this, and that the cost to them of the S-Class rental will make them want to settle. This could mean totalling the car, or if they accept the higher value they might authorise the repair.

In the meantime they do have the upper hand because insurers do these negotiations all the time, but us car owners lose sleep over it.

See post 33- his Insurer has provided the hire car and arranged for Vizion to carry out the repair (subject to economics). Having worked in the insurance industry for decades, I know that his Insurer will deal with the matter as if it's a claim under his own policy, applying the same approach, for fear of not being able to retrieve the costs from the TP Insurer. I found this to be a source of conflict on numerous occasions.
Sometimes where there is no dispute on liability, it's much simpler to deal with only the TP Insurer, it avoids so many parties getting involved, and you are not bound by any policy conditions. Insurers are also bound by codes of conduct when dealing with third parties.

 

[Jockcl500]

See post 33- his Insurer has provided the hire car and arranged for Vizion to carry out the repair (subject to economics). Having worked in the insurance industry for decades, I know that his Insurer will deal with the matter as if it's a claim under his own policy, applying the same approach, for fear of not being able to retrieve the costs from the TP Insurer. I found this to be a source of conflict on numerous occasions.
Sometimes where there is no dispute on liability, it's much simpler to deal with only the TP Insurer, it avoids so many parties getting involved, and you are not bound by any policy conditions. Insurers are also bound by codes of conduct when dealing with third parties.

That is the truth, my insurer was acting like I was claiming my own policy, until I spent 90 minutes on the phone to them yesterday evening, I pointed out that we are claiming costs from the TP insurer, the cost of repair is much cheaper than writing off, there are only 5 2008 Cl500s for sale cheapest being £9500, that I expect to be put back in the same position before the incident, without financial loss and that the only way to do this is to repair my car.
I find it ridiculous that they are going to the TP insurer, to get them to agree to pay the cost of repair, instead of getting the car repaired and billing the costs, Hopefully there will be some progress soon.

 

[oldguy57]

That is the truth, my insurer was acting like I was claiming my own policy, until I spent 90 minutes on the phone to them yesterday evening, I pointed out that we are claiming costs from the TP insurer, the cost of repair is much cheaper than writing off, there are only 5 2008 Cl500s for sale cheapest being £9500, that I expect to be put back in the same position before the incident, without financial loss and that the only way to do this is to repair my car.
I find it ridiculous that they are going to the TP insurer, to get them to agree to pay the cost of repair, instead of getting the car repaired and billing the costs, Hopefully there will be some progress soon.

Sounds like you've got a grip of it Jock. I'd be tempted to follow up your conversation with a polite formal letter summarising your position and what you expect.