Is it usual now for an insurer/broker to require sight of your driving licence before they will process a damage only claim ? That's what mine are insisting on. Its been about twenty years since I last put in a claim and I can't recall doing it then for damage only.

My Fabia was hit by a falling tree branch, while parked-up in a MOD car Park - see link to my previous post

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/general-car-chat/witches-eastbury-park/65519/

On a related matter ! When an endorsement is entered on one's DL counterpart, is it usual for the court to hand - write it ?

Shouldn't the date of conviction column be filled-in as well ? Mine wasn't.

DVLA advised me today that because I opted for a conditional fixed penalty charge, with no court appearance, that their system will not record a conviction date ? All they could provide was the date that the court notification was entered on the DVLA system. I was told that the Fee_Pay Section could provide a printout of my DL record, for

It's all a bit Big Brother, I think that Insurance companies have a tie in with the DVLA, so they will know if you have convictions or not.

is it usual for the court to hand - write it ?

Yep, but it's not the court: it's done by Police employees.

Sorry, forgot to mention.

When I had 'some' speed endorsements on my licence, (many years ago! ) some were printed and some were hand written.

So I guess it doesn't really matter how they appear on your paper copy, as they are all on the DVLA computer anyway.

You could get your licence reprinted (I believe there is a cost) which will be clear of the conviction as it will have cleared from the system.

Thanks for that, but unfortunately time (The 4 years) hasn't run out yet - as the offence was committed 1st March this year! The problem I'm having is somehwhat different.

Basically, the broker wrote requesting sight of my DDL counterpart and wouldn't reveal who wanted this and why. Naturally, I was reluctant to release a copy DL, as the claim was damage only, did not involve personal injury, or injury or damage to a third party and the driving offence was Speeding (Code SP 30). This request was as odds with all my previous experience with motor claims. Also, I initially suspected that the handwritten entry on the counterpart was incomplete, as the conviction date had been left blank.

On receipt of my written refusal to supply a copy of my DL, the broker elevated the authority of the request, my sending out a demand under the signature of the Managing Director - curiously, this stated that the underwriters were requesting sight of it.

I suspected that someone was trying to wriggle-out of the claim or at least delay it - it is quite sizeable

I am in the very fortunate position, that my best friend from school is my insurance broker.

He always provides me with a great deal of 'inside' information regarding how insurance companies work.

He is always competitive, and has said that he would be happy for me to go elsewhere if I wanted to, but he is always within a few

I really cant stand insurance, but unfortuatly its a nessacery evil

Good luck:thumbup:

If it was in a MoD car park did you try contacting Defence Estates on the matter, they are supposed to ensure your parking is in a safe area, and they do spend a good amount of time surveying woodland?

Just a thought? Did you notify your insurer re the SP30 offence?

If not they may try to state that you have not disclosed a material fact on your insurance or notified them of a change

Everyone should be aware that insurers are 'wriggly' these days. I've not claimed for many a year but it seems standard procedure to ask for docs after a claim (looking for non-disclosure). Only answer is to always fully inform your broker AND insurer by registered post immediately of anything that may occur - brokers seem to give remarkably bad advice/forget/lose things!

Having just read the story part of this, I really _would_ change broker next year. They are supposed to be your agents, not those of the under-writer!

Unfortunately, the MOD does not directly run the site now. It has been PFI'd for the next twenty five years and there are at least two levels of commercial organisation between those that come onto the base as visitors and the MOD. I believe there is a leaseholder for the site -Eastbury Park Ltd and, another company, Carillion PLC, who provide the support services. In short, it's a legal mare's nest, courtesy of the HM treasury and the City of London

Anyway, I reported the damage to Carillion . They had only taken over operation of the site officially the day before the damage occurred and so, I would imagine, weren't best pleased with my report. Nevertheless, they seemed at first to address this issue, in that their site general manager referred my written report, with digital photos, to their insurer. However, their reply was as follows, "Whilst the damage caused to your vehicle is regrettable, we have no offer to make on their behalf".

I must say that this response is at odds to my understanding of the situation vis-a-vis the the operation of the laws of negligence and health and safety - duty of care to visitors etc. Remembering, of course, the hoards of claimants against local councils who obtain more than adequate compensation for tripping over paving stones.

I believe that there is another line which could be taken against the occupier of the site under the Occupiers Liability legislation. I think the occupier of the site is Eastbury Park Limited.

I suspect that, no matter who you or your insurers went after, you'd have to engage a lawyer to get anywhere, given the MOD's usual attitude to claimants i.e. go emulate the deportment of a toby jug, (Remember the first Gulf War bods ?). MOD, of course, usually relies on the principle of Crown immunity which extends to goverment depts i.e you can't sue the monarch or her government, who can do no wrong, meaning that you'd probably end up in the European Court, setting a legal predecent for a trifling claim. As usual, justice denied by fear of costs - certainly not wages ! Are there any budding Rumpole's out there ?

But as the Irish comedian Jimmy Cricket, used to say and I presume still does, "There's more !".

When the assessor came from the insurers, he disputed the SKODA dealer's assessment of the repair needed. He said the rear wing could be pulled/bashed-out rather than replaced (see photos on earlier post, opinions welcome). I queried with the assessor, whether following his recommendation, would compromise my 10 year bodywork warranty. Needdless to say he said not ! He even offered to put me in touch with some non-VAG repairers who would do the repair he had recommended. Nice man ! Naturally, I declined. The assessor said he would be in touch with the SKODA dealership and advise me accordingly of the outcome - that was on Tuesday, 14th November.

Monday last, having heard nothing more from the broker or the insurers, I rang the Broker's claim's department requesting advice on whether I could go ahead with the repair. The broker immediatedly said yes ! When I asked for information on the type of action that they were sanctioning, i.e. a bash-out repair or a replacement wing, the phone went silent. When, I explained that I had been led to expect written confirmation from the insurers of this info before proceeding, they said they'd have to phone the insurer. You don't need to guess the answer that came back. The insurer is sanctioning the repair (obviously cheaper) and has verbally assured me that this won't compromise the SKODA body warranty. Duck, there goes another flying Garrison Keiler !

Surprise, the written confirmation of the total of this advice which I requested on Monday, still has not arrived.

May be I'm a bit old fashioned, but the last time I put in a substantial motor claim (20 years ago), the organisations and the people that you dealt with were straightfoward and reasonable, with a modicum of honesty and the whole thing was wrapped-up in 6 weeks tops !. The way this one is going, I can forsee making a complaint to the industry body, at the very least.

Nick

28/11/06

The saga continues -

Yesterday, received written response from the Broker , saying that on my request they had contacted the insurers and that the engineer had authorised repair of the rear wing, by the approved repairer, as it was unnecessary to replace it.

The letter did not go into further detail as to the identity of the engineer or the approved repairer, but I presumed this referred to the insurance assessor and the SKODA dealer I had got the quote from. Neither did it give any background as to why the SKODA dealers method of dealing with the situation had been rejected.

When I got home there was a telephone message from that SKODA dealer asking for me to make an appointment for the repair.

Hurrah you might say. Result!

However, given that the proposed solution was the diametrical opposite of the action the SKODA dealer had recommended and quoted for in the first instance, and given that I was getting little information from the broker or insurer, and given that Im not sufficiently clued-up technically to make this kind of judgement, there were a great number of unanswered questions and I thought it would be wise to seek advice. Foolishly, I decided to contact SKODA GB Customer Services.

My aim was to try to obtain more information to ensure, that I did not accede to a line of action which might be in technically inappropriate, and which, as a consequence might invalidate my bodywork warranty (Anti-perforation), thereby putting me in further stook, this time with the finance company.

I was fairly certain that a body-work puller would probably be have to be used during the repair process, in which case the bodywork would be pierced by drilling.

I was told that SKODA GB don't offer an engineer service for reporting on damaged vehicles and that SKODA GB do not give ad hoc rulings on whether the body work warranty (Anti-perforation) would be invalidated as a result of work undertaken. However, the warranty programme belongs to them and they administer it. On enquiry, I was told that there was no requirement for SKODA dealers to report to SKODA GB of work undertaken which might or would effect the body work warranty of particular cars. That being the case, you're entirely at the mercy of the dealer. I leave it to you're imagination.

I was told that there would be a SKODA GB preferred method of dealing with every type of repair. When I explained, that the repair advice received from the dealer was at odds with my insurers, I was told to obtain a quote from another SKODA dealer ! I presume that the underlying premise in this response is that, faced with the same repair problem, different SKODA dealers would give different answers ! I questionned how this could be, if there was a SKODA GB recommended way of undertaking a repair ! At which point, the advisor smartly reversed position !

I was further told it didn't matter whether the damaged wing was repaired or replaced, that the SKODA GB anti-perforation warranty for that component would be invalid from the date of repair. The repairers would warrant the repaired component themselves. However, the SKODA GB bodywork (Anti-perforation) warranty on my car has 7 years to run, and I am sure that the repairer's will not provide a warranty of equivalent length !

One good thing, the customer services lady was able to confirm that my local SKODA dealer, where I had obtained the original quotation, would be undertaking the work on the wing, and that, in-line with the insurance companies wishes, it would be repaired rather than replaced. I asked her whether she would confirm all I'd been told in writing, so I would have something to wave at the finance company, if, god forbid, at some future date, the condition and asset value of the vehicle should become an issue. As we left it, she seemed happy to comply with this request.

Next thing that happens is that I get a call from an irrate proprietor of the SKODA Dealership, saying that he's been on the end of several calls from SKODA GB. He further stated that he was replying on behalf of SKODA GB.

It emerges that he has been instructed, by the insurer's to repair the wing and that he is happy to comply with this instruction. When I ask why did he quote for replacement of the wing in the first place, he indicated that this was a commercial quote to maximise earnings ! I then pointed out that all I wanted to do was to get the SKODA GB/VAG recommended repair for this type of damage, if there was such a thing ! Given that the insurer's were also approaching the issue from the opposite direction commercially, i.e. to minimise the costs of the claim, how was I, as a layman, to determine, which was the correct method of repair to consent to. It was all being served up to me as a fait accompli. I, as the owner of the vehicle and consumer, was apparently allowed no sight of the relevant facts or input at all !

He advises that SKODA GB will not be writing to me. I asked him if he would drop me a note confirming the action he was to undertake on the insurer's instructions, he declinned to do so. He said that he was getting fed up with all of this and would decline to do the repair ! He gave an explanation as to how the insurers method of repair minimised disturbance to the vehicle and how this was good for anti-corrosion ! And that the insurance assessor who looked at my vehicle was known to him from old and well experienced (Cosy !) He assurred me that the repair would be good and that if they find, during the course of the repair, that it is apparent that repair will be ineffective and that wing replacement is necessary, then, in these ciicumstances, the insurer has undertaken to sanction replacement over repair, once informed by the dealer. He then attempted to put the screws on by saying that the longer I left it without repair, the more likely the repair would develop problems later.

However, he is still not prepared to confirm any these statements in writing !

It was left that I would take time to consider the matter and get back to them.

The trouble is how can I believe any of this advice after the dealer's totally reversed his original position and won't confirm anything in writing! And neither will SKODA GB.

Needless to say, SKODA GB, Customer Services, rang again just to close the book on the call !

So I am really at a slight loss as to way foward. Is it worth getting an indepedent engineer's assessment ?

Can any body validate or throw light-on any of the information I been given ?

Nick,

30/11/06

From memory, I think SWMBO got a 3 year warranty on the work done to her Impreza. As it was just out of paint warranty anyway, this was no big problem to us.

The work was done by the local 'approved' accident repairers, which was a massive warehouse kind of place, with about 50 cars on the go at any one time.!

On my old passat, the front bumper was repaired and resprayed by VW after someone pulled it off when the car was only 3 months old, (long story).

After about three and a half year the paint began to peal, so I took it to VW.

They said that the re pared area was only covered by the repair warranty, not the original VW paint warranty and therefore would not fix the problem.

If you are thinking of keeping your car for some time, then make sure you get a good warranty on the repair work.

If you are going to hand it back, to a lease company for example, make sure the warranty extends beyond the date you need to hand it back at.

Unfortunately you are in the hands of the insurance company and the repairers. So if you want your car repaired, then you have to play the game how they want to.

However, all work has to be approved by you before you get your car back, so if you are unhappy with the standard of the work done, then you can always refuse to take it back, until it is done to the correct standard.

As the repairers will not get paid until you sign for the car, they have an incentive to get the car sorted.

When SWMBO got her car back, we initially refused it, because some of the paint finish was not the same standard as the rest, so they took it back and completed the job properly.

Whatever you do you are going to have to get another quote and use a different repairer. Imagine the problems you are going to have if the repair isn't to your satisfaction with the dealer you've wound up - could they even be bothered to try and do a top notch job now!

One question, why use a broker ? Why not go direct with an insurance company and save the money being spent on the middle man ?

Brokerages can work out cheaper than direct insewerer though YMMV.

The other advantage to using a broker is that they are your representative, and should know exactly how to achieve the best quote, service fron the under-rotter (sic) and payout in the event of total loss without being prompted.

Brokerages can work out cheaper than direct insewerer though YMMV.

The other advantage to using a broker is that they are your representative, and should know exactly how to achieve the best quote, service fron the under-rotter (sic) and payout in the event of total loss without being prompted.

Brokers also benefit from volume discounts with big insurers... the borker I use has a delegated underwriting agreement which means I pay basically what I want to (within limits, of course).

...of course, it does help that the broker I use is related to my employer...