Motor Insurance Payouts

[Randy]

Not sure if this should be posted as a rant, but anyway. Recently I ran into the back of another car, entirely my fault. The other guy got a quote and gave me option to pay, but as I'm fully comp with step back cover I let it go through my insurance. Insurance paid out and case closed.

The guys quote was essentially for repairs to bumber (two scratches), respray, new boot lock and labour, again I've no problem with that, but heres what bugs me...the accident happened about 8 weeks ago and the insurance paid out after about two....in the interveneing 6 weeks I've seen the car on at least a dozen occassions and no repairs have been carried out, which implies that the car didn't really need the repairs done, so why does the insurance company pay out for someone to pocket the cash and not get the repairs done, should our insurers not insist that works be carried out before they pay out?

Any opinions?

 

[bigjoe_dub]

Mad I know but can't see it changing any time soon. the person in question will either not get the work done or will get some back street garage(as opposed to a main dealer where the work was priced) to do it for half the price.

I know big companies with fleer cars that would put in for the cost of a new bumper but will send the car away to get the bumper repaired.

 

[peteb]

Why should they have to get their car repaired? There is no obligation on them to do it. Maybe it hasnt suited them to get it done. Either way you damaged another vehicle. The insurance companies job is to put them back in the position they were before the claim. They have paid out based on an estimate of repairs. Job done.

 

[Randy]

Why should they have to get their car repaired? There is no obligation on them to do it. Maybe it hasnt suited them to get it done. Either way you damaged another vehicle. The insurance companies job is to put them back in the position they were before the claim. They have paid out based on an estimate of repairs. Job done.

I accept that peteb, but that's not my point, if someone hit my car and I was making a claim against them, then I would have the car repaired rather than just pocket the cash. Otherwise the only conclusion I can draw is that if the owner doesn't want to get their car repaired, then they don't really care either way and so therefore the insurance companies should only pay out when the repair work is completed? Don't get me wrong, the guys claim is technically legit, but in my view is not morally so.

 

[Mongola]

While I would share the same opinion that you Randy, Peteb is absolutely right. You hit that person's car, you are responsible as you have said yourself. They received the money from the insurance. They can do whatever they want with that money as they are under no obligation whatsoever to fix their car. They can go shopping, they can use it to go on holidays, whatever they want really. If they happy to go around with a damaged car: that is their problem. You are the one who hit them so they are entitled to get compensation, the fact that they decide not to use it towards repairs may mean that they do not care but it does not relieve you from your responsibility in that situation.
I completely understand your point of view though as a few years ago I was in that situation and also questionned how morally correct is this....?

 

[Smashbox]

I would have thought that the insurance pays straight to the garage as opposed to the car owner.. that would make more sense.

 

[Time]

Why?

There is no obligation to repair the car. They have their compensation end of story.

 

[serotoninsid]

I accept that peteb, but that's not my point

It is the point - forget about it. Maybe the guy has money problems and wants to use the cash that way? Maybe he can't afford being without his car right now? Maybe he doesn't want to pay main dealer prices for repairs - and you should applaud him for that, not castigate him.

If you want something to get the moral highground on - then its this. You have roll back - but your roll back will not function like it should function. When you go to get quotes, you will have to declare to all companies that you have had a claim within the last X number of years. Therefore, you are effectively locked in to the one provider - i.e. your existing insurance company. They can quote you what they want. This simply isn't right. Now, getting this corrected would be a far more worthy bone to chew on...