What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks

Re-done dent

Recently my wife had the misfortune to park her 08 Focus Zetec near a jetwash where elderly gentleman reversed into it. Minimal damage was caused to the front spoiler, which a local garage estimated could be repaired and repainted for £150 plus VAT. However, the elderly gent insisted the matter be passed to our respective insurers. We were offered a courtesy car whilst ours was taken by low-loader to a designated garage, twenty-five miles away. We offered to take a smaller car on loan whilst ours was repaired but delivered to our home was a brand new Focus Zetec, the driver of which was collected by another man in a 2009 Mercedes. The designated garage insisted the tiny scratch on the spoiler could not be repaired and replaced it with pre-painted spoiler/bumper assembly supplied by a Ford main dealer. The car was away for three days (the local garage had said it was a same day job), during which time we had unrestricted use of the courtesy car. Heaven knows what the total cost amounted to. We have no complaints about the quality of the repair, just the excessive cost, which must ultimately be borne by us, as policyholders. The courtesy car supplier refused to give us a smaller car because, "some people might complain" and the garage considered repairing the damage as "unviable". Is this an example of some in the motor industry getting their snouts wet?

Asked on 8 August 2009 by

Answered by Honest John
Your claim got nobbled by a credit hire outfit who made an excessive amount of money out of the repair and the hire of the car. Known as ‘Cash for Crash’ it not only has repercussions for the policyholder but is putting up insurance premiums for all of us. Some people working for insurers and repairers are on ‘incentives’ to hand the matter over to credit hire / accident management operators. You can now legally refuse their offers. To the great benefit of all of us, a recent Leeds County Court of Appeal Judgement (Copley v Lawn and Maden v Haller 17-6-2009) determined, “…it is not unreasonable for a claimant to reject or ignore an offer from a defendant (or his insurers) which does not make clear the cost of hire to the defendant for the purpose of enabling the claimant to make a realistic comparison with the cost which he is incurring or about to incur.” And “…following Strutt v Whitnell, if a claimant does unreasonably reject or ignore a defendant’s offer of a replacement car, the claimant is entitles to recover at least the cost which the defendant can show he would reasonably have incurred; he does not forfeit his damages claim altogether.” And, “…the general rule that the claimant can recover the “spot” or market rate of hire for his loss of use claim is upheld, unless and to the extent that a defendant can show that, on the facts of a particular case, a car could have been provided even more cheaply than the “spot” or market rate.”
Similar questions
I was involved in a car accident last year and the other party admitted liability. His insurance company rang and confirmed liability both to me and my insurers. My insurance duly paid for all the repairs...
I have been involved in a non-fault crash where the third party has driven into me at maybe 35 – 40mph, when I was stationary in a queue of morning traffic. The police were involved and she is being prosecuted...
You very kindly helped me overcome hesitancy on buying my 1yr old Jaguar XF S V8 back in March this year. All has gone well. It is as you said a fantastic car to own drive despite government taxes. However,...
 

Value my car

Save £75 on Warranty using code HJ75

with MotorEasy

Get a warranty quote

Save 12% on GAP Insurance

Use HJ21 to save on an ALA policy

See offer