Polemicist

Washing the Old Dear's Citigo yesterday and noticed the nearside front fog light was loose. The car had a minor repair to the front bumper paint a few months ago and at the this time the foglight would have been removed.

As I investigated, the foglight unit detached itself from the bumper and fell into the void behind it. After a poke around with a torch , it was evident why the lighting unit was loose; instead of the insurer's approved repairer using the correct part to install it - a double-sided adhesive foam gasket - a bodge with Sikaflex had been used to affix the Foglight. Looking at the dried and cracked Sikaflex is was also apparent it had been applied over primer overspray, so there was little possibility of the adhesive having any longevity.

Sure enough, the offside foglight was installed with the same crap.



Rather than get the repairer involved, I have ordered the parts from Skoda and will fit them myself.

The retail cost of the individual foam gaskets to me were £5.63, so less VAT and trade discount, that would make the pair c. £8 to the repairer. I would suspect, like many vehicle repairers, the crew that repaired the car were on an average repair cost contract with the insurer, so they would receive somewhere probably close to the industry average repair cost of £1,200 - £1,300 for the job. I saw the minor damage to the car and my estimate would be a repair in the region of £500-600 allowing fro a new front bumper. Given the light damage to the car, I feel sure the original bumper has been painted.

So given that this particular repair had considerable margin in it, a corner was clearly cut to avoid using a part to facilitate the correct repair.

One has to wonder about what corners are cut when a significant repair is required to a more 'premium' vehicle. I suspect anything and everything. An omitted gasket from a front foglight is not a safety or life-treatening issue, but there are many other repairs which are.

It might be interesting to read the forthcoming government report from the investigation into the insurance and repair market practices...

lower

I suspect that the repairer wasn't aware that they needed a special gasket and therefore didn't have it available when they came to reassemble the car. Rather than order the correct part and suffer the subsequent delay to completion they chose to glue it back in.

Was it repaired by one of the chain bodyshops or an independent? The bodyshops that are dependent on insurance work and therefore on the average cost contract seem to be more prone to taking less care and cutting corners than the independents that do a mix of work therefore depend more on reputation.

lovegroova

This pretty much sums up many of my experiences with the car-related economy as a whole.

Whether this was an insurance job or not would have made no difference whatsoever imo.

Starlight

This is the reason I will pay more for my insurance, to ensure I get a company that is happy for me to specify the repairer rather than use the typical time short, overworked and do the minimum to get it back on the road approved repairers most insures use.

lovegroova

You can do that with all insurers if you wish. It can be more hassle and you won't generally be entitled to a free courtesy car.

Polemicist

The car was repaired by an independent.

I drove the car immediately after the incident and the fog lights were still in place; when it was disassembled for repair it would self-evident the fog lights were installed with the adhesive gaskets. .5p for a few beads of Sikaflex vs. £8 or so for the correct parts - call me cynical, but given the industry there wasn't a hope in hell of them using the latter.

I have telephoned the insurer and they have stated the repair is covered by their 5 year warranty and will be rectified by the repairer.

As an aside, I enquired if their approved repairer was on an average repair contract, to which they were a little evasive, and I also asked for a copy of the repair estimate which they are sending.

They did advise me that the cost of the repair was £1,472.00! And reeled-off a list as long as my arm of the parts that had been installed.

I drove and inspected the car following the incident and recall 100% the radiator was not leaking and the windscreen washer fluid bottle was not damaged. And the fog lights were undamaged, as was the front grille. These parts are all on the repair bill.

This could be a cause célèbre for me.

Polemicist

And increasingly in their T&C's it states that the excess is doubled if the car is not repaired by their 'approved' repairer. This was the case with this incident.

Polemicist

Coincidentally, this same repairer is the approved repairer for the awaited repair to my wife's Insight. Still awaiting parts from Honda to begin the repair; 5 months and counting since the bint drove into the rear of the Insight.

I have a copy of the repair estimate for the Insight and it includes a new bumper cover (which is required in this case) but also a cost for painting it. Honda bumper covers are supplied painted of course.

The 'savvy' insurer will no doubt be like so many and have culled the number of their inspectors/engineers. An accurate - or otherwise - repair cost is irrelevant as it is passed-on, collectively, to us the policy holders, who are all bent over and awaiting to be ass-raped by the entire insurance and repair industry...

lovegroova

It's done electronically these days, photos are sent to insurers' claims depts where required. But most of the time it'll be done by the book estimates.

One person sitting in an office is much cheaper than many driving around the countryside visiting repair shops.

FWIW the UK motor insurance industry made its underwriting profit since 1985 last year! http://www.ibtimes.c...0-years-1451939 (most of the profit is in the sales of things like legal expenses cover, personal accident cover, breakdown cover and so on) If you don't wish to be arse-raped, then don't buy these add-ons.

It's all been done in the interests of getting claims sorted and repairs done much faster than in the bad old days where you had to traipse around repairers yourself, get 2 or three quotes, post that to your broker, who then posted that to your insurer, who then posted their reply to your broker who then posted that to you. Then you could finally get the repair done but you'd have no means of transport while your car was being fixed.

Insurers want a fast settlement, as it saves them money in the long run.

Whilst it's not perfect, it's a hell of a lot better.

Polemicist

I am clearly more cynical than you... I cannot believe the insurance industry is run on an altruistic basis to provide the customer with the best service or best value.

I don't doubt having a fleet of insurance engineers will be expensive, but in the case of the repair to the Old Dear's car, how much unnecessary expense was incurred by the replacement - or alleged replacement - of unnecessary parts? Extrapolate this over the whole sector and I imagine the sums are massive.

By ditching the engineers and replacing this overhead with a variable-cost, with which there is little or no control of - desired or otherwise - and that is ultimately passed-on to those paying the insurance premium is the reason. Then throw-in the average cost model and it's all very easy for the insurers to administer, whilst creating a situation which 'encourages' corner-cutting and bad practice.

It's all about (very) short-term competitive advantage for the insurers, not value or service for customers.