Insurance Collector Asking for $8000 For a Rear Bumper Claim

LoCure on 24/05/2017 - 14:29
Last edited 24/05/2017 - 14:53 by 1 other user

Long story short, my mum bump into a car December last year, no one was hurt or anything, it was a scratch with small hump at the rear bumper. So photo was taken, details exchanged (the thing is our car does not have comprehensive insurance). We received a letter from the opposite insurer dated 30/12/2016 "This letter is put you on notice that once this claim has been settled we will pass your details to our authorise agents, "XXX Collection Pty Ltd, with instruction to recover the claim amount.
Not until last week received a letter from the Mercant collector the bill is $8000+, obviously the amount doesn't sound right to me, l asked for the breakdown of the bill and :

Labour : $3060.50 + $1725.80
Parts: $3268.06

Date In: 10th April 2017
Date Out: 26th April 2017

-Is there a time limit between the incident and the day the car should sent in, because it took them 3.5 months to get it fix?
-i know this is hard to say depending how bad the bump is, but the bill sounds outrageous?
-where can l find more information about this process?

This is what part of the bill is like https://ibb.co/cFe3fv
What really frustrates me was that my mum has deleted the photos thinking it's too long ago and they had forgotten it.
Iam really on the lose end and likely has to pay the bill in full!

Automotive

Comments

  • Baysew on 24/05/2017 - 14:34
    +3

    Won't you just send this to your insurer to pay?

    What did she hit?

    • manshrew on 24/05/2017 - 14:37
      -5

      A car… :)

    • Spam Service on 25/05/2017 - 15:31
      +15

      From their other comments, they're uninsured :o

      Looks like this will be an $8000 lesson to always have 3rd party insurance. It costs me $130/yr.

      • vinster55 on 25/05/2017 - 21:57
        +4

        just curious about which insurance company is providing third party insurance for $130/yr ?
        I pay around $300 mark for third party insurance.

        • Spam Service on 26/05/2017 - 09:33
          +1

          I'm with Shannon's insurance for my mini, which is $130/yr. My partner's Lanos is $150 with them too, but I think you need a classic car to insure a second non-classic car.

        • too_much_boost on 26/05/2017 - 20:08

          @Spam Service:
          I have my mini with Shannon's too. It's on historic rego and they quoted me 180 for 3rd party property and 160 or so for full comprehensive. That made my decision easy

      • yjun355 on 26/05/2017 - 08:05
        -4

        Isnt 3rd party compulsory?

        • John Kimble on 26/05/2017 - 08:49
          +1

          CTP is. Third Party isn't.

        • abb on 26/05/2017 - 09:20
          +6

          Your green slip is "compulsory third party" insurance, which only covers injuries to people.

          "Third party property damage" is the one that would cover this incident.

        • Euphemistic on 26/05/2017 - 10:03
          +7

          @abb: How many times does this need to be said?

        • John Kimble on 26/05/2017 - 10:24
          +8

          @Euphemistic: Isn't 3rd party compulsory?

        • Euphemistic on 26/05/2017 - 10:55
          -1

          @John Kimble: Again, CTP is the compulsory for injury to persons.
          Third Party Property isn't compulsory and covers you for damage to other property: vehicles, houses etc.

          You conflicted your previous post. CTP stands for Compulsory Third Party which is why there is a lot of confusion.

        • John Kimble on 26/05/2017 - 11:00

          @Euphemistic: haha I was taking the piss.

        • Euphemistic on 26/05/2017 - 11:01

          @John Kimble: phew, missed that one.

        • abb on 26/05/2017 - 13:43
          +1

          How many times does this need to be said?

          @Euphemistic: Once, I would have thought? I'm still not convinced John Kimble understands ;)

        • John Kimble on 26/05/2017 - 13:57
          +3

          @abb: I do! CTP is optional. :D

        • yjun355 on 27/05/2017 - 00:07

          @abb: thanks. To be honest this is good to know. I assumed it covers for damage to others car as well.
          I've always had comprehensive insurance as well. But in future i'll keep in mind. Sometimes car is cheap and not used where you consider not have comprehensive insurance. I guess based on this experience then you better of getting new car.

        • tomleonhart on 27/05/2017 - 17:20

          @Euphemistic: Isn't 3rd party compulsory?

        • Euphemistic on 28/05/2017 - 08:14

          @tomleonhart: hope you are trying to be funny.

        • tomleonhart on 28/05/2017 - 08:40

          @Euphemistic: Isn't it ?

        • Euphemistic on 28/05/2017 - 08:43

          @tomleonhart: two types of third party.
          The CTP cumpolsory third party that insures for injury to OTHER people.
          And TPP third party property, not cumpolsory that covers for damage to other property, like cars, fences, light poles. You have to buy this separately.

        • tomleonhart on 28/05/2017 - 08:53
          -1

          @Euphemistic: Really ? :O

        • Aussie Smurfette on 29/05/2017 - 09:09

          @John Kimble:
          So what does the abbreviation stand for then?

  • airal3rt on 24/05/2017 - 14:37
    +28

    $8k for a bumper repair? This is why you don't tailgate a Ferrari

    • goraygo on 28/05/2017 - 18:13

      ~$3k for a bumper, it won't be Ferrari, probably a Mercedes or BMW with parts ordered from overseas, hence 3 months to repair.

      The labour fees: not sure if the 2nd part because of the Collector?!

      • lint on 29/05/2017 - 09:56

        Mercedes bumpers don't take three months to repair from Mercedes-authorised repairers, unless maybe you live in the bush where they don't have parts.

        • goraygo on 30/05/2017 - 15:02

          Depends on the timing. Try doing a repair after a major hailstorm in major cities. All parts run out. You will have to wait.

  • manshrew on 24/05/2017 - 14:37
    +1

    Without knowing what exactly damage was done and what model car she hit, it's pretty hard to even estimate.
    Most of the time, if there is damage to the bumper they'll just replace it, which also means they have to paint it to match.

    The labour cost does seem pretty high, do you have more information about what they had to fix?

    • LoCure on 24/05/2017 - 14:57

      I wasn't in the scene when it was happened and my mum has deleted all the photos (super piXX me off). Add it a screenshot of the bill, c if it helps

      • Make it so on 24/05/2017 - 15:34
        +2

        http://www.recovermyfiles.com/

        There are others out there too.

        • algy on 27/05/2017 - 16:06

          Definitely won't work after this long

        • Make it so on 27/05/2017 - 19:40
          +1

          @algy: All depends on how much writing has been done to that section of the media. Time is irrelevant.

        • FirstNameLastName on 28/05/2017 - 10:39
          +1

          @Make it so:
          true.

          and a typical mum (mine for example) has a 1TB hdd of which they utilise about 1gb + OS. more empty space i assume would work in her favour.

          but then again, she deleted the photos so her tech skillz are ++ to my mum's.
          she may have her disk jam packed with warez :)

          anyway.. the opposing party should have to supply photos pre/post repair to back their claim. op's mum could just ask them for a copy.

        • algy on 28/05/2017 - 15:17
          +1

          @Make it so: It's incredibly likely that it was taken on a phone, in which case, way too long. If they were transferred to a PC and that device has hardly been used since, then there's a small chance.

      • iamapineapple on 25/05/2017 - 10:13
        +4

        If your mum has an android device there is the potential (pray there is) that the photos are automatically backed up to Google Photos, or iCloud if an iOS device. Check it out, pray that you find them.

      • SeVeN11 on 25/05/2017 - 22:29
        +2

        next time use the free google photos backup to automatically save all your photos.

    • 203132 on 24/05/2017 - 23:30
      +1

      I wonder if the labor also includes the Insurance company's time to work on this claim

      • whooah1979 on 25/05/2017 - 06:31
        -5

        I wonder if the labor also includes the Insurance company's time to work on this claim

        it should. the insurer have pay their employees like any other business.

        • Blitzfx on 25/05/2017 - 09:02
          +2

          It shouldn't. You should only be paying the cost of the mechanic to pull off the bumper and put on a new one. Not admin costs and all that. Otherwise you can just tack on thousands of $ extra just because your paperwork process happened to be full of red-tape and is extremely slow.

        • k-rokfm on 25/05/2017 - 12:56
          +4

          @Blitzfx:

          +1 to this. The insurance companies profit should be coming from the premiums and excess that people pay, not the cost to fix the car.

        • whooah1979 on 25/05/2017 - 14:21
          +6

          @k-rokfm:

          The insurance companies profit should be coming from the premiums and excess that people pay,

          You know what will happen if they did that, right. Motorists that have insurance will be footing the bill for motorists like op's mother.

          Op's mother took a gamble and drove without insurance. Now that the gamble didn't pay off and she has to use the money she saved by not having insurance to pay for the repairs. That is as fair as it gets.

    • ireadtermsofuse on 25/05/2017 - 18:47

      Geezums. I had to get my back bumper repaired twice and both times it only cost me around the $1500 mark

      • whooah1979 on 25/05/2017 - 18:51

        I had to get my back bumper repaired twice and both times it only cost me around the $1500 mark

        an expensive luxury euro?

        • ireadtermsofuse on 25/05/2017 - 19:11

          A Subaru lol. I didn't have to pay a cent though

  • chumlee on 24/05/2017 - 14:42
    +11

    Ask for photos and an itemised quote then take that to a panel beater and get their opinion. If they say it's a ripp off get them to quote what they would have charged (you may need to pay them for the time taken to prepare a quote) and try to settle it out with the insurance company

    • Praeto on 25/05/2017 - 11:28
      +7

      There's no obligation for the person whose car was damaged to look around for cheap options. They might choose a shop based on reputation, location or convenience which is perfectly acceptable.

      • chumlee on 25/05/2017 - 14:21
        +3

        Yes but the process i outlined is about gaining some leverage to negotiate a lower settlement amount that's all

        • smartazz104 on 25/05/2017 - 17:08
          -7

          You get that leverage via having comprehensive insurance.

        • chumlee on 25/05/2017 - 17:14
          +15

          @gokhanh: could of, should of, but didn't

          just trying to help a brother/sister out. That's what the ozbargain community is for

        • striker5950 on 25/05/2017 - 22:57
          +3

          @chumlee: nicely put, these guys in here trying to look at everything in a negative way, do not pay 8 grand, definitely get 3 quotes from different repairers and negotiate with the insurance company.

        • Praeto on 26/05/2017 - 00:39
          +6

          If you want to negotiate a lower price with a debt collector, arguing about an invoice that's already been paid is pointless..They just want the debt paid. They're not the insurance company and they don't care about the actual damage to the car. If you're not willing to pay what you legitimately owe, then the goal is to convince them that you can't pay the full amount, and if they don't accept the lower figure they won't get anything.

          From their perspective, they paid X for the debt and they want to make y profit. Convince them that compromising is in their best interest. Saying "I could have got it for cheaper" doesn't provide you any leverage at all, because it's irrelevant.

        • factor on 26/05/2017 - 21:50
          +2

          @Praeto:

          That's why you need to formally deny the full value of the debt in writing to the insurer. When it goes to the debt collector the above is true.

          The insurer cannot pass it to a debt collector if you have disputed that the money is owed at all. They would need to negotiate with you or take local court action the prove the debt. It is during those negotiations you suggest the repair was inflated and offer lower settlement.

        • Praeto on 26/05/2017 - 22:17

          @factor:

          My understanding of OPs post was that they had already been contacted by the debt collector, after receiving notice that it would be handed off to them in December last year. My advice is based on that understanding.

        • factor on 26/05/2017 - 22:40
          +1

          @Praeto:

          From the OP, it is only in the last weeks that the amount claimed has been notified to them. As such I would be denying to the collection agency that an debt of that amount is owed.

          Doesn't matter that it's been onsold. The debt needs to be proven. If the debt is formally denied, it will probably end up back with the insurer for more discussion.

          The critical step is having fair estimate of a reasonable repair. Only worth pursuing if that is significantly lower.

      • factor on 26/05/2017 - 21:46

        Completely wrong. All parties must minimise their loss - in any contract or civil damage.

        Inflated costs would get reduced if it went to court - and the magistrate wouldn't be too favourable to the party inflating costs.

        • Praeto on 26/05/2017 - 22:27

          What are you talking about?

          At no point did I suggest that it's ok to inflated the costs etc. I said that there is no obligation on the person getting their car fixed to seek out the cheapest option above all else. The repairer isn't going to make you drive an hour to go to a cheaper garage when you have one down the road, or choose a company with a terrible track record for half the price.

          The point was that saying "this is how much I could have got it done for with my no name mechanic working out of his shed" means nothing when they're under no obligation to go for that option.

        • factor on 26/05/2017 - 22:35

          @Praeto:

          Indeed. There is an obligation to take the cheaper option if reasonable in the circumstances. They can't simply choose the most expensive repairer with the best reputation.

          A standard legal principle, but interpreted for "reasonable" every time. Always good for negotiation on settlement if cheaper options were available.
          http://elringtons.com.au/2015/09/duty-to-mitigate-losses/

  • [Deactivated] on 24/05/2017 - 14:43
    +3

    "XXX Collection Pty Ltd"
    is making the money, the claim probably was a total of 4 grand, but they always try and make 100% on all claims.

  • k-rokfm on 24/05/2017 - 14:44
    +24

    Do you have third party property damage (DIFFERENT to comprehensive third party)? EVERYONE should have minimum this type of insurance to stop cases like this happening. If you dont have any insurance then you are up the creek without a paddle. You wont be able to fight it or argue the cost down.

    Do you have a photo of the damage? It sounds pretty big, not "just a scratch" like you say. And with lots of damage on new cars, there can be many things underneath that may have been damaged and needed replacing. Your little ding may have also pushed the boot out of alignment, needing new bumped and boot, then to be paint matched, fitted etc etc etc

    • LoCure on 24/05/2017 - 14:58

      No, the car rarely gets used so only CTP, sigh!

      • Ryanek on 24/05/2017 - 15:03
        +13

        Ouch. I'm afraid this is the gamble you pay when people decide not to have comprehensive insurance.

        • Make it so on 24/05/2017 - 15:37
          +57

          It's not "comprehensive insurance" that they should have had. Comprehensive covers both cars. Third party covers damage to the other car, and costs very little. CTP only covers medical bills.

        • ThithLord on 25/05/2017 - 08:29
          +20

          @Make it so: Which makes me feel even less sympathy for OP's mum. Ya don't have even 3PP? That's insane. It costs next to F all.

        • eye on 25/05/2017 - 09:29

          @Make it so:
          Yes, and third party costs around $150-$200 per annum. take it as an expensive lesson. repairing car is expensive. We had a passenger panel scratch and it costed us around $3500(covered by insurance). taking out the parts and painting do take a bit of time.

        • striker5950 on 25/05/2017 - 22:59
          +2

          @eye: where are you ozbarginers getting your 3rd party from, one says 180 one says 150, tf 150?? where link me..

        • eye on 26/05/2017 - 09:35

          @striker5950: they are all roughly the same, racq, allianz, etc… just google 3rd party insurance

        • Richardc on 26/05/2017 - 15:31

          @striker5950: depends on which city u living in.

      • Randxyz123 on 25/05/2017 - 09:36
        -1

        You know CTP isn't insurance right?

        What sort of phone does your mum have ? If she has an android with expandable memory you might be able to recover the photos.

        What kind of car did she hit? Sounds like she hit the bumper pretty hard, requiring a replacement.

        Sounds like she hit a new car

    • cloudy on 25/05/2017 - 13:05
      +10

      Sorry, I humbly disagree that the solution to stopping car insurance companies from gouging, is to encourage everyone to take out car insurance.

      It's everyones right to choose to take insurance or not, and if they do not, it's also right that they are not gouged in the process of fixing their mistakes.

      That is, of course assuming gouging is occurring, which there seems to be some evidence of such, from comments. Sorry, but I just don't like blanket advice like, EVERYONE SHOULD…

      • bobbified on 25/05/2017 - 14:51
        -3

        Well, in some states, they don't just "encourage" everyone to take out insurance - They FORCE them to take out insurance in the form of a pre-requisite for vehicle registration.

        Yes, it's personal injury insurance (instead of property-damage), but it's the same concept. There were too many people getting their pants sued off after they injured someone, so it became compulsory to be insured.

        They should do it with Third Party Property Damage Insurance so that the innocent party in an accident can at least have some certainty that they'll get compensated without jumping through all the legal hoops and then realising that the person that caused damage can't afford to pay.

        • cloudy on 25/05/2017 - 21:15

          umm, in all states personal injury is compulsory.

          If they want to make property the same as injury, that's fine, but if its run by the state, at least its not a gouge of insurance companies. I have no problems with that, so long as its fair.

        • cloudy on 25/05/2017 - 21:17

          Also you have to remember, damage to vehicles don't just come from driving, if you want compensation for damage maybe you should tax everyone that rolls a trolly in a supermarket (as an example) ;)

        • bobbified on 26/05/2017 - 09:26

          @cloudy:

          umm, in all states personal injury is compulsory.

          I know of the workings of two states but wasn't sure of the others so I didn't want to just assume.

          but if its run by the state, at least its not a gouge of insurance companies

          You should have a look at NSW's CTP policies that are run by the insurance companies. It's meant to be regulated, but have you seen the amounts that the premiums have been increasing the amount of profit these companies make? If it's not a rip-off, then I don't know what is!

        • bobbified on 26/05/2017 - 09:30

          @cloudy:

          damage to vehicles don't just come from driving, if you want compensation for damage maybe you should tax everyone that rolls a trolly in a supermarket (as an example)

          Not sure what you're arguing here.
          You seem to be assuming that damage to humans only comes from cars too. haha

        • cloudy on 26/05/2017 - 12:16

          @bobbified:

          I know, that's why I don't claim we should all be compensated when we have property damage like you do.

        • cloudy on 26/05/2017 - 12:17

          @bobbified:

          So you make the point the NSW govt is getting ripped off, so that's why we should all get additional 3rd party property insurance and further get ripped off? Your logic is becoming increasing confused.

        • Euphemistic on 26/05/2017 - 12:39

          You say CTP is a rort in NSW and also suggest that TPP be compulsory? That too would be a massive rort. TPP premiums would sky-rocket if it was compulsory, but I guess comprehensive wouldn't be required or would be very low additional cost as it would only be for theft, storm damage and damage to you own vehicle.

        • bobbified on 26/05/2017 - 14:04

          @cloudy:

          I know, that's why I don't claim we should all be compensated when we have property damage like you do.

          Why shouldn't we be compensated if someone's damaged our property?
          Are you saying that you'd be happy if someone ran into your car and never paid you for those damages?

        • bobbified on 26/05/2017 - 14:08

          @cloudy:

          but if its run by the state, at least its not a gouge of insurance companies

          NSW CTP insurance IS regulated by the state, but we still get ripped off with the premiums.
          There's two elements of insurance - one is the cost of the premium and the other is actualy cover. While I think the premiums are overpriced, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have that insurance. It's just that the premiums need to be regulated further.

        • cloudy on 26/05/2017 - 16:03

          @bobbified:

          Not saying I would be happy, but I am saying there is damage to property every day and people are not forced to be insured.

          Just because someone isn't insured doesn't mean they are crook or will unethically dodge their moral obligations.

          You views are clearly flawed.

        • bobbified on 26/05/2017 - 19:21

          @cloudy:

          You're arguing against the same logic that made CTP (or TAC or the equivalent) compulsory in the first place.

          The people at fault in these car accidents were not necessarily crooks - they just could not or did not have the ability to pay for the injuries that they've caused other people on the road. In a lot of cases, the person who was not at fault spent years suing the party at fault. It came to a point where some parties at fault became bankrupted because they still couldn't pay. This is how the CTP, TAC etc insurance became compulsory. The government wanted to stop people being made bankrupt from an accident.

          Now, if I was to use your argument, you'd be saying "so what? people get injured by other things every day too - why don't they get forced to take out insurance for that?"

        • cloudy on 27/05/2017 - 08:10

          @bobbified:

          You show your lack of knowledge of damage claims, health payouts are long tailed but property damage is short tailed.

          The difference is stark hence the difference in regulation. If your logic was so sound why don't u tell legislators they are wrong and should enforce insurance like CTP.

        • bobbified on 27/05/2017 - 12:24

          @cloudy:

          That's your opinion - I worked as a claims assessor in the early years for CTP claims - the majority of claims were not "long-tailed" as you think!

          If you ever had a situation where your car has suffered major damaged caused by an uninsured driver and you don't have comprehensive insurance yourself, you'd be wishing that the other driver had Third Party Property Damage insurance.

        • cloudy on 28/05/2017 - 11:51

          @bobbified:

          Yea of course not all health issues are long tailed, it's the premise that some are which is why govt wants CTP to be compulsory, it's the most cautious approach. But zero property damage issues have long tails. Which I assume is why it's not compulsory, and as you see from your own work, even the small amount of long tails has stoked our govt into action, I think they have a better judge of what should be forced or not.

          Of course if I had a claim against someone I would want more than one liable party, just like asking me if I want my bank accounts backed by layers and layers of government. Doesn't mean it's necessary or feasible.

  • John Kimble on 24/05/2017 - 14:56

    Ouch. Going through insurance will always inflate the "cost" of repairs…but that seems ridiculous!

  • LoCure on 24/05/2017 - 15:03

    Do l have a case to log a dispute with the financial ombudsman?

    • chumlee on 24/05/2017 - 15:04

      This is a civil matter.

      • LoCure on 24/05/2017 - 15:06

        Going through legalaid website, they did mention "If you can’t resolve the dispute with your insurer, you can lodge a complaint at the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) at any time. For more information see www.fos.org.au or call 1300 7808 08."!

        • chumlee on 24/05/2017 - 15:07
          +21

          You dont have an issue with your insurer. You have an issue with other parties insurer

        • Dingus on 25/05/2017 - 09:04
          +10

          You don't have an insurer. In the future I never drive a car with at least 3rd party insurance. Just not worth it.

    • Baysew on 24/05/2017 - 15:11
      +2

      Why won't you tell the make and model of the car your mum rear ended?

      • LoCure on 24/05/2017 - 15:14

        iam still finding out, there's nothing l can hide

        • Baysew on 24/05/2017 - 15:14
          +9

          It's not a hard question.

          but the bill sounds outrageous

          So how can you come to that conclusion, if you don't even know what sort of car she hit and how much actual damage she caused?

  • JimB on 24/05/2017 - 15:19
    -7

    " it was a scratch with small hump at the rear bumper"

    If the bumper is dented, then it will need to be replaced.

    You're getting ripped off.

    I suggest you just lodge a claim with 3rd Party Insurer and forward them the letter. They will deal with the rest.

    • k-rokfm on 24/05/2017 - 15:22
      +4

      Way to read any of the thread. He doesnt have insurance

      • JimB on 24/05/2017 - 15:35
        +2

        Harsh, 'the thing is our car does not have comprehensive insurance'

        Without reading any of the comments, one would assume OP has 3rd party damage insurance, otherwise OP should have said 'car does not have any insurance'.

      • JimB on 24/05/2017 - 15:42
        -4

        What does 'Way to read any of the thread.' mean?

        • k-rokfm on 24/05/2017 - 15:45
          +2

          you… read the thread. And find out after a few posts down that he doesnt have insurance. And also mentioned in a number of other comments.

          If after the first comment of 'not having comprehensive insurance' and then getting a bill one would assume that they didnt have any insurance. Which would then be confirmed after reading a number of posts

  • Kail on 24/05/2017 - 15:24
    +1

    Regarding the deleted photos of the bumper, it is possible to retrieve deleted photos. The longer they have been deleted and more used the phone/camera was, the more likely the memory where they were sitting has been overwritten however. I was able to retrieve deleted photos from an SD card using a free program a few years ago, I don't recall exactly what it was called but if you google "retrieve deleted photos" you can find a ton of information and programs available including apps if the camera was a phone.

    Also looking at that receipt… it looks like they replaced a tail light? And that the work occurred over 2-3 visits? Maybe I'm reading the receipt incorrectly.

  • k-rokfm on 24/05/2017 - 15:26
    +4

    The bill looks pretty fair to me. They would be replacing all damaged stock with OEM or equivalent (if not available) which is what i would expect my insurer to supply me. And you would be the same, you wouldnt want a 2nd rate repair or part if your car was damaged.

    As seen in the quote the reinforcement has been damaged and needing replacement (so obviously not a little ding, but quite a big one), usually these need to be cut out and welded back in. Then all the parts need to be colour matched, spray painted and then fitted/aligned. This can be a niggly process and as such the price reflects it.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join