Help/ Advice with an AFCA Decision/ Process

Hi all, just after some advice.

Just 6 years into a complaint against our insurer for a failed car repair back in 2012. They went for a PDR to fix significant hail damage. Paint fell off. They painted clear over top. That fell off in 2015. They tried again (another dodgy effort). Fell off again in 2021. In 2021 they said it's our problem.

This is a clear breach of their T&Cs (repairs and materials are covered for life of vehicle ownership). They did the repair, we still own the car.

I was amazed that the insurer tried to fight it. They even submitted a bogus independent report to try and dodge liability. The dates listed and location were location our car had never been to So I called the said person on the report, and they stated they were never at the stated location or made the statement. So I think that is fraud. But it didnt matter anyway as the insurer were still liable under their t&cs anyway.

So we fought the case, with AFCA intervention. 1000's of hrs over 9 years. Then another 5 years via complaint escalation. 14 years total. AFCA first rejected our case citing, what I believe to be, a fraudulent report as evidence. Basically, the AFCA agent had no knowledge of how paint works, so was not clear on what has happened. I said to them quite simply, why not? How do AFCA make decisions on matters they know nothing about. Employ a professional to decipher it. It is a black and white case. I said to simply call the number on the report and he will tell you it's fraudulent. But AFCA will not chase evidence (again…why not).

I asked to speak to the AFCA reps team leader. He basically said we can take it to another, and final decision maker. But make sure it is without any doubt what has happened. It needs to be from a professional in legal terms. For example, the crash repairer stated "the paint failure was caused by the use of a low grade clear coat that has failed extremely prematurely". Cause and effect. ..or so I thought…AFCA would not accept this. I still don't understand why not. It's a mystery.

It was ridiculous. Large chunks of paint around fist sized each over 80% of the vehicle had come off. But this was not sufficient. The agent said "this maybe normal". So I found 10 of each professional (repairer and paint manufacturer) all saying the paint had failed in their terms. Huge amounts of time, travel and stress. Each professional needed to be briefed in full on the back story/ history of the vehicle. Also, there was nothing in it for them to say anything. So I had to visit 50 or more to get 10 willing to go on record. I feel they should be remunerated as well.

So, I needed to take the car to multiple professional repairers, independent paint specialists (couldn't simply send in photos). Had to be physically assessed to be legally binding apparently. So I had to take leave without pay to do it. This is approx. $550 per day for me. I then had 'paint and failure' from basically every imaginable angle and professional covered. 14 years in, I had one last shot, and I needed this to stick.

So I then submitted the new evidence to the pile for the AFCA 'decider'. Just over 100 documents, 300 emails involving 47 professionals (including Allianz's own assessors who cant see why this was rejected), and an endless time line and call log. They never asked for our financial loss etc caused by this.

I then received a letter from AFCA that found in our favour, and we have until July 17 to accept the decision. However, the NFL (Net Financial loss) element was adjudicated at just $750!

I was/ still am without speech… $750 after all these years, time and financial costs…which they (AFCA) never even asked for yet. $750…in todays world! Even at minimum wage, losses would have a bigger loss than that. $750 will get a lawyer to read 15 lines on an email, and respond with 10. Basically $750 will cover a single email. Just crazy they would come up with that figure. No wonder the insurer just makes up evidence.

I reached out to them outlining that we do accept/ embrace the decision that Allianz are indeed liable, but our financial costs of this case are way off. There is a provision for $6300 here. After 14 years, 1000+ hrs, travel and loss of work time. We are definitely significantly above $750. Work time loss alone is over $5k..for an event that is covered in the T&Cs.

I was just informed the decision is final, and the NFL element cant be changed!

What on Earth is going on?

We haven't even accepted the decision yet. AFCA haven't presented a single figure on how much Allianz need to cover for the repair, never asked for a single piece of NFL substantiation.

This is not my first dealing with AFCA. Previously step one was adjudication on who is liable, then quotes to determine the payout figure, then NFL from all this process is decided. All then wrapped up in a final payout figure.

We dont have a single figure on paper yet, accept the $750 NFL!

I am without speech, and looking for guidance here. Is there an entity that oversees AFCA? (do we go to ASIC). They have lost the plot on this one.

Cheers all.

Related Stores

Allianz
Allianz

Comments

  • +16

    Ok cool time to buy a new car

    • -7

      No idea of what figure we are working from. Cars value in 2012 (when we first raised issue with the repair), or the figure in 2021 when we had enough and pusued a complaint AFCA process, or the cars value today (which is basically zero with all the paint falling off since 2012)?

      • How old is the car?

          • +4

            @Baysew: wow bin it

          • -1

            @Baysew: I should have updated that.

            AFCA got the full repair log and found out the PDR repairer said they couldn't repair it , and the car was then fully painted over (poorly) with clear.

            So we were chasing a PDR issue. Insurer claimed it was the original Mazda paint just failing….when it turned out it was the insurers failed PDR and paint over the top all along.
            Allianz actually submitted a report that showed their paint had failed.

            • @tunzafun001: Everyone knows Mazda's from that era had poor point quality, thin paint layers and even thin metal panels on some parts.

              As others have said it's time to move on.

              Nothing lasts forever, not even diamonds. Graphite is more stable on our Earth than diamonds.

              • -1

                @eddyah: This is what made it hard. The assessors thought they were looking at a PDR of Mazda paint.
                But, when we acquired the full repair history (that only Allianz new about), turns out the PDR said it was too deep and they painted the whole thing. This paint then fell off (literally).

                So the assessors either didn't do their own due diligence to see that they were assessing their own paint, or they tried to hide it.

                The PDS says all repairs and materials are covered for the life of owning the car. It should have been a slam dunk from there.

                But the first AFCA person rejected it (as he couldnt be sure the repair had failed - legally, not visually). I then told him he is looking at it wrong. The 'paint' is the "materials". He conceded he got it wrong. But.. couldn't reverse his decision. Had to go to their next level (they call it a "decider'). She made a decision in our favor within about a minute of a phone call. BUT…didn't ask about the financial loss.

                I've now read the AFCA procedural rules. They basically got it wrong at every stage (even their phone number comes up as a spam mortgage broker). So I will call the decider. Give her a chance to fix it. If not will use their review service to look at the whole thing.

                It's several thousand dollars (potentially $6300 over the payout figure). We wore this cost (that should have never occurred) and need it reimbursed.

                • @tunzafun001: Damn that sucks dude. Way too much time and money wasted fighting this IMO and money better spent on the next car.

                  I think there's a learning here around time limits / expectations of how long something should 'last' are in effect.

                  Things that are moving through the wind at +100kms/hr and exposed to sunlight, acidic rain etc tend not to last forever…

                  • @eddyah: Yeah, but my cars paint work (same year- darker metallic) no covered at work as her is, is still in perfect condition.
                    All repairers and paint specialists where aware of the repairer (that Allianz kept hidden until the log was requested) and knew the 'cheap crap paint' they use.

      • +1

        dabajeeezzzussss man just buy $3000 camry and be done with it.

  • +3

    I think its time to move on, and heal.

    • +14

      Insurers are walking all over people these days. Why are people putting up with it?

      Premiums through the roof, but then not offering the product they are selling.

      I can't put up with that.

      Definitely time to heal…I'm pretty wound up tonight.

      • +4

        It's very frustrating, I know the feeling - it's getting taken advantage of and having every bit of "support" not worth the paper it's written on.

        If I were you and I had the energy I'd take the repairer to VCAT, the car has a relatively low value ($5-8k) so it's something you'd think would be perfect for that environment.

  • +2

    See a Solicitor.

    • +3

      Or possibly a therapist

    • +1

      Any suggestions? I don't know who would take on ASIC!!!

  • +2

    Time to fold. Accept life is not fair.

    • +4

      Yeah, that's not me. It isn't, but I'll at least go down swinging!

      • That's the spirit!

  • -1

    This is why I don't bother with car insurance.

    • +17

      Yeah, because this scenario is so common. LOL.

      • -3

        I think it actually might be common. This is my second case in the same year. I was successful in that one. Far less involved than this one and the NFL was $4k. So I knew the process pretty well. But this case hasn't followed process. Might call ASIC, as it make no sense. Finalising NFL before the situation is resolved.

        But to be fair, cant blame the insurers if the penalty is only $750.

        Obligation to the share holders to reject as many legit claims as they can. Would be mad not too if AFCA think $750 is acceptable.

        • +1

          Happened to you twice = common? OK.
          Maybe with your experiences, you could spend some time organising a campaign to change the situation for the better?

    • How’s the Camry

    • -1

      It’s called being “Self insured”

      That’s what big companies call it. When you scale insurance, it becomes obvious it is a rich man’s tool for poor people.

      People don’t see it though. Yes the insurance companies have the most beautiful buildings in every CBD, nice jobs for employees, glossy ads everywhere, still big dividends for investors and generous sports sponsorships… let’s ignore that. Let’s just focus on the punters getting “piece of mind” 😂

      • +3

        'peace of mind'
        'Piece of mind' is what we use, when we don't get the former.

    • Please tell me you atleast have Third party insurance that covers damage to other's vehicles?

      You could easily rack up damages that could financially wipe you out. Imagine writing off an RS5, or just having a fender bender with a newer M-series or an AMG…

  • Insurance companies are a rip off. Free Luigi.

  • +12

    From https://smmry.com

    A prolonged, 14-year battle with their insurer over faulty repairs on their car after hail damage. Initially, paint and repairs failed multiple times, leading to claims under the insurer’s terms and conditions. Despite providing extensive evidence of fraud and inadequate repairs, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) initially rejected their case, citing a questionable independent report.

    After significant effort and the collection of expert opinions, AFCA ultimately ruled in favor of the claimant. However, the financial loss awarded was just $750, significantly below expectations and not reflective of the extensive time and costs incurred. The author expresses frustration and confusion regarding AFCA’s procedures and seeks guidance on appealing their decision.

    • +4

      Good bot

    • +2

      I clearly need this bot hard wired into my scone… Apologies for the novel.

      Tune in for season 3…

  • -1

    Go to ASIC
    Current affairs
    You have fought for so long and this is just a sticker price to shut you up!

    • +2

      You can't go to Current affairs over something way back in 2012

      Try 10 News+ they put anything on air…

    • I saw ASIC are top of the chain.

      I will question the process.

      Ie. need to accept a compensation amount without being asked how we have been inconvenienced, nor the issue being finalised yet. Haven't even accepted it. Plus someone rejecting it initially.

      Also, Android reports the 1800 number as a mortgage house, and outgoing calls from them as telemarketing spam (big red, suspicious number warning).

      Comical all round really

  • +3

    Why did I read the whole of this absolute dribbling shite

    • Watch 'The Surfer', then MountainHead.

      It will make my dribble shite feel like delightful reading.

  • Everything in life is a gamble In this case you lost and the bigger pockets won

  • +1

    Does the $750 actually cover the costs for a proper repair?

    • +1

      $750 is supposed to cover all costs that were incurred for the insurer making us go through all this to this point.
      The actual repair is a seperate element.
      The problem is $750 will buy you a cheese sandwich these days. It so far unjustified for 14 years of challenges and then 5 years of solid slugging it out/ appointing professionals. Daily to and fro..
      I was planning on giving them who gave up there time more than $750.

  • +4

    I then received a letter from AFCA that found in our favour, and we have until July 17 to accept the decision. However, the NFL (Net Financial loss) element was adjudicated at just $750!

    The NFL figure is probably what Allianz proposed to AFCA to pay. It's their 'shut and go away already' number.
    What did you propose? Were you given an opportunity to propose what an acceptable resolution would be?

    You can reply with a conditional acceptance. Tell them you accept the decision that Allianz is liable, but you do not accept the NFL determination. Tell them the number you think it should be. And detail in plain and simple English, use literal dot points if you can, how you arrived at that number. e.g. 1. actual cost to repair. 2. loss of income to collect evidence. 3. etc…

    If you need to include paragraph length justifications for certain numbers. Put them as readable sub dot points. It really should be simple to read, organised, and coherent.

    Do not make them wade through paragraphs and paragraphs of blocks of text like this post. Make it reallllllly easy for the person receiving your response to understand and agree with you. And treat AFCA as your friend. Don't be accusatory (even if they did stuff up). You want the person at AFCA reading your response to side with you. Thank them for their time (sometimes it pays to act like a kiss arse).

    If you're not good at writing this sort of thing, consider putting your draft response into an AI and see if it can format it better or make it more readable and pursuasive. Take any results it gives you with a grain of salt. Sometimes it can be goood, othertimes not so much.

    Ask somone else to read it before you send it off.

    FWIW I disagreed with an NFL assessment for an entirely different issue I took to AFCA and they came back with a much higher number, although not as high as I had requested.

    There are clear rules they must follow. See here.
    Do everything you can to help them tick the boxes to adjust the number in your favour.

    • Cheers. Yeah I did exactly this.

      No they never asked about the NFL. This is my second time going through this. So I was expecting this to come. But previously it was approved by the first contact. But this time it went to the next level. Funny enough contact 1 said he got it wrong, but can't change it. So maybe it's a bit different process…or they just stuffed it up.

      Responded exactly as you said. Ie. Yes to the decision, but reject the NFL for x,y,z.

      But they hadn't responded to our outline of the NFL for 3 weeks. Yet we got an email from a new clerk 4, saying you only have a few days left to respond to their findings.

      So emailed them today, and Clerk 3 said "sorry been away"…which is fine, but should be diverted to clerk 4.

      Then 'the decider" emailed and said sorry the case is finalised and can't be changed.

      Which makes no sense as we haven't even accepted it.
      Process failure here for sure. But who to follow it up with? ASIC?

      • +1

        Have you tried your local MP? Might sound a bit left-field but I had success with an NBN issue when my MP's office got involved.

        • Curious to how a local MP and NBN link together. Something like poor quality NBN in the area? You were told you would get fibre to the house and it didn't occur?

          Not sure how a local MP would have "skin' in an issue against a national insurer, other than their 'dodgey" reports if they are a sponsor in the area.

          • +2

            @tunzafun001: Forced NBN upgrade. Techs arrived, suggested I have the connection anywhere but where I wanted it (where the current cable was). Mucked about, came up with all these reasons why I should have it in the loungeroom, finally told me they couldn't put it where I wanted because they might damage something during the installation, and that I needed to get someone to lay the cable. Once that was done they'd come back and hook it all up. So I whinged on FB and a distant friend who happens to work for my local MP saw my complaint, and leaned on the installers to come and do a proper job. Which they did, the following week.
            You never know until you try, particularly if your local MP is in opposition. MPs are there to help their constituents where they can. They've got nothing to lose by trying to get involved.

      • No they never asked about the NFL.

        That seems unusual. I'd be questioning if they have followed their own processes properly or missed steps.

        Try to map out step by step what they did do and then match it up to what they should have done according to the rules published on the AFCA site (previous link, make sure to use the rules relevant for your case not the most recent 2024 rules). Try to clearly identify what steps they've missed.

        Again don't be accusatory (even though it is perfectly reasonable to angry about this long drawn out ordeal). Maybe things have been missed in the handover between different employees since one of them went on leave for a period.

        I would also take the other person's advice of asking your MP for some assistance.
        Write an elevator pitch summary of the entire ordeal from the start to now so they can get the gist of the issue fairly quickly. And then give him/her the full explanation including that you think AFCA haven't followed their own processes properly.

        • +1

          Yeah, I've conceeded that I now need to read the AFCA "pds" cover to cover as well. Find out where they fell over.
          Your assumptions with hand over etc is exactly the same as mine. It will be the case, so they are now trying to sweep it up. Wrong guy for that. …do it right.

          Throw in AFCA's own phone numbers report as Suspicious Spam in Android (they come up as a mortgage broker by default). Just dodgey for a gov dept.

          So yeah, reading the fine print and telling people how they should have done their job is the only way these days. Feel like an arrogant Ahole..but it is the only way. They will door mat you if not.

          ATO/ AFCA … Equally a crap shoot on how the experience will be.

    • @tenpercent

      I just read the rules cover to cover.

      Some sections there with a "clerical error" being a reason to change the decision. I can use that..as they never responded/ person was away. Plus they say we have accepted the decision….we have not. Lastly, their number is auto marked as Spam from a mortgage service when they call.
      So they could use that, but it's their choice.

      The other part is section 16 Complaints about AFCA’s service
      A.16.1 A party to a complaint who is dissatisfied with the standard of service provided
      by AFCA when dealing with a complaint may lodge a complaint with AFCA about
      its service. Any user may lodge a complaint about AFCA’s service."

      Interesting though there is no mention of the "process " used in making a determination.
      My first time was professional and I was informed all the way along. The second time I want sure if it was a legit AFCA or a scammer (process, service, procedure).

      Can I ask a favor (if you have an Android phone). Call the 1800 AFCA number and see what Google auto assigns the number as? Wondering if everyone else gets it labeled incorrectly as "Smartline Mortgage Services".

  • +1

    This is approx. $550 per day for me

    And how much is the car worth? More than the time it took you to visit 50+ repairers?

    • +2

      This is the thing. It hasn't been established yet. At the start of repair failure/ raising the issue it was $21k, then in 2021 when we took them on (during Covid) it was $13 500. Not worth anything today.
      Total pain to be honest. Signed up to a PHEV lease to get rid of it, but couldn't offload it as it would give the insurer an out in the t&Cs. No room for multiple vehicles. All in my financial loss ledger presented to them.

  • +3

    You have spent all this time and effort on a car that's worth about $3k in good condition. I understand that you are frustrated, but good lord just buy another car. If you have this issue again, complain the moment it's finished and don't stop until they repair it to your satisfaction, or write it off.

    • +1

      Have done this. Challenge it since 2012. I have automotive experience. It was always gojng to fail..

      They just said, don't worry it's all covered under our guarantee if it fails. It did. Then they didn't want to uphold their pds.
      Somehow AFCA clerk 1 rejected it. After speaking with his Team Leader, they concluded ..and I quote "they aren't mechanics and understand what happened". Said they got it wrong. Take it to the next step with afca.

      Clerk 2 said It will be the assessors valuation when escalated to a complaint. During Covid silly season, that was $13.5k + NFL up to $6.3k.

  • +2

    I can't wait to read the published decision.

    • Decision was made. Insurer repairs the car + $750. I need to read the guidelines to see where they failed the process.
      We never accepted the decision, so there is that to start with .

      • +3

        AFCA publish the decision on their website. I suspect that since yours hasn't been finalised it isn't up there yet. I can't wait to read their version.

      • +3

        So you're getting the car fixed and $750? Yes, less than you wanted, but it's something, and unfortunately you can't expect to be reimbursed for all your time, much as you might want to be. This is a positive outcome and the car will be saleable after the repair. Accept and move on, just as others have said.

        • Car should have been fixed at the first assessment. They turn chose to drag it out.
          They wouldn't accept simply sending photos for a professional assessment (even though 25cm round chunks of paint fell off).
          So I needed to take time off work to do take the car in for assessment. I cant take annual leave, so I had to take LWOP. I have my LWOP documented.
          I'm out of pocket ~ $5k for this alone.
          Then there are sundries (like you would claim on tax - fuel, tyres from getting around, power etc). 6 yrs, 1000hrs.
          Never should have happened. They fought it and lost. This is normally a standard part of an AFCA process for all costs to be reimbursed.

  • +5

    Hear Ye, Hear Ye! From the esteemed High Court of Ozbargainania,

    The Matter of The Afflicted Policyholder v. Allianz of Ozbargainania (1883)

    Coram: The Right Honourable Justice Bargain, The Right Honourable Justice Deal, and The Right Honourable Justice Save.

    Delivered: The 12th Day of July, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty-Three.

    Decision of the Court:

    This Court has been apprised of a most peculiar and, dare we say, rather vexing state of affairs, as laid before us by the aggrieved Policyholder in the matter of their insurance claim against Allianz of Ozbargainania. The Policyholder laments, with a tone bordering on bewildered exasperation, that they have been informed of a "final decision" wherein an "NFL element" is deemed immutable, all whilst the very foundations of due process remain conspicuously absent.

    It has been put forth, with considerable emphasis, that the so-called "decision" has been delivered prior to its acceptance by the Policyholder, a notion which strikes this Court as profoundly irregular.

    Furthermore, the Policyholder asserts, and the Court finds no evidence to contradict, that the arbitrating body, the AFCA, has failed to present any figures pertaining to the quantum of repair costs to be borne by Allianz. More remarkably, and indeed, most perplexing, is the allegation that not a single shred of NFL substantiation has been requested or provided.

    The Policyholder, no stranger to the byzantine corridors of the AFCA, draws a stark contrast with past dealings. They recount a logical and sequential process: first, adjudication on liability; second, the procurement of quotes to ascertain the payout figure; and third, the determination of the NFL arising from this very process, all culminating in a definitive final payout.

    Yet, in the present instance, the cart appears to have been placed firmly before the horse, with the cart itself being naught but an empty shell, save for a solitary and unsolicited figure of $750 NFL.

    This Court finds itself in agreement with the Policyholder's bewilderment. It is a fundamental principle of justice, even in the burgeoning field of insurance arbitration, that a decision, particularly one deemed "final," must be predicated upon a thorough and transparent examination of all pertinent facts and figures. To declare a "final decision," and moreover, to decree an "NFL element" as unalterable, in the utter absence of any documented repair figures, or indeed, any substantiation for the said NFL, defies all reasonable expectations of fairness and due process.

    The insistence upon the immutability of the "NFL element" without the antecedent steps of liability determination, cost assessment, and proper substantiation is akin to demanding payment for a meal before the ingredients have been sourced, the chef has cooked, or the diner has even confirmed their order. Such an approach is, to put it mildly, unprecedented and wholly unacceptable within the established practices of the AFCA, as understood by this Court and as demonstrated by the Policyholder's prior experiences.

    Therefore, this Court holds that the purported "final decision" and the unchangeable "NFL element" presented to the Policyholder, in the absence of any detailed figures or substantiation from the AFCA, is null and void.

    The matter must be remitted back to the AFCA with the clear directive that they are to adhere to a proper and sequential process: firstly, determining liability; secondly, obtaining and presenting clear figures for the repair costs; and thirdly, and only then, substantiating and determining any NFL component, all before any "final decision" can be credibly rendered.

    The sum of $750 NFL, standing in isolation, is without merit until the full financial landscape of the claim has been meticulously laid bare.

    It is so Ordered.

    • -1

      tldr

    • +1

      Thank you your honour! :)

  • +1

    Ombudsmen, Commissioners and regulators are disappointing more often than not. The key is not put too much energy into it - a couple of emails / calls / weeks and then it's off to a Tribunal or Court.

    • +3

      Word! Is there anything as pathetic as the TIO or the Postal Ombudsman. This shit is all self regulation which in and of itself is a govt endorsed scam that allows industries to dilute consumer justice.aka escape accountability. Self regulation = no regulation.

      • The absolute worst I have ever struck is the NSW legal services commissioner.

        NSW lawyers are effectively completely unregulated.

        • +1

          We are going to end up like the USA.Almost there. Litigation central, where even their own constitution is worthless. It's abused beyond morality and the tenets democracy. Video may have killed the radio star, but the uS lawyer industry fkd over the uS justice system.

  • +4

    Be careful, if you reject the AFCA determination in any way then you are on your own. You will receive nothing at all.
    You have to accept the whole determination in its entirety.
    You can’t accept part of the judgment and reject another part.
    If you do, your only option will be to pursue the insurer for any compensation through the courts yourself, at your own expense.
    Accept the finding, get your car fixed and take the $750.
    Otherwise, you’ll get nothing, not even the repair

    • But that isn't the process. ASIC have a hotline. I'll call it……and probably get an official response in 30 yrs.

  • +2

    I believe NFL is largely determined by the insurer.

    Also… AFCA rules excerpt:
    However, we adopt a conservative approach to the award of compensation for non-financial loss. We expect complainants to be moderately robust and bear the usual stress and inconvenience associated with an insurance claim. Moreover, non-financial loss is not intended to be a punishment for any wrongdoing on the part of the insurer.

  • I’ve just started my own battle with the RAA, someone making a fraudulent claim getting pre-existing damage repaired. The RAA are a bunch of flogs. Hope it doesn’t take me 12 years.

    • I don’t think it’s wise to battle the king of the gods, Ra. Hope it doesn’t drag on for years.

    • The process is deliberately long and convoluted.It's the way self regulation works. Punters give up.
      It's a wonder more ppl don't go 'postal'.

      • I 1000000% agree. ..when you see someone go postal on the news I used to think..that person isn't well. Now I just go ..yep yep..I see…

    • My advice. Focus on the t&Cs. Find the part you think they got wrong. Buy a carton of beer. Go to whatever crash repairer and say I need this statement and leave the beer on the counter.

      Poor buggas wrote exactly what I saw "paint job has failed premature due to the use of a low grade clear". AFCA didn't understand it and rejected it at first.

      So had to go back and had to get him to write something primative/ yet legally clear.

      Paint shouldn't fall off vehicles within this cars current served life period.

      AFCA are lawyers and only know "snake holes". Ie. He said..how do I know paint isn't meant to fall off? ..and how do I know you didn't remove it yourself? (I asked him for one single hypothetical on how one would remove paint in this manner)… couldn't provide one.
      So basically, you even need to cover the possibility that a green unicorn from Sirius B pooped magic on your bumper causing making all the paint fall off.

      They said they are not "mechanics" (so they don't even know the correct trade involved). Basically, be prepared for convincing someone with not much going on upstairs other than being good at finding loop holes…to the point they loose all vision of the forest from the trees.

      Ie. Our pds says All repairs AND MATERIALS are covered for the life of ownership. So I conceded a magic unicorn was to blame, but it's still covered anyway as the PDS doesn't exclude unicorns of any type. Got over the line with the "decider" (final appeal person) in about 10 mins.

      • Mistake number one. Statement first ,carton second. Leave a 6 pack as a down payment, by all means.

        • The amount of effort AFCA expect these guys to do non remunerated is DISGUSTING.

          I'll put that in writing to my MP.

          Any insight on how to pursue the insurer for apparent fraud? AFCA act like it's lepracy…avoid discussing it at all costs.

          But its so blatant. A report with a fictional date, location and the person on the report has said it wasn't his statement. This was their sole defence that dragged it out.

          Worse part is, AFCA still accepted and referred to it throughout.

          Guess Ill flick that to the MP as well. Wasting locals time with fabricated evidence.

          • @tunzafun001:

            Guess Ill flick that to the MP as well

            Absolutely do if you can prove it. It will give the MP more ammo to assist.

  • +2

    I think you should have considered the time vs reward equation at some point of your fight for justice. Also the toll on your mental & physical health.

    Time to let it go and move forward with your life.

  • +1

    This case is longer than the Deathcap murder trial

    • Deathcap murder

      Did you make a logo for it and make it your display pic?

  • FFS what an absolute joke of a government department

    • +3

      I’ve seen a few comments about this department and goes to show people’s ignorance.

      This is not a department of government, this is an organisation paid by members, which alliance is a member. So is it not surprising to me who they represent, they ain’t biting the hand that feeds pays them.

      It’s obvious.

  • +4

    It seems to me that you are wanting the AFCA to compensate you for costs (NFL) that you incurred as a result of your dealings with them.

    That isn't part of what they do.

    I think you will find that they only assess loss directly caused by the insurer.

    This likely includes unreasonable costs you incurred when get the insurer to fix the faulty repair job per the insurance claim for the hail damage and paint job.

    From what I can make out, your complaint is about the quality of the painting repair job.

    It does look like the AFCA does agree with you here as they are requiring a repair as part of the remedy.

    This brings us to the NFL. It looks like the evidence they have to assess such compensation only reflects a NFL of $750. If you want more, the onus is on you to provide evidence of this.

    Their pdf tells me their maximum payout for NFL is about $5,500 (can't remember exactly), which leads me to believe it isn't possible for them to award you more than this.

    So, I guess the question is, what evidence have you provided the AFCA to justify them awarding you more than the $750 they have offered?

    • I scroll too far for this. Heed.

  • I had a front end accident and aircon stopped working. It was obvious it was due to the repairs so I took it back to the repairer who re-gassed and checked for leaks. But same issue persisted. I took it to my own mechanic and found a relay near the front bumper wasn't plugged in properly.

    Sometimes its not worth the effort.

  • +1

    By this point you are totally obsessed. Your time is limited. Use it on something else.

  • You are earning $550 a day or $2750 a week or $143000 a year before tax. Get a life and move on.

    • ..was …now $0.
      Need every cent at the moment.

  • +1

    ASIC won’t help. Your options are to take it or litigate.

    You’re getting your 2007 Mazda 3 (now worth about $3K to $5K) fixed and $750 on top of that.

    Move on with life.

    • -1

      All good.
      Read the AFCA rules and Guidelines (posted by another user above).
      Got something to work with in there.

      • I know the rules and work in the industry. You’re wasting your time, but you do you.

        • -1

          This is my second AFCA process. So I have another case / process / email trail point of reference I will be referring.

          I cannot accept a $750 figure for 6 years and close to 1000 hrs of grievance, when it is has been proven the insurer had not provided truthful evidence in denying the case. They purposely hid and provided false information to deny paying….cost of that $750 (as the actual repair should have always been done from the start).

          A $750 figure (just under $1 an hr) sets a precedent for insurers to continue treating everyone like dirt.
          Why wouldn't they do this over and over if after 6 years the penalty (and thats what it is), is only $750.

          i just spoke to the AFCA agent, and they could not articulate how they arrived at this figure. Just simply, I decided a ball park $750. But what it did show, in a now recorded and documented phone call, that:

          1. The key part of evidence for them was evidence we provided in 2022. So everything else from there was a waste. Documented call. So the preliminary person got their decision wrong.

          2. She has not cited all the evidence presented. So there is no way for her to make a decision on the $750.

          3. With no industry background, they cant interpret the data that was presented anyway. She referred to a possibility of her deciding it being natural delamination…which it was! But it was the insurers paint that delaminated, and did so prematurely.This is clearly documented by repairer number 4 and in Allianz's own report they kept hidden.

          There are multiple trades involved that wasted all their time with lengthy reports for no remuneration whatsoever. They will stop doing this out of goodwill, then you will have no evidence that you can provide to an AFCA type organisation.
          So it's clear that AFCA are trying to make their service redundant.

          So I will be letting the local Member know that their local business owners are being 'doormatted' by AFCA and the insurance companies. They need to be remunerated properly.

          The fact that you can't be reimbursed for actual costs is rubbish and makes no sense. If I paid $1000 for a BASF report, and the case lands in my favour, that $1000 should be reimbursed.

          So yes, I will be 'wasting' more time. But hopefully for the good of our family and everyone else. Insurance has become a crap shoot of pathetic.

          *PS. sorry about the journal. But i'm using this as a backup future log/ mindmap if I need to reference dates etc.

          • +2

            @tunzafun001: "A $750 figure (just under $1 an hr) sets a precedent for insurers to continue treating everyone like dirt."

            It does no such thing.
            As someone mentioned above, be thankful they are even offering you that. It's a "go away and shut up" offer, and you should take the hint.
            It's pretty obvious you are out of work now, because this is what you're spending your time on, instead of something worthwhile.

            You're not Jack and they are not the Giant, and you're not the 'good guy' here.
            Whatever the outcome of this particular episode is, they'll move on and remember not a single jot of it, whilst it has consumed your life, and probably peppers your every conversation. Are your family and friends completely sick of hearing you bang on about it?

            • -1

              @playerzer2: Please explain how this is not the case when the overseeing body issues this:

              "A $750 figure (just under $1 an hr) sets a precedent for insurers to continue treating everyone like dirt."
              It does no such thing."?

              Actually, never mind, Your other comments are negative in nature and bring nothing helpful. You sucked me in a couple of times. I didn't realise its the same person.
              You do you. Clearly you wouldn't worry about using your insurance. We are different, I respect that and we will leave it at that.

          • +2

            @tunzafun001: The costs you're seeking to be reimbursed are outside the AFCA jurisdiction.

            You're expecting them to do stuff they simply just don't do.

            Those sorts of costs need to be pursued through civil litigation which you have to fund just like every other Australian.

            As for paying for your expert opinions or whatever, that's on you to pay for.

            Want to make accusations/allegations about someone/something, in Australia you have to provide qualified proof of that.

            The starting point is you have to provide the proof (in accordance with evidence laws), they did something wrong, the defendants don't have to prove your case for you.
            Captured by Evidence laws.

            In Australia, it doesn't matter what you know is true, it doesn't matter what you think is true, it doesn't even matter what you believe is true.

            The only thing that matters is what you can prove and our legal system has very clear guidelines about what qualifies as acceptable and appropriate evidence.

            You can't just make allegations and expect people to take your word for it. The onus is on you to PROVE the allegations you are making.

            This isn't an AFCA thing, it's a whole Australian legal system thing.

            Of course they need proof of stuff. Just like for everyone else, the onus of accessing that proof is on you and the fact your "experts" weren't paid is on you.

            Want to be reimbursed for the time you allege you spent, do what everyone else has to do and pursue it in court and let the court tell you what expenses you can legally claim/may be awarded damages for.

            The fact you're claiming 1000 hours is just hilarious. The courts will laugh their ass off at you over this. They'll either be deemed imaginary, excessive, unreasonable, inflated or just not eligible for damages.

            1000 hours is something like 26 weeks.
            Preparation for complex murder cases or multimillion dollar negligence claims for extreme circumstances don't take that long.

            Regardless, the absolute maximum they can pay out to you anyway is something like $5,500, and that's for the most extreme levels/most severe claims.

            Want that much money, you (not them) need to provide legally acceptable quality of proof to substantiate the claim.

            Want more than that amount? You're dreaming, it's never going to happen.

            You've had your free legal access, not happy with it? Do what everyone else has to do and pursue it in the correct format (civil tribunals/courts) and pay for it like everyone else has to.

  • +2

    Imagine if you just sucked up the initial loss and got the car repainted. you'd be much better off financially and mentally….

    • +1

      Well, we would actually be better off. The numbers don't crunch. Therefore one can only conclude that AFCA (or the powers above) are clearly trying to make their department redundant.

      AFCA claim actual costs from this case are not recoverable. I was without speech about that one.

      The only compensation is for time and stress apparently (which I thought wouldn't attract a financial amount).

      AFCA see that time and stress at just under $1 per hour.

      So I will be taking it to a local MP, as we need these consumers protections to remain in place as a viable protection.

  • 🤣🤣🤣
    Congratulations on putting so much time and effort into NOTHING.
    I'm not sure how you calculate the value of your time, but was it really worth "$550 per day"?

    At least you had something to occupy you over these last 15 years.

    I can just imagine the conversation in the lunch room: "I heard from that guy about the paint on his sh*tbox again. He says it's falling off", and they all fall about.

    For someone who's "without speech" so much, you sure are full of a lot of speech.

    • Off work at the moment. So got a bit of time. The average Joe cant go through with this.

      The $550 is what I would have earn't for that day if I didnt take LWOP. Its pre tax, but with Salary sacrifice, pre tax figure is significant.

      AFCA don't care anyway, as their remuneration is apparently only based on a 'grievance payment' up to $6300. Ie. how much have you been put out.

      Currently they value that …in 2025 as $750

      Hopefully helps you all out ultimately. I would hope no one accepts this.

      But again, we were raised different. All good.

      • +3

        OMG!

        Just because you took a day off work to do something that took an hour doesn't mean you get to claim the entire day.

        That's never going to work in anyone's jurisdiction. Want to try and get that past the refs? They're gonna laugh their asses off at you. It just doesn't work like that.

        AFCA don't care anyway, as their remuneration is apparently only based on a 'grievance payment' up to $6300 Ie. how much have you been put out.

        Hate to cause even more disappointment for you, but the $6,300 was for claims made after a certain date (can't remember what date that was, but quite recently).

        Your claim has to use the laws that were applicable at the time you made your claim, which was only about $5,500ish max.

        Regardless, I don't think you're understanding what this "grievance" payment even is. That's a max figure for the most serious case such as loss of a significant limb type case that requires multiple medical opinions that cost $1000's of dollars for each "expert".

        Ultimately, it seems like you have suffered a breach of contract for non performance.

        Any damages that may be available to you will be applied similarly to those applied in damages claims in areas like negligence law and maybe tort law.

        Contract law simply doesn't provide for the type of damages you seem to be pursuing.

        But you do you. Reality is often disappointing so I understand that people insist on living in denial.

        I just hope you provide ongoing updates so that others who access this thread can see how unrealistic your expectations are.

        I do hope I'm wrong and I often am, but this isn't one of those times.

        Best Wishes.

Login or Join to leave a comment