Just put a claim in for a bump , the wheel and tyre is a write off , the assessors are saying they will meet only half the cost of the tyre .Is this normal?.
The tyre average depth on the new spare is 7mm, the damaged tyre average depth is 5mm , so not half worn. The insurance company is the Royal Sunalliance. Seems a bit of a cheek to me.
Also the suspension Geometry will have to be checked , What is the likely damaged,the car is a A4Audi Quattro,impact speed about 15 to 20 mph.
Thanks in advance.
|
|
Forgot to mention wheel is back nearside
|
|
|
It's hard to say without knowing the circumstances. Insurance companies are a funny bunch.
Andy
|
|
its all down to negotiation, dont accept it, push it out, they always come in with a low offer regardless
|
|
There is something involved called betterment although I don't think it applies in your case. If you have an old car damaged and then repaired and resprayed they can claim that their work has added value to the car and ask you to contribute. I would have thought a tyre was a simple 25% worn we'll pay 75% but as an earlier answer said, they are a funny bunch
|
What is the UK legal minimum tread depth?
And what does the handbook say about it?
I know my Opel says "replace when wear indicators are reached" - which is about 2.5 mm. (even though our tread minimum is 1mm)
Looks like they are taking the 'recommended' away from the original and calculating the 50% that way ... still sounds dodgy, though ....
Have you asked the tyre manufacturer's opinion?
|
I think the UK minimum tread depth is 1.6mm. The tread depth indicators show when wear is approaching 2.5mm, giving you ample time to change it before it falls apart.
Andy
|
Apologies for my ambiguity! I meant that the insurance co's 50% offer seems based on some weird formula involving minimum wear, wear indicators etc - (ie very dodgy).
I keep a close eye on mine - driving in monsoon-like storms with the 'legal minimum tread' is only for the foolish ...Andy P wrote:
>
> I think the UK minimum tread depth is 1.6mm. The tread depth
> indicators show when wear is approaching 2.5mm, giving you
> ample time to change it before it falls apart.
>
> Andy
|
|
|
|
|
If the tyre damage is part of a bigger claim, say impact with the kerb during an accident, you should get the whole cost of replacement paid. I put in a claim as a follow up to a big repair about two weeks after getting the repaired car back, when a huge 'egg' showed up on the impacted tyre. AXA didn't quibble.
|
|
|
Try asking them if they have a precedent for the offer. Then ask them if the basis for the offer is in your policy anywhere. If not, tell them you're not happy with the offer, and go up a level, supervisor/manager if it doesn't get improved.
Cheers,
Peter.
|
|
|
Now then this issue of the wheel and tyre works like this (in theory anyway):
Insurance policies exist to compensate an individual for any loss that they have sufferered to whatever it is that they are insuring against. The idea is that they receive the correct amount of compensation to put them back to the same posistion that they were in immediately before the event occured. Thus they have lost nothing nor gained anything in the process. Vehicle insurance companies use this ruling to their advantage by enforcing betterment charges on some components replaced during accident repair work, in this case the tyre on the car. If the insurance company paid for a brand new tyre then you are being put back to a position that is better than the one you were in before the accident occurred and there is complex argument as to why this is not allowed to happen. By making you contribute towards the tyre then this not only reduces their costs of the repair work but it ensures an even playing field for everyone. I am sure you can imagine how situations could be exploited if this ruling was not laid down.
|
I can understand Simon's argument relating to something that clearly is a consumable, ie a tyre.
Now lets extend this argument a bit further, everything in a car is potentially a consumable. You have a bump which needs a new wing in a 5 year old car. Being generous lets say the car design life is 25 years before its ready for the melting pot. Does the insurance company ask you to contribute 1/5th of the cost of the new wing etc, no it does not, so why should tyres be different.
Sorry to be cynical but I reckon its down to insurance companies offering what they think can be got away with.
|
You've never seen a claim with a "betterment" payout reduction then Stuart??
David
|
|
|
|
|
I slid across a snowy road and finally the front n/s hit the kerb and stopped me (I was on full lock, but only doing about 5mph probably). I thought nothing of it, until later driving at around 70-75 there was a consistent wobble on the steering. Had it up on the rig and sure enough geometry was out, only a little but enough to make it noticeable. I've always assumed it must have been that knock which caused it...
|
|
|
|
No I don't think I have David, is that unusual then?
|
Betterment contributions used to be very common.
They have become less common, I suspect because of the nature of car repairs and the average age of cars on the road.
It can particularly happen, for example, when a rusty part which was not damaged in the accident has to be removed for access to a part which was.
|
As Mark says they (betterment clauses) were very common years ago, no doubt due to the fact that cars were often rusty by four years old.
During the damage repair a shiny new wing would be fitted. The assesor would look at the old one bubbling with rust and say our repairs have improved the value of your car. They would work out a figure and deduct it from the payout.
The way round it was to ask them to repair the car to the pre-accident standard and not cause any betterment.
Like all such things with insurance those who shouted loudest got the furthest.
David
|
|
|
|
