GS
Given S
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2015
02 Nov 2022, 08:38
King price wanting to use BMW unapproved panel beater and not using genuine parts
I had an accident earlier September & put a claim with King price. The insurer approved the claim and was told to take it for repair work.
When I got to the repair penalbeater, I asked to check what is going to be done and to my suprise not genuine parts were going to be used and second hand parts was to be used again. I told the penelbeater to stop and I took my car back and challenged the insurer.
Upon contacting the insurer, I was advised that my car is our of maintenance plan & they confirmed with the manufacturer and they allowed to use pirated parts or second hand. I asked them what does the maintenance plan had to do with my car being repaired with genuine parts as my contract have no such clause.
I advised the insurer that that is a material clause and not going to accept. I continue to service my car at BMW without fail and that can be verified. The insurer sent me a newspaper opinion piece post that was written by someone from ombudsman in 2015 and that article never said any binding thing as is the court that can make such a declaration.
I asked the insurer why I was not informed of such a material clause when I took out the policies and only informed at claim stage and why such clause is not in my insurance document. The consultant told me the insurer does not have to inform me.i told the consultant that if this was made to me in advance will not have taken the policy and will have opted not to insure with them.
I have now referred the issue to insurance ombudsman and they are currently investigating and I am prepared to take it through the court of law as well to ensure the insurance do what is right and honor the agreement.
I am dissapointed with the insurer after being their clients for more than 5 years.
I am not sure if this is a practice that the entire insurance practice but it sounds discriminatory and not gonna pass the test when we go to court depending on the ombudsman court.
Regards Given
Helpful (0)
Replies (2)0
Replies (2)
King Price Insurance's replyOfficial
02 Nov 2022, 09:36Hi Given
Please see below article from the Ombudsman for short term insurance pertaining to parts :
''The Office of the Ombudsman for Short-Term Insurance frequently receives complaints from consumers concerning the use by Insurers when repairing motor vehicles of so-called “pirate parts” as well as second hand components. There is a perception on the part of the public that an Insurer is obliged, when repairing a motor vehicle, to use new original factory supp**** parts in all instances.
The Ombudsman, Mr. Brian Martin, says ”the cost of repairing damaged motor vehicles has risen significantly over time and is a major factor in the high cost of motor vehicle insurance. If premiums are to be kept at reasonable levels and increases in premiums within similar bounds, it is imperative that everything possible be done to keep repair costs down, but at the same time without compromising safety or quality standards.” The low incidence of comprehensive motor vehicle insurance is an area of major concern to the Ombudsman and the less affordable insurance products are the greater the temptation on the part of consumers to self-insure, which can have far-reaching consequences not only for the motorist himself, but society at large.
The Ombudsman points out that in the modern world very few motor manufacturers actually manufacture the components incorporated into their motor vehicles and a high percentage of these components are sourced from specialist component manufacturers. Components may be common to more than one make of motor vehicle. A distinction is to be drawn between components made by reputable manufacturers which conform to recognise safety or quality standards and those which may be classified as **** or unauthorised copies made by unspecified manufacturers, often in China. Original factory supp**** components must be fitted whenever a critical component of the motor vehicle may be damaged or where the warranty or maintenance plan of a vehicle may be adversely affected by the fitment of other components. Depending upon the circumstance of each case and in particular the age and condition of a car, there is however no reason why components made by outside component manufacturers should not be used where this can result in cost savings, provided that issues of safety or reliability are not compromised. The use of second hand parts, where appropriate, is also to be encouraged as a cost saving measure. The Ombudsman stresses that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and that each case must be assessed on its own individual merit. However, he appeals to members of the public to be reasonable and practical in their approach to the repair of accident damage and by insurers, pointing out that the underlying purpose of insurance is one of indemnification and not enrichment. He also draws attention to the fact that “betterment” is not app**** in relation to individual components of a motor vehicle, but only where the overall value of an insured article has been increased through a process of repair or reinstatement. Should the insurer be able to show this through independent evidence, then the Ombudsman will allow a deduction from the claim to the extent of the “betterment”.''
Please see below article from the Ombudsman for short term insurance pertaining to parts :
''The Office of the Ombudsman for Short-Term Insurance frequently receives complaints from consumers concerning the use by Insurers when repairing motor vehicles of so-called “pirate parts” as well as second hand components. There is a perception on the part of the public that an Insurer is obliged, when repairing a motor vehicle, to use new original factory supp**** parts in all instances.
The Ombudsman, Mr. Brian Martin, says ”the cost of repairing damaged motor vehicles has risen significantly over time and is a major factor in the high cost of motor vehicle insurance. If premiums are to be kept at reasonable levels and increases in premiums within similar bounds, it is imperative that everything possible be done to keep repair costs down, but at the same time without compromising safety or quality standards.” The low incidence of comprehensive motor vehicle insurance is an area of major concern to the Ombudsman and the less affordable insurance products are the greater the temptation on the part of consumers to self-insure, which can have far-reaching consequences not only for the motorist himself, but society at large.
The Ombudsman points out that in the modern world very few motor manufacturers actually manufacture the components incorporated into their motor vehicles and a high percentage of these components are sourced from specialist component manufacturers. Components may be common to more than one make of motor vehicle. A distinction is to be drawn between components made by reputable manufacturers which conform to recognise safety or quality standards and those which may be classified as **** or unauthorised copies made by unspecified manufacturers, often in China. Original factory supp**** components must be fitted whenever a critical component of the motor vehicle may be damaged or where the warranty or maintenance plan of a vehicle may be adversely affected by the fitment of other components. Depending upon the circumstance of each case and in particular the age and condition of a car, there is however no reason why components made by outside component manufacturers should not be used where this can result in cost savings, provided that issues of safety or reliability are not compromised. The use of second hand parts, where appropriate, is also to be encouraged as a cost saving measure. The Ombudsman stresses that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and that each case must be assessed on its own individual merit. However, he appeals to members of the public to be reasonable and practical in their approach to the repair of accident damage and by insurers, pointing out that the underlying purpose of insurance is one of indemnification and not enrichment. He also draws attention to the fact that “betterment” is not app**** in relation to individual components of a motor vehicle, but only where the overall value of an insured article has been increased through a process of repair or reinstatement. Should the insurer be able to show this through independent evidence, then the Ombudsman will allow a deduction from the claim to the extent of the “betterment”.''
King Price Insurance's reply02 Nov 2022, 09:36
Official
Hi Given
Please see below article from the Ombudsman for short term insurance pertaining to parts :
''The Office of the Ombudsman for Short-Term Insurance frequently receives complaints from consumers concerning the use by Insurers when repairing motor vehicles of so-called “pirate parts” as well as second hand components. There is a perception on the part of the public that an Insurer is obliged, when repairing a motor vehicle, to use new original factory supp**** parts in all instances.
The Ombudsman, Mr. Brian Martin, says ”the cost of repairing damaged motor vehicles has risen significantly over time and is a major factor in the high cost of motor vehicle insurance. If premiums are to be kept at reasonable levels and increases in premiums within similar bounds, it is imperative that everything possible be done to keep repair costs down, but at the same time without compromising safety or quality standards.” The low incidence of comprehensive motor vehicle insurance is an area of major concern to the Ombudsman and the less affordable insurance products are the greater the temptation on the part of consumers to self-insure, which can have far-reaching consequences not only for the motorist himself, but society at large.
The Ombudsman points out that in the modern world very few motor manufacturers actually manufacture the components incorporated into their motor vehicles and a high percentage of these components are sourced from specialist component manufacturers. Components may be common to more than one make of motor vehicle. A distinction is to be drawn between components made by reputable manufacturers which conform to recognise safety or quality standards and those which may be classified as **** or unauthorised copies made by unspecified manufacturers, often in China. Original factory supp**** components must be fitted whenever a critical component of the motor vehicle may be damaged or where the warranty or maintenance plan of a vehicle may be adversely affected by the fitment of other components. Depending upon the circumstance of each case and in particular the age and condition of a car, there is however no reason why components made by outside component manufacturers should not be used where this can result in cost savings, provided that issues of safety or reliability are not compromised. The use of second hand parts, where appropriate, is also to be encouraged as a cost saving measure. The Ombudsman stresses that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and that each case must be assessed on its own individual merit. However, he appeals to members of the public to be reasonable and practical in their approach to the repair of accident damage and by insurers, pointing out that the underlying purpose of insurance is one of indemnification and not enrichment. He also draws attention to the fact that “betterment” is not app**** in relation to individual components of a motor vehicle, but only where the overall value of an insured article has been increased through a process of repair or reinstatement. Should the insurer be able to show this through independent evidence, then the Ombudsman will allow a deduction from the claim to the extent of the “betterment”.''
Please see below article from the Ombudsman for short term insurance pertaining to parts :
''The Office of the Ombudsman for Short-Term Insurance frequently receives complaints from consumers concerning the use by Insurers when repairing motor vehicles of so-called “pirate parts” as well as second hand components. There is a perception on the part of the public that an Insurer is obliged, when repairing a motor vehicle, to use new original factory supp**** parts in all instances.
The Ombudsman, Mr. Brian Martin, says ”the cost of repairing damaged motor vehicles has risen significantly over time and is a major factor in the high cost of motor vehicle insurance. If premiums are to be kept at reasonable levels and increases in premiums within similar bounds, it is imperative that everything possible be done to keep repair costs down, but at the same time without compromising safety or quality standards.” The low incidence of comprehensive motor vehicle insurance is an area of major concern to the Ombudsman and the less affordable insurance products are the greater the temptation on the part of consumers to self-insure, which can have far-reaching consequences not only for the motorist himself, but society at large.
The Ombudsman points out that in the modern world very few motor manufacturers actually manufacture the components incorporated into their motor vehicles and a high percentage of these components are sourced from specialist component manufacturers. Components may be common to more than one make of motor vehicle. A distinction is to be drawn between components made by reputable manufacturers which conform to recognise safety or quality standards and those which may be classified as **** or unauthorised copies made by unspecified manufacturers, often in China. Original factory supp**** components must be fitted whenever a critical component of the motor vehicle may be damaged or where the warranty or maintenance plan of a vehicle may be adversely affected by the fitment of other components. Depending upon the circumstance of each case and in particular the age and condition of a car, there is however no reason why components made by outside component manufacturers should not be used where this can result in cost savings, provided that issues of safety or reliability are not compromised. The use of second hand parts, where appropriate, is also to be encouraged as a cost saving measure. The Ombudsman stresses that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and that each case must be assessed on its own individual merit. However, he appeals to members of the public to be reasonable and practical in their approach to the repair of accident damage and by insurers, pointing out that the underlying purpose of insurance is one of indemnification and not enrichment. He also draws attention to the fact that “betterment” is not app**** in relation to individual components of a motor vehicle, but only where the overall value of an insured article has been increased through a process of repair or reinstatement. Should the insurer be able to show this through independent evidence, then the Ombudsman will allow a deduction from the claim to the extent of the “betterment”.''
GS
Given S's updateReviewer Update
02 Nov 2022, 09:48Good day King price,
Unless if my English is not good and I am missing the article.
There is no where the person said the insurance must use, the article is balance and not what your trying to say.
Its a material clause and I should not have joined King price if the information was made available and the clause inserted in my contract.
Your consultant told me since my motor plan is finished u can do what u want and I don't know where the maintenance plan has to do with service.
I will take the matter all the way to court and will first await for insurance ombudsman feedback. We will here what the insurance ombudsman and the court as a last resort has to say.
Regards
Given
Unless if my English is not good and I am missing the article.
There is no where the person said the insurance must use, the article is balance and not what your trying to say.
Its a material clause and I should not have joined King price if the information was made available and the clause inserted in my contract.
Your consultant told me since my motor plan is finished u can do what u want and I don't know where the maintenance plan has to do with service.
I will take the matter all the way to court and will first await for insurance ombudsman feedback. We will here what the insurance ombudsman and the court as a last resort has to say.
Regards
Given
GS
Given S's update02 Nov 2022, 09:48
Reviewer Update
Good day King price,
Unless if my English is not good and I am missing the article.
There is no where the person said the insurance must use, the article is balance and not what your trying to say.
Its a material clause and I should not have joined King price if the information was made available and the clause inserted in my contract.
Your consultant told me since my motor plan is finished u can do what u want and I don't know where the maintenance plan has to do with service.
I will take the matter all the way to court and will first await for insurance ombudsman feedback. We will here what the insurance ombudsman and the court as a last resort has to say.
Regards
Given
Unless if my English is not good and I am missing the article.
There is no where the person said the insurance must use, the article is balance and not what your trying to say.
Its a material clause and I should not have joined King price if the information was made available and the clause inserted in my contract.
Your consultant told me since my motor plan is finished u can do what u want and I don't know where the maintenance plan has to do with service.
I will take the matter all the way to court and will first await for insurance ombudsman feedback. We will here what the insurance ombudsman and the court as a last resort has to say.
Regards
Given