Hi,I have a question about damage incurred to our car while it was transported interstate. Before the transport, there was some pre-existing damage which was indicated on the pick-up vehicle condition report by a representative of the transport company. When the car was delivered at destination we noticed additional damage (stone chips) and indicated this on the delivery vehicle condition report. We obtained a quote for repairing the damage, which includes re-painting of the panels (which will repair the pre-existing damage as well). The transport company first offered 50% of the repair cost "in good faith"; we did not accept that offer. They then retracted that offer and have now offered to pay for part of the repair only (one panel that didn't have pre-existing damage - about ~35% of the total repair cost).The terms & conditions of the transport state that under warranty the vehicle will be delivered in the same state as before the transport. The transport company argues the damage allegedly occured during transport and that the pre-existing damage needed to be repaired anyway so we are not in a worse financial position if they don't cover the full repair cost. We argue that the damage occured during transport, as indicated on the vehicle condition reports and therefore the transport company should cover the full repair cost. Our financial position and the pre-existing damage are irellevant.The transport company is not willing to change their position or offer, having repeated their last offer they suggest contacting our own insurance if that offer is not accepted. Can you please offer some advice on how we can resolve this "dispute". Also would such a dispute fall under insurance industry dispute resolution processes with final mediation by the Financial Services Ombudsman (fos.org.au)?Thanks
post and email communication as summarised in the question, details can be provided as required.
Hi, I’m a moderator for this topic and I wonder whether you’re still waiting for an answer. If you are, please let me know and I will do my best to find a professional to assist you right away. If not, feel free to let me know and I will cancel this question for you. Thank you!
Hi, yes I still like an answer.
Sometimes, finding the right Expert can take a little longer than expected and we thank you greatly for your understanding. We’ll be in touch again shortly.
The grill, bonnet and a side-panel had pre-existing damage and to these panels additional damage occured, but mostly in other areas; i.e. the bonnet had pre-existing damage on the very front, the additional damage occured mostly at the middle of the panel.
The other side-panel and the roof didn't have pre-existing damage and additional damage occured. That side-panel was repainted about 2 months before the move as part of a repair, and the latest offer from the transport company covers the repair cost for this panel only.
Unfortunately we didn't notice the damage to the roof straight away, but it is clear (to us) that the damage was sustained during the same incident. The transporter stated they are not responsible for this damage because it was not indicated on the vehicle condition report, so we need to accept that (for the roof panel only).
The quote for the repair was requested to only repair the additional damage (all 5 panels, including the roof), but the repairer has indicated the panels need to be repainted, so the pre-existing damage would be repaired at the same time.
I don't know the difference in price for repairs to the vehicle if there was no damage caused by the transport because we haven't obtained a quote before the transport. Also, I'm not sure how the cost of both repairs would be relevant, as it would be our perogative to decide to repair the car in the state it was before transport ("pre-existing damage").
The transport company state in its terms & conditions they have a right to refuse transporting a vehicle, and they have accepted the vehicle in the state it was before transport. Their obligation is to deliver the car in the same state (as per the terms and conditions), so they should cover the full cost of the repair.
let me know if you need more info,
Having answered your question I would like to explain how I am paid for my work. The rating given by you, for my answer will decide whether or not I will be paid for my work.
At the end of this post you will see 5 faces asking you to rate my work. Selecting either of the 2 the unhappy faces means you are not happy with my answer and do not wish me to be paid for my work. The other 3 mean I am paid.
I would prefer you rate me at the very end of our session not after each response. This way I can be sure you have an answer that assists you and you can rate the whole experience.
If you want more information after I respond, or wish to have something cleared up, select "Reply so Sydney-Lawyer" or "Reply to Expert" and we can continue until you are satisfied.
I am here to assist you as quickly as possible, and you rating each post will delay the process as it does not tell me what the issue is. I would prefer you ask me questions than rating the response and not providing me with further questions.
I like to follow up on your answer please; I understand how you explain the cost of the repairs is relevant, and the court would not allow us to profit.
The terms & conditions of the contract specify that the transport company warrants the car will be delivered in the same state as it was picked up, it does not mention that the transport company is only responsible for any repair cost over and above any costs for repairing any existing damage.
We are only asking for the car to be returned to the state it was before transport, however the pre-existing damage will be repaired at the same time there is nothing I can do about that.
Looking back at the situation this implies that you can only transport cars without pre-existing damage, so there will be no discussion about any damage occuring during transport. Or the transporter should not accept any cars with pre-existing damage so they don't "risk" being held liable for any damage occuring during transport that they argue didn't occur. The issue here is that both are not practical; any used car will have some damage..
Also the level of damage is progressive, I mean that we would probably not have repaired the damage as it was before transport but would reconsider if the damage was as it is after transport, regardless of cause. What I mean to say here is that you won't repair a panel if there are 1 or 2 scratches, but you will repair it if there were 4 or 5.
Your comments please?
Finally, you suggest to continue negotiating with the transport company can you give some suggestions on how to get the best result from these negotiations?
We have suggested, as a compromise, for the transporter to pay for the front side-panel in full (the panel that didn't have any pre-existing damage) and 50% of the repair cost for the other components, which they have rejected.
Thanks again for your time.
BEc Dip Ed, Dip Law (SAB) MTax (UNSW)
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).