Liverpool Lou

Exactly the same procedure; let your Embassy worry about it, you sure won't be.

No, she would not be and, in the absence of marriage, could not be. Next of kin are one's closes living relative(s).

They didn't. Read the link where all is explained.

You're sailing a little close to the wind with that comment!

Procedure up until the end of the OP's first installment is identical, it's dictated by law, irrespective of nationality... Discovery of the individual, notification to police, hospital, death certification, notification to the Embassy, postmortem, liaison between the Embassy and family, deep analysis by Thaivisa posters.

Good for you. By the way, did you work bare [sic]?... "pressure would be brought to bare [sic] by head office".

"But looking at the damage it looks like it was totaled and the dealership totaled it, so..." ...it will be up to the dealer's insurers to sort out. "Her demands seem no more daft than the daft actions of the dealership". Demanding a brand new car to replace her old one is daft as is admitting that she would be happy to take the repaired car as long as her initial deposit and every finance payment she has made since is paid to her! That is daft.

Because they give a siht? and they actually do in Japan. She's not in Japan, the dealer's not in Japan, the car's not in Japan and the accident didn't happen in Japan. Nissan Japan will have no interest in this because they will not give a <deleted>, as you so eloquently put it.

"The new car, still being on finance, would have mandatory first class insurance, no?" Her car was nowhere near being a new car and it was in that dealership for a body repair originally.

I agree, absolutely, sort of. She is actually owed a car with the wear and tear of an almost two-year old car, the same as the one she left with them for the original body repair! A properly repaired car would have zero damage after repair, by definition!

Severe impacts like that can cause damage to a transmission that only later becomes apparent. Another reason for her to be given a new vehicle. They can, but they don't always and there's no way of knowing in this case without speculation. The car is almost two years old and, regardless of the damage, it doesn't not get anywhere near qualifying to be replaced with a new one, car insurance does not work that way and it will be insurers that are sorting this one out.

Written-off vehicles do not get replaced with new vehicles by any insurer unless they are written-off when they were brand new and, sure as sugar, nearly two-year old cars don't.

Yes, I'm listening my son.... Listening for what?

So your saying you don't know.... and yet you comment like you do. Thought as much. Point out which part of my comment was incorrect. You can't...thought as much.

Yes, you're right but someone here is still bound to point out that he wouldn't use the meter!

Not necessarily, frames can be pulled straight, that's what professional frame straightening jigs are for, or sections can be perfectly safely replaced.

I agree.

"Low IQ time again in here" Indeed. She has every right to have the car professionally repaired and restored to the condition it was before the accident. If she did have every right to a new car to replace her old car her insurer would be doing that!

Clearly, you don't know how professional body shops here can repair damaged vehicles. A properly repaired car is not "a death sentence". How would you know that the transmission of her car is "totally damage" [sic]?

I disagree, a much more sensible solution would be to give her two new cars to replace the used car that was damaged.

"...and here in Thailand there is no doubt that the colour will not match 100%". Why? You think that Thai repairers don't have access to exactly the same colour-matching technology that is available to the rest of the world? Jesus...

Well I have to say I totally agree with her demands , she should without question receive a brand new car. Being in the used car business for 50 years A strangely uninformed response from someone who has been in the business for 50 years. No insurer, or dealer, would provide a new car to replace a nearly two-year old car unless they had been paying a substantial premium to cover the car on that new-for-old basis (unlikely). It just does not happen in the real world no matter what sympathies 3rd parties have for her circumstances. If the car was so badly damaged that economic repair was not feasible, the car would be written-off and the owner would receive the current value of the car before the accident.

So what would you be happy with ?.... pleased to see you used a HaHa emoji , instead of your usual Sad emoji , or was that a mistake ..... Well, one of the risks of using a car on the public roads is that accidents can happen and, if they do, no one can expects a new car to replace an old car as she is demanding (unless a premium had been paid for "new for old" cover). I would accept a properly repaired car, that's all.

Someone with a marker pen and a sense of humour? Have you not had a look in the roof space?

30-40mm prints? Big 'ucking rats! Do rats generally climb up exterior walls?