On 8/17/2022 at 1:12 PM, Longwood50 said:

<removed>

Now ask yourself if you have two cars with identical mileage and condition and one has been repaired and one not which one would you purchase assuming the price is the same. 

Doesnt the answer depend on where and who the car is repaired by

Most  insurance companies will offer a lower insurance premium if you choose their Repair at their preferred garages instead of choosing the Repair at any garage including official dealer garages for your car’s brand

On 8/16/2022 at 12:02 PM, TunnelRat69 said:

Of course no mention of the dealership, or manufacturer, defamation rules  -  looks like a Yaris to me, or whats left of it.  Made with beer cans that one is.     Peace

It's a nissan almera. 

7 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"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.

she's made 16 payments likely out 72 month loan term.

 

Can kinda see why she wants new for old.... but yeah, not gunna happen !!

19 hours ago, Thunglom said:

There is a situation here where the manufacturer may have to give the dealership a nude, if only to save their reputation.

"Nude" should read "nudge"

On 8/16/2022 at 6:11 AM, Liverpool Lou said:

Nissan Almera.   Along with the Yaris, they're made using no consequentially different steel than any other modern car on the market.

you don't appear to understand how modern cars are built with crumple zones.

13 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

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.

Last Time I checked Nissan was  Japanese albeit merging with Renault..........they do give a  <deleted>, I  have a  letter from Honda with them giving a  very big <deleted> and getting the head  honcho in Thailand to conctact me knocking my door when I complained about <deleted>  service, which just goes to show you  know sh....

13 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"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.

You are probably right that the dealer's insurers will determine the compensation.

 

But it seems to me that you are not factoring in the egregious irresponsibility of the dealership.

She dropped off her car for routine maintenance and the dealership destroyed it.

Is that an act of god?

There is clearly something that goes beyond negligence to actively causing damage to her property.

I don't understand why you are so hell bent on attacking her and defending the dealership.

23 hours ago, malt25 said:

Japan head office would be very interested in such appalling non-action from one of their dealers. I have little doubt pressure would be brought to bare by head office. BTW, I worked for a Japanese car manufacturer for some 6 years. Manufacturer, not dealership.

To expand on my original answer to this post. Working for the MANUFACTURER, I was directly involved in counseling and repremand of dealers, as directed by Japan head office. Japanese car manufacturers take a very dim view of poor dealer-customer relationships, especially in such an instance as described in the OP.

On 8/16/2022 at 2:54 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

"...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...

You obviously have no idea about automotuve paint systems and how temperature and humidity can affect the shade.  Hence why there are so many vehicles driving around with slightly differant colour doors , wings and other body panels from the rest of the car in Thailand. Maybe you haven't noticed but I see them every day.

On 8/16/2022 at 3:25 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

"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!

The car looks wrecked - I would be demanding a new one - but I guess some people roll over and take it up the...

3 hours ago, PremiumLane said:

The car looks wrecked - I would be demanding a new one - but I guess some people roll over and take it up the...

No one gets a new car to replace  damaged old one, doesn't matter what you'd be demanding, insurance does not work that way.   You'd be "taking it there" also.

4 hours ago, Brick Top said:

You obviously have no idea about automotuve paint systems and how temperature and humidity can affect the shade.

It seems that I have more of an idea about it than you do.  

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No one gets a new car to replace  damaged old one, doesn't matter what you'd be demanding, insurance does not work that way.   You'd be "taking it there" also.

Most people don't put their cars in for a service and end up with one that looks like a write off! This is an unusual scenario.....but an offer of a replacement vehicle of similar age/condition or value would seem fair......one that has sustained such damage and repaired is not going to be that.

11 hours ago, cdemundo said:

She dropped off her car for routine maintenance and the dealership destroyed it.

Is that an act of god?

There is clearly something that goes beyond negligence to actively causing damage to her property.

I don't understand why you are so hell bent on attacking her and defending the dealership.

She left the car with the dealer for a body repair prior to the accident.  It was an accident, the damage was not "actively caused", which suggests that it was deliberate.

 

I didn't say that it was an act of God.

 

I'm not "hell bent on attacking her", I've just been pointing out that that her demands are unreasonable.  No one gets a new car provided by insurers to replace an old car (particularly one that has not even been paid for!), it gets repaired.  If it cannot be economically repaired, then the insured is paid the current market value of the car before the accident, or the sum insured.

 

If the car is repaired, no one can reasonably demand that all the finance payments to date and the initial deposit are refunded, either, as she is demanding.   What if the car was six years old on seven-year finance, would a refund of seventy-two installments plus the deposit be reasonable?

9 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

This is an unusual scenario.....but an offer of a replacement vehicle of similar age/condition or value would seem fair.....

I agree with that but that is not how things work.  Insurers do not go on the hunt for an identical older car, they repair it or they offer the market value if they write it off.  Than she can go and buy an identical older car.    I sympathise with the woman, I would be pizzed-off also, but what she is demanding is daft.  If she can get a new car out of the insurer or dealer, good for her...but she won't.

12 hours ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

Last Time I checked Nissan was  Japanese albeit merging with Renault..........they do give a  <deleted>, I  have a  letter from Honda with them giving a  very big <deleted> and getting the head  honcho in Thailand to conctact me knocking my door when I complained about <deleted>  service, which just goes to show you  know sh....

Nissan isn't Honda.  You weren't demanding anew car either!

On 8/16/2022 at 4:39 PM, nahkit said:

Except that's not what she asked for.

 

"She then suggested that the company return her down payment and 16 instalments and she was prepared to buy a new one from them. "

 

So she didn't asked for it to be repaired as new plus all her payments back did she?

Maybe I read that part wrong but she's still expecting nearly two years of free motoring!  If the car's written off she can still buy a new car from that dealer with the insurance money.

At least FIVE TIMES a particular member has referred to this car as nearly two years old, when it's mentioned in the report that she's paid 16 installments. So to me that's nearer to one year than two. I usually try not to be pedantic but.... ????

 

The offers from the dealership are not good enough.

But this lady tried asking for much more than she was due: 500,000B and the repair job. The car's cost value (new from the manufacturer before profit) isn't much more than that. She should have been much more reasonable and I'm not surprised they ignored her request.

 

A new replacement car is a tough ask, but I totally understand that she doesn't want that car anymore because no one can be sure it will drive properly or be the exactly the same colour again. I have had the same issues with accidents that were paid by others' insurers on my vehicles. And let's face it, if the same dealership did promise to do a proper job, there appears to be some animosity there, and would they really? I would only trust it to be properly fixed by a franchised main dealer of the same brand, but a different branch.

 

It really is a tough one. I think that the only fair solution is an independent body to agree the car's value, and give her that in cash, and she loses the car.

13 hours ago, Thunglom said:

you don't appear to understand how modern cars are built with crumple zones.

I sure do.   What did  I write that suggests that I don't understand the concept of crumple zones?

1 minute ago, 2long said:

At least FIVE TIMES a particular member has referred to this car as nearly two years old, when it's mentioned in the report that she's paid 16 installments. So to me that's nearer to one year than two. I usually try not to be pedantic but...

Sixteen months old is nearly two years old, as far the age of a car is concerned, it is definitely not one year old.  Maybe that poster was just emphasising that the car wasn't new for those who think that insurers replace old cars with new ones or that this woman should get a brand new car.   One thing that posters so far haven't taken into consideration is that the car has been driven for nearly two years by a woman.    I'm sure that's a good thing though.

43 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

She left the car with the dealer for a body repair prior to the accident.  It was an accident, the damage was not "actively caused", which suggests that it was deliberate.

 

I didn't say that it was an act of God.

 

I'm not "hell bent on attacking her", I've just been pointing out that that her demands are unreasonable.  No one gets a new car provided by insurers to replace an old car (particularly one that has not even been paid for!), it gets repaired.  If it cannot be economically repaired, then the insured is paid the current market value of the car before the accident, or the sum insured.

 

If the car is repaired, no one can reasonably demand that all the finance payments to date and the initial deposit are refunded, either, as she is demanding.   What if the car was six years old on seven-year finance, would a refund of seventy-two installments plus the deposit be reasoble?

 "It was an accident, the damage was not "actively caused", which suggests that it was deliberate."

Did the car damage itself?

Was this an example of the third law of thermodynamics, entropy increasing?

Someone caused that damage by their actions, so I think "actively caused" is an accurate description.

No one used the word deliberate, well except you.

I said it was irresponsibility, unbelievable irresponsibility and carelessness.

 

"I've just been pointing out that that her demands are unreasonable"

So when you express your opinion that is "pointing out" the way things really are?.

You have been pontificating but you don't have the pontiff's doctrine of infallibility to support you.

 

You say "She left the car with the dealer for a body repair prior to the accident."

The original post says:

"On June 2nd she put her car into the service center for checks as she was planning an up country trip."

So you either have poor reading comprehension or if you deliberately stated an untruth to support your argument, what does that make you?

 

You have referred to the insurance carrier.

I would be surprised if the insurance covered this damage as this is a result of egregious carelessness and irresponsibility.

 

I don't know why you are so triggered by this, it's a little strange.

You have made 30 posts in this discussion, that is a lot of posts in a short time.

Reminds me of the whole "Karen" phenomenon of hysterical over-reaction to small things.

 

56 minutes ago, 2long said:

At least FIVE TIMES a particular member has referred to this car as nearly two years old, when it's mentioned in the report that she's paid 16 installments. So to me that's nearer to one year than two. I usually try not to be pedantic but.... ????

 

The offers from the dealership are not good enough.

But this lady tried asking for much more than she was due: 500,000B and the repair job. The car's cost value (new from the manufacturer before profit) isn't much more than that. She should have been much more reasonable and I'm not surprised they ignored her request.

 

A new replacement car is a tough ask, but I totally understand that she doesn't want that car anymore because no one can be sure it will drive properly or be the exactly the same colour again. I have had the same issues with accidents that were paid by others' insurers on my vehicles. And let's face it, if the same dealership did promise to do a proper job, there appears to be some animosity there, and would they really? I would only trust it to be properly fixed by a franchised main dealer of the same brand, but a different branch.

 

It really is a tough one. I think that the only fair solution is an independent body to agree the car's value, and give her that in cash, and she loses the car.

The problem with that solution is the car is on finance if the finance terms are 72 or 84 months interest rates are normally between 4-7% apr so the 16 payments that she has already paid wouldn't have repaid any of the capital outlay so if an independent body agrees the car's value and pays the cash value to the finance company she will be left with no car and still having to pay a huge amount to the finance company

if you include the interest rate over 7 years and its 7% its the equivalent of buying a single car and 30% of a second car

I am sure people will bring up 0% interest rates normally they required a 25% down payment and full amount repaid back over 48 months

If you go to a dealership they will try and talk you out of making a 25% down payment as 0% interest rates screws up their comissions

14 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

 "It was an accident, the damage was not "actively caused", which suggests that it was deliberate."

Did the car damage itself?

Was this an example of the third law of thermodynamics, entropy increasing?

Someone caused that damage by their actions, so I think "actively caused" is an accurate description.

No one used the word deliberate, well except you.

I said it was irresponsibility, unbelievable irresponsibility and carelessness.

 

"I've just been pointing out that that her demands are unreasonable"

So when you express your opinion that is "pointing out" the way things really are?.

You have been pontificating but you don't have the pontiff's doctrine of infallibility to support you.

 

You say "She left the car with the dealer for a body repair prior to the accident."

The original post says:

"On June 2nd she put her car into the service center for checks as she was planning an up country trip."

So you either have poor reading comprehension or if you deliberately stated an untruth to support your argument, what does that make you?

 

You have referred to the insurance carrier.

I would be surprised if the insurance covered this damage as this is a result of egregious carelessness and irresponsibility.

 

I don't know why you are so triggered by this, it's a little strange.

You have made 30 posts in this discussion, that is a lot of posts in a short time.

Reminds me of the whole "Karen" phenomenon of hysterical over-reaction to small things.

 

Problem is your reading the original post and taking that post to contain all the facts and details

if you bothered to investigated further than the op post you would find the owner  took her car in for a service check in June, while the car was at the service centre the car suffered minor body and paint damage which the service centre agreed to repair.

owner took car away and used car until July 29th when she arranged to bring the car in for the body and paint job she was scheduled to collect the car on August 1st so 2 days for the  body and paint job.

On July 30th owner was advised that while the service centre was bringing the car back from the paint and body shop (different location) a speeding pickup truck that fail to leave sufficent distance to stop rear ended her car to such and extent the pickup truck pushed her car into the back of the car in front

19 hours ago, vinny41 said:

Doesnt the answer depend on where and who the car is repaired by

Do you secretly work for Joe Biden as his speech writer. 

You have two cars both identical mileage identical condition. One has been in an accident and repaired, the other has never been in an accident and the price is the same.  WHICH ONE DO YOU PURCHASE

The fact that the damaged one is repaired at a dealer versus non dealer shop is irrelevant. 

1 hour ago, cdemundo said:

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

She left the car with the dealer for a body repair prior to the accident.  It was an accident, the damage was not "actively caused", which suggests that it was deliberate.

 

I didn't say that it was an act of God.

 

I'm not "hell bent on attacking her", I've just been pointing out that that her demands are unreasonable.  No one gets a new car provided by insurers to replace an old car (particularly one that has not even been paid for!), it gets repaired.  If it cannot be economically repaired, then the insured is paid the current market value of the car before the accident, or the sum insured.

 

If the car is repaired, no one can reasonably demand that all the finance payments to date and the initial deposit are refunded, either, as she is demanding.   What if the car was six years old on seven-year finance, would a refund of seventy-two installments plus the deposit be reasoble?

Expand  

 "It was an accident, the damage was not "actively caused", which suggests that it was deliberate."

Did the car damage itself?

Was this an example of the third law of thermodynamics, entropy increasing?

Someone caused that damage by their actions, so I think "actively caused" is an accurate description.

No one used the word deliberate, well except you.

I said it was irresponsibility, unbelievable irresponsibility and carelessness.

 

"I've just been pointing out that that her demands are unreasonable"

So when you express your opinion that is "pointing out" the way things really are?.

You have been pontificating but you don't have the pontiff's doctrine of infallibility to support you.

 

You say "She left the car with the dealer for a body repair prior to the accident."

The original post says:

"On June 2nd she put her car into the service center for checks as she was planning an up country trip."

So you either have poor reading comprehension or if you deliberately stated an untruth to support your argument, what does that make you?

 

You have referred to the insurance carrier.

I would be surprised if the insurance covered this damage as this is a result of egregious carelessness and irresponsibility.

 

I don't know why you are so triggered by this, it's a little strange.

You have made 30 posts in this discussion, that is a lot of posts in a short time.

Reminds me of the whole "Karen" phenomenon of hysterical over-reaction to small things.

"So when you express your opinion that is "pointing out" the way things really are?".

That can be the case, sure.   I tend to go for accuracy, not speculation or gratuitous falsehoods, so on many occasions my opinions are also facts.

 

"you don't have the pontiff's doctrine of infallibility to support you".

Er, neither do you.

 

"The original post says:

"On June 2nd she put her car into the service center for checks as she was planning an up country trip."

Read the part of the OP to which I was referring... 

"On 29th July she put her car back in for the paint job as agreed".

 

"I would be surprised if the insurance covered this damage as this is a result of egregious carelessness and irresponsibility".

So you think that car insurance doesn't cover carelessness on the part of the insured driver, eh?     You're wrong, and that's not my "opinion". 

Who said that the driver was "egregiously careless and irresponsible"... there was rear damage so it's not unlikely that the car was struck from behind.

 

"I don't know why you are so triggered by this, it's a little strange.   You have made 30 posts in this discussion, that is a lot of posts in a short time".

I'm not "triggered", as you put it, I'm responding to other comments but I do tend to comment on the irrational garbage which occasionally gets posted here over and over (not referring to you, of course).   

Thanks for monitoring my posts so closely, something that there is no need for you to do as the forum rules do not restrict the number of comments.  How many do you think would be the ideal number, anyway?

 

"Reminds me of the whole "Karen" phenomenon of hysterical over-reaction to small things".

Be careful, you're on thin ice, there.

On 8/17/2022 at 12:20 AM, daveAustin said:

After all the hassle and anguish she’s been dealt at the hand of an incompetent dealer looking to save money and face, she deserves a new vehicle.

Nonsense, she deserves the used vehicle in the same condition as it was when she left with it the dealer for the body repair, nothing more. 

On 8/17/2022 at 2:01 AM, Thunglom said:

"The company offered to do a full repair and give her a 30,000 baht extra payment in cash and extend the warranty by two years" - this is NOT acceptable - no car this damaged will even be properly roadworthy.

"...no car this damaged will even be properly roadworthy".

Jesus....

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Nonsense, she deserves the used vehicle in the same condition as it was when she left with it the dealer for the body repair, nothing more. 

How about a loan vehicle while this one is in the shop for months.... she only took it in for a service?

On 8/17/2022 at 6:38 AM, hotchilli said:

Hope she wins.... they totaled her car, twice.

Accident damaged once, scratched once and the insurer(s) decide if it's "totalled".

On 8/17/2022 at 1:12 PM, Longwood50 said:

Now ask yourself if you have two cars with identical mileage and condition and one has been repaired and one not which one would you purchase assuming the price is the same. 

What's that got to do with it?     But if they were both in "identical condition", it, obviously, would not make any difference as they would both be in identical condition!