Dispute over Range Rover repairs
After the vehicle was repaired by his insurer, Paul raised concerns about several issues.
After the vehicle was repaired by his insurer, Paul raised concerns about several issues.
In January 2024, Paul’s* Range Rover was stolen. Paul notified his insurer and made a claim.
Just over two weeks later, the vehicle was recovered, and the insurer arranged for it to be repaired.
However, after the vehicle was returned, Paul raised concerns about several issues, including the air conditioning not working, water in the doors, broken capping around the steering column, and a warning light for the airbag. Paul also raised concerns about possible methamphetamine contamination.
Paul believed the issues were caused by the theft or the repair process. He said the vehicle had been left unused for long periods, which had affected the battery. He also believed the insurer had delayed the claim and said he was forced to buy a new car due to the delay.
The IFSO Scheme considered whether the insurer had correctly applied the policy. Under the policy, Paul needed to prove that the damage was caused by the theft or that the insurer’s repair estimate was unreasonable.
An independent assessor found no evidence that the issues were caused by the theft.
In resolution of the claim, the insurer had paid the repair costs of $29,770.43, while also paying a company $4,699.10 to replace the vehicle’s locks and carry out additional investigative work. The insurer paid $439.31, $217.64 and $2,832.46 for diagnostic checks and towing fees respectively. It had also offered to test the vehicle for methamphetamine contamination, refund the diesel tax for kilometres travelled while stolen and pay the cost of re-registering the vehicle. The insurer had also offered $2,000 to acknowledge delays. In total, the insurer had paid $37,958.70.
The IFSO Scheme found that the insurer was not required to increase this settlement. There was no evidence the issues with the vehicle were caused by the theft. The vehicle was recovered and was repaired in accordance with the repair condition in the policy, and the insurer had paid these costs.
Complaint not upheld
*Names have been changed
The IFSO Scheme considers whether an insurer has correctly applied the terms and conditions of the policy to the claim. Insurers rely on evidence, and if a claimant disagrees with a claim decision, they must prove that there was damage missed, or that the settlement is unreasonable.