As digital tech transforms the auto industry, a crucial question emerges: how do we decide when a damaged car is beyond repair? David Punter, President of the Institute of Automotive Engineer Assessors, tackles this complex issue. He explores the challenges of evaluating modern vehicles riddled with intricate technology. With the landscape constantly evolving, informed choices are vital to guarantee safe and efficient repairs.
The current market for vehicle assessment has reached an impasse. Digitisation has driven more image-based assessments and work being assessed via multiple digital platforms.
The skill set of the modern Automotive Engineer means that we need to address the information we have been presented with using our best knowledge, information resources, and best judgement to formulate a suitable repair plan.
This is all well and good when a vehicle is being repaired, as normally, robust input is provided by a trained professional vehicle damage assessor who has initiated the repair process based on firsthand evidence and physical referencing.
However, what happens if this vehicle is clearly a total loss?
In terms of a repairer perspective, there only needs to be enough damage to ensure the principal puts a line through it, and with a minimal total loss charge being made available to the trained professional, the images and information presented to the Automotive Engineer Assessor can mean that there may be some grey areas which need to be addressed so that the Automotive Engineer Assessor, who at this stage, is required to hold an AQP (appropriately qualified person to categorise vehicle salvage under the ABI code of practice) can perform a suitable appraisal to ensure that the vehicle is handled correctly when it salvaged under its relevant category.
It is clear that as we move to digitisation, we drive best practice based on available facts. However, in this instance, we may need to look at our collective processes to confirm that we have the best information to hand and all avenues have been explored to establish the correct repair based on researched methods, regardless of the value of repairs.
Why is this important, you ask? Well, we need to understand that the end user (after total loss) must be able to repair that vehicle with the correct methods and machinery, even if they are using suitable/recognised green parts and free labour (if it is a self-build repair plan). If this cannot be achieved, then the category needs to be reviewed again by the AQP before categorising salvage correctly.
The current code of practice works so much better than its previous version, and this is thanks to a dedicated team of people having carried out much research to accommodate modern construction methods and technologies in use. However, there is still a significant amount of misinterpretation of what can be repaired based on the understanding of what is viably repairable, what needs to be replaced, and of that, what can only be procured from the manufacturer (as identified above).
There is also a great amount of work with salvage agents uploading compelling images and file information onto cloud solutions to assist the Automotive Engineer Assessors in their remote tasks. Overlooking this valuable insight can hinder vehicle reinstatement processes. By making informed decisions, we can ensure the code of practice is followed correctly, keeping dangerous vehicles off the roads and protecting the public.
The ideal situation would be to enable the physical inspection of all total loss vehicles to ensure that the Automotive Engineer Assessor can clearly establish the correct reinstatement of the vehicle using correct researched methods and accurately priced repair outcome, and before I get corrected, I know of a good number of insurers who carry this out to ensure the best outcome can be achieved (well done!).
The problem is where a third-party case is presented against an insurer, and the rigour around this precludes this from taking place correctly due to the governed inspection price, which drives a behaviour to perform a desk inspection only.
Overall, more consideration needs to be given when the AQP is defining the repairability of a vehicle, as a total loss still needs to be a repairable option.
Visit www.iaea-online.org
Image credits – Envato elements
