Following the recent revision of the ABI Code of Practice for the Categorisation of Motor Vehicle Salvage, we spoke with David Punter, President of the Institute of Automotive Engineer Assessors (IAEA), to gain his insights on the key technical developments.
Greater Clarity on EV Architecture and a Step Forward in Battery Assessment
The revised code was undoubtedly the best update the technical committee could achieve given the delay that COVID caused us all getting back on track, and it certainly has given more definition to the vehicle architecture, and systems, also the recycling capabilities as the recycling market opens to accommodate this new area which will only grow.
EV Batteries will continue to be a challenge to fully understand without the core ability to test and review for issues. Still, I know this is coming in the future and have already been contacted by one technical company wanting to understand the problem, so they can contribute to “read the data” to establish issues.
Ambiguity Around ‘Structural Battery’ Poses Risk to Accurate Assessment and Industry Consistency
What the code has established is that a structural battery has caused a challenge, in that the description is fitting if it can be defined correctly, and what the education and training team at the IAEA have defined is that it is not always clear what structural means, and also if it is even defined in the methods at all, so the modern vehicle assessor will need to research in more detail to determine the risks here. Ultimately, there will always be a difference of opinion, but we hope that the effort is carried out by a time served and appropriately qualified person to define the correct action to safeguard all stakeholders, as incorrect adoption will just increase waste, drive claim costs up and affect premiums for certain EV brands overall perhaps.
Voluntary Code Must Evolve Toward Regulation to Safeguard Standards and Public Safety
The revised code of practice should be the first step towards legislative adoption, as it has demonstrated that if it is operated in the right manner, as set out by the ABI, an AQP is defined as someone who has a comprehensive technical education and training record relevant to motorised vehicle repair. They will have passed and hold a current competency-based assessment on salvage categorisation, provided by the Institute of Automotive Engineer Assessors (IAEA) or an equivalent industry recognised body. The AQP will determine and be responsible for the salvage category given the specific circumstances, such as the type of peril, i.e. theft, collision, impact, fire, electrical, flood or contamination.
Not being at a level to support this, or being unwilling to adopt this as an operator, puts risk on the public at large.
Ongoing Evolution Needed to Keep Pace with Rapid Market and Technology Changes
I think the market agrees, as the stall for the last iteration has identified that even during the code configuration last year, the market is moving at quite a pace now, so the plan would be to start the next iteration immediately so that all stakeholder can drive a clear outcome and future proof any problems.
Code Gaps Impact Safety, Premiums, and Trust in Second-Life EVs
As I alluded to above, the risks are greatly reduced if you adhere to the code as a stakeholder and ensure that you and your teams meet the standards set within it. The current code has demonstrated that more definition was needed to drive safer outcomes, and guess what, the new code will drive the need for even more definition as the market evolves and it is used in real-life situations.
The second use market for EV is a breaking market, and given the growth we are seeing in EV, it means that we are building a supply chain that really has yet to be taken advantage of, but that’s a good way to look at it, not end of life, but continuation of life.
All images credited to Envato Elements
