Poor valuation experience

I am comprehensively covered with a a major motor insurer with whom I have remained loyal over the past six years.

My vehicle suffered extensive damage (vehicle undriveable) and was recovered to my home address. Twenty-five days after the accident and with some considerable prompting, my insurer's staff engineer conducted an inspection and confirmed that the vehicle was beyond economical repair.

Does the length of time taken to inspect my vehicle now represent the typical service offered by the insurance industry?

The staff engineer not knowing my vehicle technician background at a well-known motor vehicle research and testing consultancy, offered a valuation representing exactly one-fifth of the amount paid for the vehicle in a private sale just three weeks earlier, which had been disclosed to the underwriters.

The initial explanation offered for the low value was "it's the book price".

Is it no wonder we policyholders have adopted the view the initial offer made by the insurer is merely a negotiating stance.

David Patten in his recent article, 'At a total loss' (Post, 29 October, p23), suggested most insurers ensure that their first valuation of the vehicle does, to the best of their knowledge, accurately reflect the pre-incident value of the vehicle.

From first-hand experience, his words could not be further from the truth. Are these insurers really concerned about their image and reputation or is the bottom line everything?

I believe that policyholders should have some proper standards of customer service and to demonstrate the integrity of our insurers.

Perhaps at a future date someone could consider, compare, contrast and publish motor insurers standards of service with regard to reported total losses.

Name and address supplied