deer deer

[Highlander1]

I understand that 'historical' damage can be bartered with them, they try betterment - if it aint rusty how do they know? or were you honest (& foolish) enough to say they were damaged before the accident?
All I had to do was to come to agreement on a figure for betterment after repair. the whole principal of insurance is to return whatever to the state it was before the incident, if as a result you gain then it is not unreasonable to expect to pay for that, what is unreasonable is for them not to return the pannels to their previous state. Every repair unless to a brand new vehicle will have a degree of betterment - you just have to minimise your contribution - exactly what they are trying to do.
Good luck in your battle!

Thanks all for support I will keep you posted.

Cheers John

[Highlander1]

Thanks all for support I will keep you posted.

Cheers John

Sorry I didn't answer your question. I was both honest and foolish enough to explain that the wee stone chip and scratch on the bumper was there before. But not the dent it's a bit silly to try and fix a bl***dy big dent with out painting over the scratch.

CHeers JB

[Vagrant No2]

Sorry I didn't answer your question. I was both honest and foolish enough to explain that the wee stone chip and scratch on the bumper was there before. But not the dent it's a bit silly to try and fix a bl***dy big dent with out painting over the scratch.

CHeers JB

Generally when I inspect a car , like I do as an Insurance Assessor , I use basic logic that if a panel/part has scrathes/dents to it and will affect the repair to a point that costs will rise as a result , ie a new panel/part would be required as a result of old non related damage then a betterment would be asked for . If a stone chip is there it would not cost anymore to refinish that panel .
Sounds like your Assessor is a bit over the top .