9 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHInsurance Nightmare
Reported or suspected cause
accident
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Identified cause
1
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that suspect a cause
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suspected cause
If they say it was caused by the accident, then ask them to put it in writing and to carry out the repair.
Leading evidence: 'accident' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'accident' (1 discussions; 0 report identifying it and 1 suggest it). No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
9 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Porsche Club GB: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
1 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Outcome without a verified action link
I am not prepared to take delivery of the car until they have resolved the fault.
Looking for advice.
I was recently on the receiving end of some idiot going through a red light.
I suffered front end damege, although not severe, thankfully.
The problem is, as a result of the accident the passenger door will not unlock and the alarm subsequently does not operate.
The insurance company, Norwich Union, are saying that the problem is not a result of the accident and that it must have been like it before. They are refusing to have the part replaced or even investigated.
I have repeatedly told them that the unit was functioning correctly prior to the accident, which it was, but their engineer does not see it that way and I am sure they think I am trying to pull a fast one.
Does anyone know if this or something similar has happened before? If so, what was the outcome?
Does anyone know where I stand legally?
I am not prepared to take delivery of the car until they have resolved the fault.
Thanks for listening[
]
I'd take the car to my Porsche dealer, explain the problem and ask for their opinion.
If they say it was caused by the accident, then ask them to put it in writing and to carry out the repair. Then include this in a claim for your uninsured losses from the third party's insurers.
If they say it is unrelated to the accident, well you'll need it fixing anyway.
Are NU your insurers or the third party insurers? Your complaint is with the third party - so even if your insurer does not pay up you can still go for the third party. After all, it is meant to be their policy which pays out in the end.
The advice to get a written report from the OPC is good - this is tantamount to an expert opinion and will be needed anyway if you go against the third party. It might also bring NU to heel - and I would claim the OPC bill as a related expense.
Finally spoke to the NU engineer today and he has said he will authorise an investigation and fight after that. He basically says that as there was no impact to the passenger door, the unit failure would not be part of the claim. The real problem here, is that the lock is stuck in the locked position and it is a real job to get the dorr opened and the lock out etc. Chisels have been mentioned[
]
To answer some of your questions.
NU is my insurance company, mores the pity.
Solicitor is the way forward if all else fails
Hopefully, before it gets that far, I can get it sorted.
Keep you posted
Thanks
bruce
