Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Complaint topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BAR reviews collision repair/storage case study; staff outlines documentation, disclosure and potential fraud concerns
Summary
BAR enforcement staff reviewed a complaint involving a post‑collision vehicle that was parked at an ARD, later identified as a total loss, and then billed as a repair transaction; BAR emphasized documentation, timing for storage charging, and its neutral fact‑finding role.
SACRAMENTO — A Bureau of Automotive Repair enforcement manager used a complaint case study April 28 to show how documentation, timing and transparency affect disputes between collision repair shops, insurers and vehicle owners.
Why it matters: Collisions, towing, storage and insurer total‑loss handling frequently generate disagreements about what a shop was authorized to do, when storage became chargeable, and whether an ARD converted a vehicle to a repair transaction without proper consumer authorization. Those disputes can lead to insurer denials, consumer complaints and potential enforcement actions.
Bill Thomas, deputy chief of field operations enforcement, presented a complaint in which a vehicle was presented to a repair shop on Dec. 27 for post‑collision inspection. The shop later notified an insurer that the vehicle appeared to be a total loss; insurer adjusters inspected and confirmed a total‑loss determination. The dispute centered on the repair order and storage charges: the ARD’s documentation showed two different storage line items (Dec. 30–Jan. 8 and Jan. 9–13) plus tear‑down and inspection line items and a lien charge, which together led to a bill the insurer reduced substantially when it paid the total‑loss settlement.
Thomas emphasized the bureau’s role: "BAR’s position is a neutral third party finder of fact," he told the advisory group. He said the bureau looks for whether the ARD documented authorization to perform repairs, when storage became appropriate, and whether the ARD notified the vehicle’s owner that staff believed the vehicle was not economically feasible to repair.
Key takeaways from the case study: - Timing and authorization matter: In Thomas’s recounting, the ARD recognized early that the vehicle was unlikely to be repaired but did not document or notify the owner of storage‑only intent until later, and then submitted repair charges to the insurer that were later reduced. - Documentation: The insurer reduced diagnostic and collision‑inspection charges to zero where it found no evidence of repairs; it also reduced storage and lien charges where documentation did not support the total claimed amount. - Legal exposure: Thomas noted that knowingly entering a repair transaction when the facility recognizes a vehicle is not economically feasible to fix could raise issues under the Business and Professions Code and could be viewed as withholding material information. (Thomas referenced a Business and Professions Code provision during the discussion.)
Advisory‑group discussion included practical shop guidance: members recommended that ARDs provide immediate, clear consumer notification if they believe a vehicle is unlikely to be repaired; if a shop or owner wants a visual inspection or limited assessment, the shop should document that inspection and, if charging for it, provide clear written findings and an estimate for further work. Members also stressed that shops should inform owners at initial intake whether storage charges will begin immediately if the vehicle is not taken away.
Ending: Thomas said the bureau’s enforcement work focuses on gathering facts and applying relevant laws; he urged ARDs and insurers to prioritize clear written estimates and timely notifications to reduce disputes and potential enforcement risk.
