Smash Repairer Did a Bad Job? Notice to Remedy Breach (Australia)

Your insurer sent your car to one of their preferred smash repairers. You picked it up. From three metres it looks fine. Up close: paint runs, mismatched colour, panel gap on the door, rattles when you accelerate. You raised it. The repairer says it’s “within tolerance”. The insurer says it’s between you and the repairer. You’re stuck with a car that’s no longer the car you owned.

This is one of the most under-fought consumer issues in Australia. The good news: the Australian Consumer Law and the General Insurance Code of Practice both put the obligation squarely on the repairer (and often the insurer) to fix it.

The legal framework

Smash repair is a service governed by the Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010), specifically the consumer guarantees in sections 60–62: services must be supplied with due care and skill, fit for any specified purpose, and within a reasonable time. The General Insurance Code of Practice, paragraph 79–82, makes the insurer responsible for the workmanship of any repairer they nominated. Most state fair-trading regulators also have a motor-repair code or licensing regime.

Common repairer defences and why they don’t hold

• “Within manufacturer tolerance.” ACL guarantees are about consumer reasonable expectation, not internal tolerances. A panel gap visible to a normal observer is not acceptable.
• “You signed the release form.” A release signed at handover doesn’t extinguish ACL guarantees, which can’t be contracted out.
• “That damage was pre-existing.” Photographs of the booking-in inspection settle this.
• “Insurer needs to authorise extra work.” Code paragraph 81 makes the insurer responsible — escalate to them in parallel.
• “It’s a paint match issue, that’s normal.” ACL: services must be done with due care and skill. Visible mismatch fails that test.

What the document does

A Notice to Remedy Breach formally identifies the contract (or insurer-instructed engagement), the specific defects, the ACL guarantee being breached, a clear deadline (usually 14–21 days) to remedy at no cost, and the consequences of failure (you’ll have an independent repairer fix it and recover the cost, plus potentially escalate to insurer/AFCA and state fair trading). Repairers and insurers take this much more seriously than an angry email.

What Claim Done delivers

Ten-minute wizard. Tell us about your photos, the repair invoice, the booking-in inspection. Our Programmatic Algorithms draft the Notice to Remedy Breach citing the right ACL sections, the Code paragraphs, and your independent assessment. Flat $49 fee, draft ready in about five minutes for you to read and approve.

What to expect after sending

Most repairers either re-do the work or refer you to the insurer. If neither happens, escalate to the insurer’s internal dispute team, then to AFCA — the insurer is jointly responsible under the Code. State fair-trading regulators (NSW Fair Trading, CAV in Victoria, etc.) are a parallel escalation path for licensing-related issues.