Editorial: Industry remains divided over times and rates

The 'funny time, funny money' versus 'real times and rates', or what ever name it is given, is still full of interesting debate with the industry remaining divided over its implementation.

The major problem appears to be some insurers wanting to appear to implement a more standardised way of calculating the cost of repair, while on the other hand repairers hungry for work will give the rock-bottom quote to other insurers, through the two quote or 'tender' system, in an attempt to secure work through the repair shop.

The end result is a driving down of the price to repair a vehicle.

This debate is then clouded by the issue of shop setup, resources and training.

Quite rightly, a shop that has invested a great deal of money in acquiring the latest machinery to repair modern cars, and training technicians in the latest techniques, will need to charge an hourly rate commensurate with their expenses.

These shops are competing against repairers who do not have the latest technology, but are awarded repair jobs that they really can?t handle, on the basis that they provide the cheapest quote.

More often than not, the repair carried out by the shop with the inferior equipment - or worse, the wrong equipment for the job at hand - results in a potentially dangerous vehicle which has not been repaired and returned to the road to the manufacturer's specifications.

Safety is the most important part of this process; ensuring repaired vehicles are returned to manufacturers specifications.

That means insurers must ensure vehicles are being repaired in shops that have the right equipment and technicians have the right level of competencies to undertake the necessary repairs.

It also means that insurers must be prepared to pay what is a reasonable rate for the repair, otherwise more repairers will disappear.

We know that NRMA Insurance has implemented its New Times and Rates with its network of repairers. There are also trials being undertaken to set up NTAR for luxury and prestige repairs. We also know that GIO/Suncorp as well as QBE are eying off realistic times and rates.

But does the industry, that is repairers, want the system?

In this issue there is a story from Richard Nathan, who is a great believer in the RTAR system, urging repairers to embrace RTAR to secure the future of the industry. That story was first posted in the Australasian Paint & Panel web site and received reactions that suggested the industry is not in support. At least those who bothered to contact Paint & Panel expressed a negative view towards RTAR, while acknowledging that something needed to be done to address the problem.

The Paint & Panel web site also asked the poll question: "Do repairers want to move away from FTFM to RTRM?" At the time of going to press 25 per cent of respondents said yes to make the change, 66 per cent said no, five per cent said they did not use FTFM and four per cent did not have a view on the subject.

It certainly shows that if the industry is going down this track then more work needs to be done by the proponents to sell it to the masses.

Alternatively, those who oppose the introduction of RTAR should become involved with the process and come up with a formula that will work.

All this, of course, is against a backdrop of different states throughout the nation having different legal requirements regarding the regulation and licencing of technicians who work in the panel beating and spray painting industry.

It seems it will be some time before a result favoured by the majority of the industry across the nation is found.