Thanks to motor assessor Fady Tadros of Crashify for allowing us to print his LinkedIn post commenting on the Code of Conduct.
Having spent decades navigating the twists and turns of the automotive repair industry, I've seen firsthand countless attempts to mend what many perceive as a fractured system. The VACC's recent rejection of the draft Motor Vehicle Insurance and Repair Industry Code of Conduct has once again ignited a fiery debate. However, I fear that in the heat of the moment, we're overlooking a critical, broader perspective.
The Uncomfortable Truths Revealed by the Numbers
Let's cut through the rhetoric and look at the practical realities of our industry. While the VACC passionately advocates for addressing power imbalances and safeguarding professional expertise, the fact remains that a significant 90% of insurance repair work flows through established networks and partnerships. These are not the struggling, small family workshops; they are often well-resourced operations that have successfully integrated themselves into the prevailing system.
The remaining 10% represent the segment that is understandably vocal, and their concerns are valid. I've witnessed competent operators struggle to secure work without preferred repairer agreements, and skilled technicians compelled to close their doors due to an inability to compete with network pricing. While heartbreaking, this is a stark reflection of current market dynamics.
Unpacking the Core of the Conflict
When the VACC raises concerns about "professional expertise" and "insurer overreach," it's crucial to acknowledge the underlying market shifts. Large repair groups have strategically adapted to the current system. They've invested in technology, standardised their processes, and cultivated relationships with insurers based on consistent quality and competitive pricing.
Is this system without flaws? Absolutely not. However, the proposed solution often seems to be dismantling a structure that serves the majority to protect a minority facing challenges.
The Consumer: An Often-Forgotten Stakeholder
What often gets lost in these industry debates is the consumer. Every day in my workshop, I encounter customers who are stressed after an accident, concerned about costs, and simply want their vehicle repaired safely and promptly.
Their priorities are straightforward:
- A safe and proper repair for their vehicle.
- A hassle-free process from start to finish.
- Affordable insurance premiums.
- The assurance that they are not being overcharged.
Yet, our regulatory discussions frequently veer away from these fundamental consumer needs. Instead, we find ourselves debating whether struggling workshops should have more power to dictate prices or if insurers should exert more control over repair processes.
The Inevitable Rise of Technology
The VACC's apprehension regarding AI in assessments is particularly puzzling to me. I've seen these systems in action; while not perfect, they are rapidly improving and offer something vital: consistency.
In my early days in this business, repair estimates for the same job could vary wildly between workshops. While some variations were due to legitimate professional judgment, it's undeniable that opportunistic pricing also played a role. AI assessment tools are introducing much-needed objectivity into what was often a subjective, and at times, manipulated process.
Smaller operators who view AI as giving an unfair advantage to "well-resourced insurers" might be missing the bigger picture. These tools are poised to create a more level playing field by providing consistent, objective assessments that can benefit any repairer.
The Reality of Partnerships
My experience spans both independent operation and involvement in insurer networks. The partnership model, despite its imperfections, effectively addresses several key challenges:
- Consistent Work Flow: Network repairers benefit from a steady stream of business.
- Streamlined Processes: This leads to less paperwork, faster approvals, and quicker payments.
- Quality Standards: Clear expectations and accountability ensure consistent quality.
- Consumer Convenience: A one-stop service from damage assessment to final delivery.
Certainly, these partnerships come with expectations. Insurers seek competitive pricing and have specific requirements regarding parts usage and repair methodologies. However, this is the nature of collaboration in any industry—mutual benefit necessitates mutual accommodation.
The Deeper Issue We're Avoiding
The uncomfortable truth is that the Motor Vehicle Insurance and Repair Industry Code of Conduct will likely remain "not fit for purpose" unless we acknowledge that our fundamental market structure is the problem, not merely the solution.
We operate within an industry where:
- Small operators struggle to compete on efficiency or technology.
- Large operators dominate through scale and established partnerships.
- Insurers control the flow of work via network arrangements.
- Consumers have limited genuine choice or a strong voice.
- Pricing is often opaque and frequently contested.
No amount of regulatory fine-tuning will resolve these inherent structural issues. We need an open and honest conversation about whether our current market model truly serves consumer interests or primarily entrenches existing power dynamics.
Charting a More Effective Course
Instead of endlessly debating code provisions, we should be asking more fundamental questions:
- Should repair quality be standardised across the industry? If so, every operator—regardless of size—should be required to meet the same stringent standards. This means no exceptions for businesses unable to afford proper equipment or training.
- Should pricing be transparent and competitive? Let's establish systems where consumers can clearly see what they are paying for and meaningfully compare different options.
- Should technology enhance service delivery? Then let's embrace it instead of resisting it. Efforts should be made to help smaller operators access these tools rather than attempting to limit their adoption.
- Should the market reward efficiency and quality? Then we must stop trying to shield inefficient operators from competitive pressures.
The Unavoidable Evolution
The automotive repair industry is undergoing consolidation, whether we like it or not. Technology continues to advance at a rapid pace, and consumer expectations are consistently rising. Resisting these trends through regulation won't halt them; it will only make the transition more arduous and costly.
The VACC's rejection of the draft code undeniably reflects the legitimate concerns of operators who feel marginalised by market evolution. However, their proposed solution—more regulation to protect struggling businesses—is unlikely to benefit consumers and could, in fact, negatively impact them.
What Consumers Truly Need
After decades in this industry, I firmly believe consumers need:
- Repair standards that prioritize safety above cost, irrespective of who performs the work.
- Transparent pricing that accurately reflects true costs, rather than inflated charges designed to prop up inefficient operations.
- Efficient service delivery, leveraging the best available technology and processes.
- Choice based on genuine value, not artificial restrictions that stifle competition.
- Accountability when issues arise, with clear recourse and fair resolution.
None of these necessitate protecting outdated business models or hindering technological advancement. They require a laser focus on outcomes that genuinely matter to consumers, rather than processes that primarily benefit industry participants.
Time for Frank Conversations
The draft MVIRI Code, while not perfect, isn't the fundamental problem. The real issue is our collective attempt to regulate our way around market realities instead of confronting them directly.
Until we are willing to engage in honest conversations about industry structure, consumer needs, and market evolution, any code of conduct will remain inadequate. We will continue to debate symptoms while neglecting the underlying ailment.
The automotive repair industry requires genuine reform—reform that prioritises consumer welfare and allows market forces to drive efficiency and quality. This might mean that some existing operators won't survive, but it will ultimately lead to superior outcomes for the customers we are entrusted to serve.
It's time to stop resisting change and instead actively shape it in ways that truly benefit the people who sustain our businesses: the consumers whose cars we repair and whose trust we must earn every single day.