@imrobert Yeah having it inspected and having it inspected with a guarantee that it wont fail due to damage are 2 wholly different things! Think that’s why LBS normally just say ‘scrap it’.

I claimed off my own insurance when I crashed my steel road bike – they were happy with photos of a badly kinked downtube and a letter from an LBS saying the frame and fork were beyond repair.

The driver admitted liability obviously as i was sat in the lounge when it occurred, her insurance company are asking if it can be inspected,

The correct answer in this case I would suggest should be along t,he lines of ……

Yes, of course you can arrange to have it inspected, it’s a very high end machine and I would expect nothing less.
That’s why I have kept it in the exact state the incident left it in.
I trust you will be sending someone with the knowledge and expertise in this type of equipment to carry out the inspection.
Please ensure I have plenty of notice of the visit and be informed that any out of pocket expenses or other costs in accommodating the
inspection will be added to my claim.

Or in other words …. yes, at your cost

Or in other words …. yes, at your cost

As previously pointed out by Morecash, it’s op’s responsibility and cost to prove his loss. Tthew said the right thing – lbs, get a letter saying it’s goosed. Replacement price is £x. The letter will probably be £25 or so.

You may be pushed by the insurer down a “used” valuation so go find some ads for proof, but I wouldn’t be supplying those until asked. I can think of various ways of getting ads in the right places too, maybe saying “sold”.

it’s op’s responsibility and cost to prove his loss

Maybe it is but surely a pic of the damaged bike and a link to the replacement with its cost is enough.  If they want to argue the frame does not need to be replaced then its up to the insurance co to prove that?  Default with a CF bike is if its been hit its a write off?

You may be pushed by the insurer down a “used” valuation so go find some ads for proof

If that’s the case I’d be pushing the insurance company to pay for an inspection of any used bike to ensure it is safe, new for old is better for them.

They aren’t buying you a bike, they are indemnifying you for the financial cost of your loss.

This isn’t a claim by the OP on his insurance. It’s a claim by the OP for damages from the owner of the car that caused the damage. It’s being dealt with by their insurance, but that doesn’t alter the nature of the claim. It doesn’t matter what’s in the policy about new for old and deductions for age; that’s between the policy holder and the insurer, the OP is a third party and is entitled to compensation. The amount that can be claimed is whatever the OP can convince them is justified, if no agreement is reached it could go to court. Damages don’t have to be limited to financial loss – as Prince Andrew may be discovering.

I work in aerospace composites and one of my responsibilities is NDT.

We use immersion ultrasonics, for the parts we manufacture, a program for a basic shape will take a few days including prooving. I have inspected bike parts for others in the past, looking at the scans, I wish I never had!

A company like Westmoreland testing, or SWSNDT (Mintons) would be able to give you a proper NDT inspection. Not sure what other techniques they have for composite materials though, I do know a few of the guys at SWS, they do do some mobile testing around the world so Im guessing it’s dry.

Damages don’t have to be limited to financial loss

The UK civil legal system very much relies on damages being financial losses resulting directly from the event causing the loss.

I’m not sure you’re aware, but randy Andy is being sued stateside.