The California Bureau of Automotive Repair has issued a report on a two-year study that identifies auto body repair work that has been done "according to specifications in the final invoice." Should the report lead to change in industry requirements, it will be important for collision leaders to be part of the process.

The California Department of Consumer Affairs' Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) released its Auto Body Repair Inspection Pilot Program Report to the legislature this month. The report is a product of language in Senate Bill 1988 as proposed by California state Sen. Jackie Speier, D-San Francisco. The bill language purpose was to "identify auto body repair work that was not done according to specifications in the final invoice."

Data for the report was gathered from July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2003. The BAR reviewed 1,315 qualifying vehicles during this time period. Qualifications for a vehicle included at least $2,500 in collision repairs that were performed within the preceding 120 days of the vehicle owner's application for the program.

The report indicated that 551 (42 percent) of the vehicles had parts or labor itemized on the invoice that were not "actually" supplied or performed. These costs averaged $811.93 per vehicle. California's Business and Professions Code section 9884.7 (a)(1) prohibits "making or authorizing any untrue or misleading statement." Section 9884.7(a)(4) continues with "other conduct constituting fraud."

Usually, the BAR will forward its investigations, findings and recommendations to the attorney general of California when there has been a pattern of unlawful conduct. All the previously mentioned cases in this study were not forwarded to the attorney general. The BAR looked for "significant patterns and abuses" when alerting the attorney general due to limited resources. As a result, there have been 47 administrative actions filed by the attorney general and 46 referrals to local district attorneys for possible criminal or civil action, according to the report.

The report noted that where complaints were filed and the BAR chose to mediate the consumer's complaint with the repairer, the BAR secured offers of "over $500,000 in direct funds, rework of the vehicle or adjustments to the bill." Included in the complaint mediation were the following:

• Adjustments - This is where the final bill has not been collected by the repair facility and the total has been adjusted to suit both parties. This occurred 17 times for a total of $58,546.81.
• Refunds - This is when the bill has already been paid and the repair facility has offered money to settle the issues raised by the complainant. This occurred 94 times for a total of $207,399.14.
• Rework - This is when the repair facility has agreed to rework, at no charge, a part of the original job to the complainant's satisfaction. An estimated amount of this rework is attached to that job. This occurred 207 times at a total value of $270,167.92.

Despite the importance of the BAR violations illustrated by the report, the BAR's recommendations should also be of interest to collision repairers. In its recommendations, the lack of "statutory and regulatory requirements informing the working relationship" between auto repairers and insurance companies was raised by the BAR. The BAR's suggested resolve is that the California State Senate Insurance Committee, and industry and consumer stakeholders work with the BAR to "determine if certain protocols or requirements should be required through statute or regulation."

The BAR continued with recommendations that "insurance adjusters more accurately describe the documents they produce as visual damage assessments, rather than as itemized statements." The goal of this change would be educating consumers so they better understand the complete damage to the vehicle or all necessary repairs.

It is important for collision leaders to be part of this stakeholder process if pursued by the California legislature and the BAR. When state or federal legislation is developed in a vacuum, with little understanding of the collision industry, the impact could be problematic for repairers. The earlier in the process repairers can participate, the less likely a negative industry impact will result from the legislative or regulatory action.

The BAR report can be found in the Legislation section of the Automotive Service Association's Web site at www.asashop.org.

Bob Redding is the Automotive Service Association's Washington, D.C., representative. He is a member of several federal and state advisory committees involved in the automotive industry. For more information about the legislative activities of ASA, visit www.TakingTheHill.com.

RATE THIS ARTICLE What do you think of this article? Your input will help AutoInc. develop additional articles on this subject. Share your thoughts! Your name Your e-mail address

MOST ACCESSED ARTICLES Fuel Injection Service, Not Just Cleaning The Art of Extraction EGR Systems: Operation and Diagnosis Proactive Target Marketing:_Rethinking Your Business Strategy Engine Performance: HO2S Diagnostics MOST E-MAILED ARTICLES Developing Employee Potential How Critical Thinking Can Help Your Business How to Diagnose the Ford Glow Plug What to Look for When Shopping for the Right Shop Management Software Putting a Price Tag on Complaints

AutoInc. Web Site | ASA Web Site | The California BAR Report | Environmental, Health and Safety Issues | Direct-to-Metal Products Offer Many Benefits | Dealing with Difficult People | Guest Editorial | Tech to Tech | Tech Tips | Shop Profile | Net Worth | Stat Corner | Chairman's Message