Saturday, April 9, 2016

It's time to amend the $2000 accident declaration law in British Columbia

My understanding is that this law was brought into play in the 1970s.  Its obvious purpose was to make sure consumers knew when they were purchasing a vehicle that had previously sustained damages of $2000.

This law made sense in the 1970s when a head light was $20.  Today it is not uncommon to see LED headlamp assemblies that can cost over $2000 for a single unit.  The cost of parts and repairs have increased dramatically and unfortunately this law has stayed the same.

The one interesting this about this law that most people don't understand is that you must declare any damages that cumulatively exceed $2000.  This is not per incident, but if you have numerous damages that add to more then $2000.

Example would be a 2012 Rav4 Limited

2012 - Windshield replace - $700
2013 - Bumper damaged and repainted $1500

$2200 in damages

This owner must now disclose a $2000 declaration.  Take a look at the wording used on the tax transfer.  "Cumulative Vehicle Damage".

 

Consequently this law causes the unnecessary loss of vehicle value, due to having to declare an accident history, when in some instances there is no need to lose value.  Accelerated Depreciation / Diminished Value could be mitigated in some instances if this law was amended to be more appropriate for 2016.  If you don't know what Accelerated Depreciation is - Click Here for the CBC Marketplace Episode.

Do you want to add your voice?  Sign the Change.org Petition - Sign Here


Wednesday, April 6, 2016

2016 Judgement awarding Accelerated Depreciation





Rutter v, Adams
2016 BCSC 554

[311]      As a result of the first accident, Ms. Fletcher’s 2006 Toyota Matrix sustained damage that cost $9,282.46 to repair.  She says that its value was reduced as a result.  When Ms. Fletcher and Kevin Fletcher became frustrated with repeated trips to the automotive repair shop and what they viewed as inadequate repairs to the vehicle, prepared it for sale.  It was a fully loaded 2006 Matrix, which appeared to be in reasonably good condition.  As they did not believe they would be able to sell it privately with its history, they traded it in at a dealership.
[312]      The defendants dispute this claim.
[313]      Mr. Scarrow’s Accelerated Depreciation Assessment Report, dated September 8, 2011, includes the following:
It is my opinion the result of the collision repairs upon the vehicles Actual Cash Value was accelerated in terms of depreciation by Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars [$2500/Cdn.] plus applicable taxes.
[314]      As set out in Signorello v. Khan2010 BCSC 1448 (CanLII), such losses can include a “loss of use and the inconvenience of having to return the vehicle on several occasions” (at para. 33).  I am satisfied that the Fletchers suffered these losses.  Their claim for damages for accelerated depreciation and loss of use is allowed in full.  I award $2,500.

Link to Judgement - www.canlii.org Link to Rutter v Adams, 2016 BCSC 554