Victorian motorist left out-of-pocket after dealership mechanic writes off ute during service
Alex Kruse says a young mechanic crashed his $35,000 GWM Cannon during a July service, triggering months of insurance disputes and a demand to return a loan car; the dealership says the insurer handled the claim.
A Torquay man says a routine service on his $35,000 ute ended with the vehicle written off, months of wrangling with insurers and a roughly $1,500 shortfall that he blames on the servicing dealer.
Alex Kruse said he dropped his 2021 GWM Cannon at Smiths of Geelong, part of the Blood Auto Group, for a scheduled service on July 8. Mr Kruse said he was told by staff that the vehicle had been involved in an accident while in the dealership’s care, that it would be off the road for two weeks and that it had been deemed a total loss after a mechanic “t-boned” another vehicle.
Kruse said the ute was still under a seven-year warranty when he left it with the dealer and that the business initially urged him to use his own car insurance. He said he refused, concerned a not-at-fault claim on his policy would lift his premiums. He described a protracted exchange between the dealership and its insurer that he said left him bounced between parties and delayed resolution for about two months.
When he received the insurer’s payout, Kruse said it did not cover the applicable taxes on the replacement vehicle, leaving him about $1,500 out of pocket. He said attempts to recover that shortfall directly from the dealership were unsuccessful and that the dealer ignored phone calls before declining to reimburse him. "I'm just asking to basically get me back to even where I started," he said.
Kruse lodged a complaint with Consumer Affairs Victoria and last Friday applied to have the matter heard by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, according to his account. He also said the dealership had provided a loan car under a contract he said allowed indefinite use until his vehicle’s value was replaced and under a verbal promise that the loan vehicle would remain available until he secured a replacement. Since receiving the insurance payment, he said, the dealer demanded the loan car be returned and threatened to call police and report the vehicle stolen.
Representatives for Blood Auto Group provided a different account. Dealer principal Brian Blood told the Geelong Advertiser the dealership had serviced tens of thousands of customers annually and acknowledged the vehicle was written off but described the incident as "unfortunate but accidents do happen." He said the customer chose to deal with the dealership's insurance company, accepted the insurer's offer and received payment. "We paid the excess and at no stage asked the customer to pay for it," Mr Blood said. "We had no negotiation at all in the process, this was left with the customer and the insurance company." The Blood Auto Group did not respond to a request for further comment through the Daily Mail.
Kruse also questioned the experience level of the mechanic involved. He said the dealership initially described the technician as a senior mechanic but that information gathered for the insurer suggested the worker had been licensed for around a year.
The dispute highlights the practical and legal complications that can arise when a vehicle is damaged while in the custody of a service provider. Consumer advocates and legal advisers say resolution pathways include complaints to state consumer protection agencies and applications to small-claims tribunals or administrative courts when parties cannot agree on reimbursement for loss or damages.
Smiths of Geelong is part of a larger group that, according to Mr Blood, services about 78,000 customers annually. In such networks, responsibility for damage to customer vehicles can be contested between workshop operators, insurance providers and vehicle owners, particularly where routes to repair or replacement involve total-loss valuations, tax calculations and the terms of dealer-supplied loan cars.
Kruse said the incident has been stressful and costly beyond the direct financial shortfall, citing time spent dealing with insurers and arranging a replacement vehicle. He said he was seeking to recover the outstanding amount and to hold the dealership to its verbal assurances about the loan car while the matter is resolved.
The matter is now before Consumer Affairs Victoria and may proceed to a tribunal hearing, where an adjudicator could consider the contractual terms of the loan car, the handling of the insurer’s settlement and whether the dealer has an obligation to reimburse the tax shortfall or otherwise make the owner whole.