Four insurers want to use only quality-certified outlets

The competition watchdog and four insurance companies are locked in a dispute over the operation of a vehicle repair scheme, which the insurers argue would raise standards.

A number of car repair garages complained to the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority after it was announced that four major insurers would only use quality vehicle repaircertified outlets for insurancefunded repair jobs.

In an initial decision last week (reported on TMBW pg 1), the regulator found the QVR scheme breached competition rules. It ordered the insurers to stop making a distinction in the method of payment between claimants who used QVR repairers and others who did not.

They were also told to stop circulating any leaflets or adverts of any type that “disparage” nonQVR-approved garages.

According to the MCCAA, the fact that a repairer was QVR-certified did not imply that a better service was provided when compared to a non-QVR repairer, contrary to what the insurance firms emphasised.

It said non-QVR garages were losing clients “on a daily basis” because of the “collusion” of the four insurers and not due to any inefficiencies on their part.

In a statement responding to the decision, (not received by this paper) Mapfre Middlesea, GasanMamo Insurance, Atlas Insurance and Elmo Insurance pointed out that the idea behind the scheme was to raise the standards of the repair industry.

They said the scheme involved inspections of garages by an independent company, Cesvimap, considered to be among the leaders in the field.

The insurers noted that the scheme was non-profit making and was heavily-subsidised by them, financing the lion’s share of the expenses involved in carrying out the inspections.

They expressed concern that the regulator’s ruling would severely cripple the scheme and lay to waste the results achieved so far.

They pointed out that the scheme was open to all repairers and did not preclude car owners from using a repairer who was not part of it. In such cases, the owners would still recover their expenses from the insurer once fiscal receipts were produced.

“With all the talk and energy focused on the use of our roads and road safety, this seems to be taking matters a few steps backwards,” the insurers said. (See leader pg 12)