Responses from the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) to concerns raised by a Southern California body shop manager and Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS) Board member may bring clarity to repairers in the industry about proposed teardown regulations.

BAR will take public comment on the most recent revisions to proposed Regulation 16 CCR sections 3303, 3352, and 3353 through 5 p.m. on Feb. 28.

Proposed changes would also affect towing and storage fees. During the fourth workshop on the proposed changes, held Jan. 30, the main concerns from repairers were the language causing a cap on storage fees and losing days of storage revenue.

Several revisions have been made by BAR based on feedback.

Andrew Batenhorst shared responses with Repairer Driven News that he received from a BAR representative in answer to questions he sent after reviewing the latest revisions of the teardown requirements.

Section 3353 (1)(A) now asks repair facilities to specify which components are going to be removed to evaluate damages.

“This is rather challenging as in most situations damage is obscured by the outer panels, and the level of accuracy on a teardown authorization form is going to be poor by virtue of itemizing the work to be performed in this manner,” Batenhorst wrote to the BAR.

“If we only ask to remove a bumper cover and leave out everything else, then what? Another teardown authorization for pulling air ducts, radiator supports/brackets, headlights, etc. after the bumper was removed and we found more damage that needs to be taken off to finish the assessment? This means halting the teardown. Does storage accrue while waiting on a second (or maybe even a third) teardown authorization?”

According to Batenhorst’s summary of his conversation with BAR, the bureau doesn’t expect repair facilities to get multiple teardown authorizations, and their goal is to move the collision industry to one teardown/one diagnosis.

“The example he provided was if the left front corner of a vehicle is hit, we just need to explain in the teardown authorization is ‘disassemble and diagnose left front corner of vehicle,'” Batenhorst told RDN. “The BAR understands that our type of diagnosis/teardown can become very complex very quickly. They are looking for clear expectations to be set with the customer.”

Next, Batenhorst told BAR that Section 3353 (1)(C) section seems to apply to mechanical repair facilities rather than collision repair facilities, and should be more specific.

“Estimating what clips/trim/hardware are going to break is excessive,” he wrote. “This needs to be less specific as it is putting an undue burden on collision repair facilities to treat a teardown estimate like an actual repair plan, which is not the point of this authorization form. The goal is to alert a consumer that things may break during a teardown, and that should they change their mind, the shop can advise what those things are upon pickup of the vehicle. But to guess what that might be is not something a body shop can predict like a gasket or o-ring, which is already known to be a one-time use, consumable item.”

Following the conversation, Batenhorst was under the impression that the BAR representative agreed the proposed regulation doesn’t fit collision centers very well, and he is not expecting shops to itemize clips, rivets, small brackets, et cetera.

“As long as there is language on the teardown authorization form that explains to the customer that the car may not go back together after it has been disassembled/diagnosed, that a potential tow may be needed, and/or parts may be needed to put the car back together,” Batenhorst said.

Batenhorst called Section 3353 (1)(E) the most contentious for shops. It states, “If the customer authorizes changes to the repair, prior to continuing with the repair, notify the third-party payor of customer-approved changes in the ARD estimate that would alter the payment amount specified in the third-party estimate.”

Batenhorst says that sets up a scenario in which most customers don’t get to decide to pull their vehicle out while a teardown is happening.

“It happens when the teardown is done, and they have found out that the third-party payer is not going to approve what the collision repair facility is asking for,” he told BAR. “This can take as long as six to 10-plus business days in many cases. Instead of starting the clock when the teardown form is signed, it should start when the teardown is completed, and the form should mention that once the customer is notified, the shop then has ‘X’ amount of days to put the car back together.”

The BAR representative assured Batenhorst that the bureau is aware the section is the most contentious part of the new proposed regulations and that shops face significant delays in supplemental inspections.

“I highly doubt this one will be changed as they want it to correspond with storage regulations, and the three-day grace period after diagnosis and storage fees will almost be guaranteed to go into law,” Batenhorst told RDN. “My instinct will be that shops will increase storage rates further to offset the loss of storage revenue from cutting off three days. In my shop, no one is ever out in three days to see a car, and desk reviews are never done in that time frame either.”

Repairers and the California Auto Body Association (CAA) have said this would equate to giving away three free days of storage and labor.

Jack Molodanof, CAA counsel, previously said he isn’t aware of any law or governmental entity that tells a small business owner they can’t charge for a service.

“If the shop wants to give free storage for three days or five days or seven days that’s their option,” he said. “It’s like the state telling you to work three days for free. I just don’t think there’s any legal authority for that.”

Jesse Parks, Freeman Collision Center director, previously said insurance companies have all moved toward a virtual model and cut their staff to maintain their margins, leaving shops to absorb all administrative labor.

“We will spend five, six, seven times going back and forth on an estimate just to get to where we were the first time,” he said. “We beg them [appraisers] to come out. We’re not the people that park it out back and hope they forget about it… Could you imagine if you had to give three days free insurance on every policy that you sold? Putting it in comparison I think is fair.”

Batenhorst told RDN he’s pleased with the addition of Section 3353 (d)(2) because it helps clarify the roles of shops and third-party payers to their customers.

The section reads, “If the amount of payment to be made by the third-party payor is not known, the automotive repair dealer shall include the following notification on the repair facility estimate: ‘This estimate is for repairs to meet vehicle manufacturer and industry standards. As the customer, it is your responsibility to contact the third-party payor for approval of payment for the repairs you have authorized.'”

As of Tuesday, BAR hadn’t scheduled any other workshops on the changes.

Images

Featured image: surachaikunprayot/iStock