(Update from the potential Client)
Seth, your characterization of this situation is inaccurate, and your advice was, frankly, wrong.
Despite your insistence that a meaningful diminished value outcome "would never happen," I successfully resolved the claim. Between my trade-in and the diminished value settlement from the insurance company, I recovered a total valuation of $54,000 -- which aligns with the pre-accident value I referenced from the beginning.
This wasn't based on "unrealistic expectations," it was based on actual market feedback and persistence in navigating the claim properly -- something your analysis failed to account for.
What's concerning is not just the inaccuracy, but the confidence with which you dismissed a legitimate outcome. Telling a potential client they are "kidding themselves" instead of properly evaluating the situation is not professionalism -- it's poor guidance.
In this case, your advice would have cost me a substantial amount of money. Fortunately, I chose not to follow it and hope others do the same.
This person, which was not a customer but only a potential client, had unrealistic expectations as to the outcome of our appraisal. He would not accept that we don't, and legally do not need to inspect a fully repaired vehicle.
If the customer accepts the vehicle from the body shop, then they (the customer) are certifying that the vehicle has been repaired to their complete satisfaction. The quality of repair is not what we are concerned with in a Diminished Value matter. The concern is that the vehicle now has a prior accident history on Carfax.
If the owner has a concern over the quality of the repairs done to the vehicle, then that is between them and the body shop.
The language which this person has quoted as being in our report is not true. This language was included in an email as we were discussing the estimated amount of Diminished Value. Since the potential client had already fixed in his mind the amount that my appraisal should reflect, there was a mutual decision that we should go our separate ways and that Leon should find another appraisal service which would satisfy his needs and expectations.
As all of our appraisals are performed under the guidance of the USPAP guidelines (Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice) and the use of the ISAA (International Society of Automotive Appraisers) sliding scale, supported by wholesale auction and sales date, we do not exarate the potential outcome of an appraisal in order to gain a customer, only to reap the appraisal fee. This is completely unethical and has no place in our industry.
Here is the complete email which the client claimed was a written appraisal: email from client:
My car only has 34,879. Also your number seems way off. The pre accident value from an appraiser was $54,000 to $55,000 and I just got an offer for $32,000 with the severe accident history.
Leon
My reply is as follows:
Considering the low mileage and that it is a first edition of the new Bronco, the other appraiser's value is correct. My comps support a value of about 54K. With this, the Diminished Value appears to be about $4,500.
Regarding the offer of $32,000 for your car, if you sold it at that price, the new owner could resell it for high 40's easily. If you think that you are going to collect $20,000 plus in Diminished Value, you are just kidding yourself. Unless you run across an unethical appraiser who is pushing this to arbitration and has an umpire in his pocket, this level of DV will never happen.
Seth Stairs, CAA
This narrative lays out the whole story in this matter. Perhaps I was a bit blunt, but I'd much rather see the client obtain a realistic settlement rather than take his appraisal fee and send a totally dissatisfied customer down the road to fight the insurance company with unsubstantiated information. Ethics is more important to R2A than an appraisal fee.
Seth S. CEO
Ready2Appraise.com read more