Overview
This paper summarises stakeholder feedback received as part of the MVIRI Code of Conduct consultation process. The feedback reflects a shared view that while the draft Code introduces important structural improvements, it does not go far enough in addressing long-standing issues of power imbalance, lack of transparency, and operational pressures faced by repairers.
A total of 18 unique submissions have been received to date, with consultation closing on 23 June. Most responses came from repairers, with further input provided by individuals, industry associations, and assessing/claims management companies. In addition, the MTAs and the VACC have led a range of workshop sessions and engagements that have enabled members and industry to provide detailed feedback.
At present, 16 key issue areas have emerged where the draft Code falls short of industry expectations, including assessment control, dispute resolution, insurer dominance, payment timelines, and the qualifications and conduct of assessors.
The analysis below sets out a summary of key gaps in the draft Code, alongside thematic insights and specific recommendations drawn from stakeholder submissions. It also aims to prompt constructive thinking and practical solutions from repairers as part of the consultation process.
Participation Summary (as of 27 May 2025)
Total unique respondents: 18
Website respondents (via mviricode.com.au): 16
Organisation types represented:
- Repairers: 14
- Individuals: 2
- Other: 2
- Independent assessing and accident management company: 1
- Assessing and claims management company: 1
| Issue Area |
Feedback Concern |
Gap in Proposed Code |
| Estimate and assessment control |
Insurers retain too much control over estimating methodology and can alter estimates unilaterally. |
Clause 6.2 still lets insurers dictate preferred methodology and alter estimates. |
| Payment timeliness |
Delayed payments cause cash flow problems; dispute clauses are used to delay even undisputed amounts. |
Clause 8.1 allows 30-day payment; Clause 8.2 delays disputed payments without partial obligation. |
| Dispute resolution process |
High adjudication costs and insurer dominance in CAC create bias against repairers. |
Clause 10 mandates adjudication with shared costs; CAC retains casting vote through chair. |
| Repair warranties |
Repairers bear warranty burden even when using insurer-mandated methods or parts. |
Clause 7.2 mandates 3-year warranty even when insurer directs repairs; insurer indemnity vague. |
| Fair pricing and rate transparency |
Code excludes rate-setting and does not ensure rates reflect market costs. |
Clause 2.3(e) explicitly excludes hourly rates and allocation transparency. |
| Use of non-genuine parts |
Insurers retain discretion over non-genuine parts, risking OEM warranty and repair quality. |
No restriction on non-genuine parts; clause 2.3(e)(ii) leaves full discretion to insurer. |
| Consumer choice and steering |
Code does not protect consumer repairer choice or regulate insurer steering practices. |
Clause 2.3(e)(iii) excludes regulation of compulsory repairer choice; disclosure not mandated. |
| AI and estimation technology |
AI tools may lead to inaccurate assessments without proper human oversight. |
Clause 6.3 permits AI usage but lacks requirement for human validation or repairer challenge. |
| CAC governance and independence |
CAC chair has casting vote and may not be truly independent; non-affiliated repairers lack representation. |
Chair remains with casting vote; independent repairers not directly represented. |
| Assessor and estimator qualifications |
Lack of mandatory qualifications and accountability standards for assessors and estimators. |
Clause 5.1 and 5.2 list general training needs but no mandatory certification system. |
| Sanctions and penalties |
Penalties unclear or not proportional to party size; enforcement mechanisms lack transparency. |
Penalties listed but no tiered system, disclosure requirement or linkage to business size. |
| Transparency and accountability |
Code lacks requirement to justify estimate adjustments or publish performance reports. |
Insurer decisions on estimates not subject to same substantiation or publication standards as repairers. |
| Timing and approvals |
Delays in approving supplementary work and completing assessments impact workflow and customer service. |
No mandated timeframe for supplementary approvals or assessments. |
| Internal dispute resolution |
Burden of IDR process falls on repairers. |
No simplified or standardised IDR process in place. |
| IP and documentation |
Repairer-submitted materials reused by insurers without consent. |
No protection of photographic IP or repairer-generated content. |
| Methodology and parts standards |
Insurers override safe repair plans or use non-approved methods or parts. |
No requirement to follow OEM or paint company methodology; insurer-mandated unqualified work not restricted. |
Analysis of Key Themes
1. Power Imbalance and Estimate Control
Feedback: Insurers currently exert excessive control over pricing and repair methods. Clause 6.2 of the draft Code allows them to dictate estimation methodologies. Clause 6.4 attempts to prohibit arbitrary alterations but still allows insurers to modify estimates if they “insist” on changes to process or parts.
Amendments to consider:
- Introduce enforceable rights for repairers to negotiate estimates
- Require justification from insurers for any alteration
- Require assessments to align with the work plan prepared by the repairer
2. Pricing Transparency and Fair Rates
Feedback: The Code excludes rate-setting, exposing repairers to suppressed pricing.
Amendments to consider:
- Promote transparency and independence in rate setting, ensuring repairers retain the right to determine their own commercial rates
- Recognise all legitimate costs including government levies and compliance obligations
- Reinstate objective of transparency in relation to times, rates, repairer choice, and use of parts
3. Payment Timeliness and Cash Flow Risk
Feedback: Insurer payment delays place severe strain on repairers.
Amendments to consider:
- Require undisputed invoices to be paid within 14 days
- Mandate approval of supplementary work within 48 hours
4. Dispute Resolution Fairness and Cost Sharing
Feedback: Cost and structure of CAC process deters repairer participation.
Amendments to consider:
- Introduce low-cost third-party mediation prior to adjudication
- Simplify internal dispute resolution process with minimal documentation
- Ensure adjudicators have knowledge of repair methods, parts, and paint
5. Repair Warranty and Liability Shifting
Feedback: Repairers carry full warranty burden, even when following insurer-mandated practices.
Amendments to consider:
- Require insurer indemnity where they mandate parts or procedures, ensuring:
- Indemnity is clearly defined in writing, with specific triggers and exclusions
- Supported by a binding dispute resolution mechanism
- Framed to include both direct and consequential losses
- At a minimum, require use of OEM parts on all vehicles
6. Use of AI in Damage Assessment
Feedback: AI-generated estimates lack human oversight and accuracy.
Amendments to consider:
- Require human review of AI assessments
- Require insurer to name the responsible assessor
- Formulate AI policy and guidelines (for approval)
7. Assessor and Estimator Qualifications
Feedback: Lack of mandatory trade qualifications undermines credibility and consistency.
Amendments to consider:
- Mandate certification and ongoing training
- Include impartiality and compliance obligations under a recognised code of conduct
8. Consumer Choice and Steering Practices
Feedback: Consumers are steered to preferred repairers despite claims of choice.
Amendments to consider:
- Mandate written disclosure of repairer choice rights
- Prohibit coercive or misleading referral practices
9. CAC Governance and Independence
Feedback: Current structure and casting vote provision risk systemic bias.
Amendments to consider:
- Ensure independent chair appointment
- Include non-affiliated repairer representation
- Introduce a complaints process for reporting poor assessor behaviour
10. Sanctions, Transparency and Protections
Feedback: Lack of clarity and consistency in penalties and their application.
Amendments to consider:
- Develop clear guidelines and policy on sanctions structure, rules, and procedural fairness
- Establish tiered penalty framework
- Publish breaches and outcomes annually
- Provide protections for repairers who raise disputes
11. Methodology and Repair Integrity
Feedback: Insurers override appropriate repair methodologies and require unqualified work.
Amendments to consider:
- Require adherence to OEM and paint system procedures
- Prohibit insurers from requesting uncertified work
- Ensure age and condition are not used to justify compromise on structural safety
12. IP and Repairer Documentation
Feedback: Repairers lose control over photographic materials submitted in good faith.
Amendments to consider:
- Retain photographic IP rights with repairers
- Prohibit unauthorised reuse of materials in future estimates
- Prohibit copyright infringements of repair estimates
