Volumes have moved faster than the infrastructure
Chinese marques sold approximately 200,000 cars across Europe in 2022. By 2025, excluding Volvo, the figure was around 795,000: nearly four times the volume in three years. BYD more than tripled its European registrations during 2025, while MG, Omoda, Jaecoo and other newer entrants have established meaningful UK volumes.
That growth presents a practical challenge for insurers, accident management companies, engineers and repairers. Vehicle distribution can be expanded relatively quickly. Repair methods, parts logistics, trained technicians, estimating data and claims experience take longer to establish.
The position also varies considerably by manufacturer. MG has years of UK market experience, while Chery’s Omoda and Jaecoo operations have worked with Thatcham Research before and during launch. Other brands have arrived with much less developed support. “Chinese vehicle” is therefore too broad a classification for underwriting or repair strategy.
Premium performance changes the repair equation
The BYD Seal Excellence AWD costs £48,730, produces 530PS and reaches 62mph in 3.8 seconds. BMW’s £71,525 i4 M60 produces 601hp and takes 3.7 seconds. Performance and range are remarkably close despite a price difference of almost £23,000.
The Omoda 9 SHS-P follows the same pattern. For £44,995 it combines a petrol engine, substantial traction battery, multiple electric motors and four-wheel drive, producing 449PS and 765Nm. Volvo’s XC60 plug-in hybrid begins at £56,765 with appreciably less electric range. XPeng’s G6, meanwhile, offers 800-volt electrical architecture and up to 451kW charging from £39,990.
For the claims sector, the important point is that a lower retail price does not necessarily indicate a simple or inexpensive repair. These vehicles contain complex lighting, camera and radar systems, high-voltage components, sophisticated cooling circuits and highly integrated body structures. Repair expenditure can therefore consume the pre-accident value more quickly than it would on a more expensive European equivalent.
Accurate group rating, realistic repair times and early parts-price intelligence are essential. Applying conventional assumptions based on market segment or purchase price risks under-reserving claims and producing avoidable total losses.
Specification is not repairability
Chinese manufacturers are particularly strong in batteries, power electronics, software integration and standard equipment. Many vehicles achieve excellent Euro NCAP results. None of that establishes whether the car can be repaired economically after a relatively ordinary impact.
A five-star safety rating demonstrates occupant and road-user protection under defined test conditions. It does not confirm that a rear quarter can be sectioned, a battery casing can be inspected rather than replaced, or an ADAS calibration can be completed promptly within the independent repair network.
Some Chinese-market repair practices also translate poorly to Britain. Low labour costs can make replacement of a complete body side economically acceptable in China. In the UK, the same operation may render the vehicle a total loss. Manufacturers entering this market need localised service panels, rational sectioning procedures and parts kits designed around British labour rates and insurer-approved repair processes.
Supercars illustrate the wider shift
Lamborghini chief executive Stephan Winkelmann said, “We don’t see this as a threat,” when asked about Chinese electric supercars such as the 1,583bhp Denza Z. His position is that Lamborghini sells sound, character and mechanical involvement rather than acceleration alone.
Mate Rimac of Bugatti Rimac describes the high-end market as entering a “Swiss watch phase”, in which wealthy clients continue paying for mechanical craftsmanship and provenance despite the availability of technically superior electronic alternatives.
That argument may protect the multimillion-pound collector market, but the £80,000–£250,000 performance sector is more exposed. Chinese manufacturers can already reproduce its power figures and electronic theatre at a substantially lower price. The claims challenge will be maintaining suitable structural methods, composite repair capability and parts provision for vehicles that may be technologically advanced but remain rare within the UK parc.
A damage assessment cannot replace a repair method
Thatcham Research produces BS10125-compliant repair methods containing safety-critical information, including EV and ADAS considerations. However, a Thatcham method may not be available for every newly introduced model, derivative or repair operation. Thatcham states that suitable methods should be available and distributed at vehicle launch; delivery across every new entrant is not automatic.
Where a method is unavailable, the assessor and repairer must not devise a plausible-looking alternative. Modern structures can combine ultra-high-strength steel, aluminium castings, structural adhesive and protected battery load paths within the same area. An incorrect sectioning point, joining process or application of heat may reduce the vehicle’s subsequent crash performance.
The absence of an approved method affects the entire claim. The bodyshop cannot finalise its repair plan; the engineer cannot safely authorise the operation; the insurer cannot rely on the original reserve; and the accident management company faces increasing hire and storage exposure.
A desktop assessment can identify visible damage and establish an initial reserve, but it cannot answer every structural or high-voltage question. Controlled dismantling, diagnostic scans, dimensional measurement and physical inspection may be required. The resulting supplementary estimate should be treated as evidence of developing damage information, not automatically as poor estimating by the repairer.
The assessor’s role
For Laird, the central requirement is an independent, evidence-led engineering decision. Our assessors use Thatcham, Audatex and manufacturer information for physical and desktop assessments, valuations and post-repair inspections.
Where technical information is incomplete, the report should identify what is missing, why it matters and what must happen before repair authority can properly be given. This might involve further strip-down, direct manufacturer clarification, battery inspection, specialist measurement or referral to an approved repairer.
The assessor also needs to test the repairer’s proposal against economic reality. Replacing an unnecessarily large assembly may produce a technically safe result but an avoidable total loss. Conversely, reducing the scope merely to keep expenditure below a threshold is unacceptable where no approved repair route exists.
Post-repair inspection may become more important. Evidence should include joining operations, corrosion protection, high-voltage isolation and reinstatement, diagnostic results, wheel alignment and successful ADAS calibration. A completed exterior finish proves very little about the integrity of the underlying repair.
Parts supply is improving, although evidence matters
In 2024, insurers raised serious concerns about missing repair information and parts support for some Chinese vehicles. Progress since then has been substantial. Thatcham now works directly with Chery, Omoda, Jaecoo and BYD, while approved procedures for a growing number of Chinese models are available through the escribe system.
Omoda and Jaecoo have developed localised repair methods and use DHL for UK parts distribution, with stated delivery targets as short as 24 to 48 hours. BYD has introduced an approved accident-repair network with access to its technical information and specialist equipment.
Those developments are encouraging, but network announcements do not by themselves demonstrate consistent claims performance. Insurers need data covering parts fill rates, back orders, key-to-key times, supplementary frequency, calibration completion and total-loss outcomes by model.
Parts availability should also be assessed at component level. Routine service stock can produce an impressive overall availability percentage while one headlamp, radar unit, body panel or battery-cooling component immobilises the vehicle for weeks, increasing overall claim charges.
The commercial consequences
For bodyshops, accepting an unfamiliar model without first checking method access, tooling, high-voltage competence and calibration capability can leave a vehicle occupying productive space with no authorised repair route.
For insurers, limited historical data increases uncertainty around repair cost, salvage value, residual value and claim duration. Lower purchase prices may make technically feasible repairs uneconomic sooner than expected.
For accident management companies, repair-method and parts delays feed directly into replacement-vehicle duration. Early engineering intervention is therefore more valuable than repeated estimate chasing after the vehicle has already stalled in the network.
Chinese manufacturers have demonstrated that they can produce capable vehicles and build sales rapidly. The successful brands will be those that treat claims infrastructure as part of the product: repair methods available at launch, realistic labour operations, serviceable component strategies, dependable UK parts stock and technical support that reaches independent repairers.
The motor trade should judge each marque on that evidence. Sales volume alone does not make a vehicle repairable.
