A scratch on the rear, and nobody knows how long it has been there. The question decides who pays. It is settled not by memory but by two conditions that can be compared cleanly.
After almost every handover the same dialogue follows: "That was already there." – "No, that's new." Both sides are convinced, both may even have photos. Yet the question often cannot be answered because the images are not comparable or do not prove when they were taken. This article shows what a before/after comparison needs so that the question is settled without a dispute.
The question "pre-existing or new damage?" is not answered by discussion but by two sealed conditions with the same views, marked spots and a proven point in time. Whatever is missing from the first record and appears in the second is new.
Three reasons come up again and again. First, the initial condition is missing: at pick-up, no photos or only rough ones were taken. Second, the images do not match: one party photographed the vehicle from the left, the other from the rear at an angle, and the spot in question cannot be clearly seen in any picture. Third, the point in time is not proven: a photo from the gallery may be from today or from last week, and the image data can be changed.
Four things have to come together for two recordings to be comparable.
A comparison only works if both conditions were recorded with the same required photos: all sides, the corners, roof, interior, odometer reading. If the photos are ticked off in a guided sequence, no view is missing at the end. Only then can every spot on the vehicle be compared between two points in time.
Known damage belongs on the vehicle sketch: view, position, type, photo. That way it is immediately visible at the next recording which spots were already documented. The comparison is then limited to what is new.
The photo must be taken at the moment of recording and be bound to time, place and device. Uploading from the gallery afterwards must not be possible. Only then is it certain that the "before" condition was really captured before the handover.
Both records are sealed after signing. Any later change would break the seal. This rules out one party swapping an image or removing a mark afterwards.
With every recording the history of a vehicle grows: delivery, handover to the driver, workshop visit, return. Known damage is carried over into the next record and marked there as pre-existing. Whoever takes over the vehicle immediately sees what is already documented and only has to check whether anything has been added.
Pick-up: required photos, odometer reading, mark known damage, both parties sign, seal.
Use: events such as a parking bump are recorded as a separate record, with photo and time.
Return: the same required photos, pre-existing damage is already entered, new spots are added.
Difference: the return record shows which marks are new. Each of them has a photo, a time and the signature of both parties.
A complete initial condition is enough for the comparison. For acceptance in a dispute it is decisive that both parties have confirmed the condition, i.e. the signature of both participants on the sealed record.
Whether a new spot is normal wear or damage that must be compensated remains a matter of assessment. The comparison only establishes that it is new. This separation shortens discussions, because there is no longer any argument about whether it exists.
Yes, if both records exist as sealed evidence records. The QR code on the document allows anyone to verify that it is genuine and unchanged, without an account with the provider.
This article describes the documentation. Whether and to what extent damage must be compensated depends on the contract and the individual case.