Home > Finance, Insurance & Warranties > Not happy :-( |
|
|
Rob99 Member Since: 03 May 2016 Location: Gatwick Posts: 1428 |
Sorry to hear about your fattie.
|
||
12th Sep 2017 12:40pm |
|
Alistair Member Since: 11 Feb 2011 Location: Peterborough / Bordeaux / Andorra Posts: 7941 |
If they write it off, then ask to buy it from them. |
||
12th Sep 2017 12:44pm |
|
dingg1 Member Since: 29 Jun 2013 Location: PORTUGAL Posts: 1345 |
buy it back fix with readily available parts (cheap) diy
|
||
12th Sep 2017 12:51pm |
|
mzplcg Member Since: 26 May 2010 Location: Warwickshire. England. The Commonwealth. Posts: 4029 |
If it wasn't your fault, and you are claiming form the 3rd party then you can insist it is repaired and not written off. |
||
12th Sep 2017 2:24pm |
|
gizze Member Since: 06 Jun 2016 Location: Norfolk Posts: 162 |
Better than that, wait until you have a price for a full repair, once you have that ask for 'Cash in lieu'. They will allow you to take the cash less the VAT of the repair price and it will not be recorded as a Cat D etc. That is of course if you think you can get it repaired elsewhere at a much better price. Porsche 911 (996) 2015 BMW 5 Series Touring Not got a LR of any kind at the mo, and got itchy feet. |
||
12th Sep 2017 3:11pm |
|
Zeb Member Since: 04 Oct 2016 Location: Lincolnshire Posts: 134 |
Other chap admits liability so one less worry.
|
||
12th Sep 2017 4:00pm |
|
GGDR Member Since: 26 Nov 2016 Location: London Posts: 3545 |
I had this with my wife's Toyota. Hit when parked, so no doubt that the other guy was 'paying'.
|
||
12th Sep 2017 8:08pm |
|
bembo449 Member Since: 26 Jul 2017 Location: lincolnshire Posts: 803 |
any pics pal , its bolt on stuff easily sourced as the guys have said so bet it could be repaired in no time |
||
12th Sep 2017 8:34pm |
|
NobbyC Member Since: 29 Dec 2015 Location: Princes Risborough Posts: 122 |
Zeb awful news - I had a similar incident in June when my indy phoned to say the service had been completed but unfortunately a local farmer had reversed his tractor and trailer into the front of the car outside his workshop. Fortunately only damage was to the number plate , bumper and grill and he would get it repaired immediately. Even gave the car a detailed valet for my inconvenience. In your case the key thing is not to let the insurers take your car away - you may never see it again nor use their repairers who contractually work to a agreed low cost basis. If you want to use your own repairer you have the right to do so and it may be more advantageous particularly in sourcing replalement parts etc. Remember it's your car and the other party is responsible for putting you back to the condition before the accident and it is not up to your insurer to decide on the write off. The claim should be against the other parties insurers and therefore all dealings should be with them and not via your insurers unless you wish them to liaise on your behalf but beware more often than not both insurers work closely together and look for the cheapest solution between them thus minimising their losses by sharing the liability. Ispeakfrombitter experience. Anyway hope you get a happy resolution You may find the following link of interest.
|
||
12th Sep 2017 8:38pm |
|
GGDR Member Since: 26 Nov 2016 Location: London Posts: 3545 |
Sadly not so. I argued this until blue in the face. The Toyota was a write-off not due to extensive damage but low relative car value tipping the scales of the dreaded formula. So I had to pull it back from write-off status (is that Cat-D?) and get a number of quotes until the numbers worked. I got legal advice too, they won't spend £10,000 to repair a car worth £5000. Just won't happen. I tried! . Cheers, Greg - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2011 Vogue SE 4.4 with lots of toys in Stornaway |
||
12th Sep 2017 8:50pm |
|
gizze Member Since: 06 Jun 2016 Location: Norfolk Posts: 162 |
Has that come from his insurer? Not yours. Not him. But his insurer? Until you hear it from them be careful. The guy who hit my ML admitted it, he even came in my shop to tell me he had done it. My insurer then started the work and 6 months later they started sending me letters saying they had not got the other person to admit liability. Once the insurer steps in they will try and wiggle. I said that I had an email from the guy admitting it, and if they tried that I would take them to court. I didn't have an email but it worked. It is a corrupt business and full of people with no morals at all, so be careful. Porsche 911 (996) 2015 BMW 5 Series Touring Not got a LR of any kind at the mo, and got itchy feet. |
||
12th Sep 2017 9:21pm |
|
NobbyC Member Since: 29 Dec 2015 Location: Princes Risborough Posts: 122 |
So many people say this but do tell me how do you buy back a vehicle you already own? The insurer only has the right to retain the vehicle when they have bought the vehicle off YOU by means of a settlement. Up to that point the vehicle is always yours. To quote the Motor Claim Guru "Retaining a Cat D (or Cat S under the new system) is extremely foolish , as you are being conned by your insurer. Here is why. Repair cost on your £10000 car are £8500. Your insurer advise's that the car is a Cat D/(Cat S) total loss, and you can retain the vehicle for £3000. This means you get £7000, plus your car back unrepaired, and it now has the stigma of being a Cat D, and the market value is worth 20% less than it would be without. We already know it is going to cost £8500 to repair your car, so even using secondhand parts you would struggle to repair for £7000 you received. Once you have spent your £7000 your car is now only worth £8000. Had you asked for a Cash in lieu settlement, you would have received the £8500 and still have a vehicle that is not a total loss. You would be at least £2000 better off. Insurer's do no like providing cash settlement at higher figures as they like to reduce the risk of fraud and they have the contractual right to offer to repair. You can also insist on the vehicle being repaired. In both situations, your car has been(should be) repaired to manufacturer standards,and is still worth approximately what it was prior to the accident. Do not forget, as I keep stating, look and read your contract of insurance!!! It will state you are indemnified UP TO the market value. " |
||
12th Sep 2017 10:16pm |
|
Rob99 Member Since: 03 May 2016 Location: Gatwick Posts: 1428 |
It's also worth remembering that, if you use your insurer by claiming on your own policy, you are bound by their rules as you entered into a contract with them. This could mean they will write it off, or repair it using non-genuine parts (they will argue they are equivalent) and you have little argument in law. They also have the right to pursue the other driver and/or his insurer for their costs IN YOUR NAME, possibly dragging you through the courts and not reimbursing your excess until they recover all their costs.
|
||
12th Sep 2017 10:42pm |
|
Zeb Member Since: 04 Oct 2016 Location: Lincolnshire Posts: 134 |
Ok so it is being handled by a claims management company. The 3rd party's insurers have accepted liability but I hear today that they have deemed the car a total loss as repairs are £6600 + potentially a new bonnet and respray because it may be bent, alongside the slam panel. I am awaiting an offer of settlement that comes via Tec Report after they have researched prices etc but I suspect the offer will be around £9.5k and finding another just like mine with all that work done or a lower mileage is going to be unlikely. I may be wrong, they may offer more. To find something equivalent I seem to be looking at £11.5-£13.5k. The claims management company are happy to support me in going for a cash in lieu settlement but it strikes me as a little risky as regards what damage has actually been done. ie, slam panel replacement...I have neither the time nor inclination to be doing this! Seeing as they have admitted liability I would still like to get her fixed at their expense...Tec Report tell me that it can't be done as it is 'not down to personal preference'. I was interested to read Cole vs Heatherton [2013] EWCA Civ 1704 which basically deemed that 'Provided the claimed cost of repair was not unreasonable therefore, it was recoverable.' The question in this case is, is it unreasonable to expect repair when the cost is over and above 66% of 'market value'. Ah well, will see what happens next! Thanks for all the helpful advice thus far!
|
||
13th Sep 2017 11:35am |
|
|
All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis