|
zcacogp
Original Poster
10,027 posts
113 months
|
Chaps,
I need (or rather, my father needs) a bit of advice with regards to his car. His much loved 14 year old MX5 was hit from behind by another car in late March (just happened to be his 70th birthday!) and written off Cat C by the insurers. He very much likes the car and it wasn't badly damaged (rear bumper and bootlid, and some damage at the front from the car he was shunted into) so he bought it back from the insurance company and used the payout of the value of the car to repair it.
Since the accident it has continued to be driven and has also been MOT'd (which it passed in mid-April) and was re-taxed on the 24th of April. A few days after this it went in for the bodywork repairs. A combination of second-hand bits and non-insurance prices at the body-shop means it has been repaired for less than the pay-out, leaving him with cash in his pocket and a very good-looking car (the repairs are excellent). It was collected from the bodyshop on the 4th May. As it was written off apparently it needs to be inspected by the VIC, and an inspection has been booked in (on the 21st May - next Monday).
His/my question is whether the car is legal to be used on the road before this check is passed? It has been formally written-off by the insurance company, but has been MOT'd and taxed since then (and is fully insured). I strongly suspect that no-one will bat an eyelid, but the concern is that he could get caught in another accident or is pulled for any reason - is he doing anything wrong by driving it?
(An aside; apparently he was unable to buy road tax on-line at the end of April because it had been written-off, but he was advised that it could be taxed as normal at a Post Office - which was the case.)
All advice welcome - thanks.
Oli.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
Don't know about the legalities of your question, but one thought I do have is that does he need to make sure the insurance co are aware it is a cat C car that has been returned to the road?
|
|
|
jr502
434 posts
43 months
|
When I was in that situation my insurance company said that until it had a VIC then they would only cover it 3rd party, once they had the VIC it went back to fully comp.
Just do the VIC, it's not expensive and doesn't take long.
|
|
|
abbotsmike
382 posts
14 months
|
HE shouldn't be driving it until it's passed the VIC.
Once it's back on the road he does not need to inform the insurance company that it used to be a Cat C. If they care they will already know.
|
|
|
LoonR1
12,483 posts
46 months
|
abbotsmike said: HE shouldn't be driving it until it's passed the VIC.
Once it's back on the road he does not need to inform the insurance company that it used to be a Cat C. If they care they will already know. Well that's an impressive second paragraph. He does need to inform the insurer. They may care equally they may not but some eg Swiftcover will not cover Cat C vehicles. It also remains a cat C vehicle for the rest of its life. There is no "used to be" about it. As for the driving bit. I assume he still has the V5. If so that's a bit naughty as that should've been returned to DVLA and then only returned to him post VIC. He really shouldn't be driving but as long as his insurers know and are happy to offer cover then why not.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
4keymonsta
3,938 posts
17 months
|
abbotsmike said: HE shouldn't be driving it until it's passed the VIC. Really? As far as I was aware it is a Vehicle Identity Check, nothing to do with the car being roadworthy. I was the same situation and drove the car for another couple of years before I did it, the only thing that it stopped me doing was taxing the vehicle online. I may be about to find out that I was illegal for all of that time 
|
|
|
zcacogp
Original Poster
10,027 posts
113 months
|
LoonR1 said: Well that's an impressive second paragraph. He does need to inform the insurer. They may care equally they may not but some eg Swiftcover will not cover Cat C vehicles.
It also remains a cat C vehicle for the rest of its life. There is no "used to be" about it.
As for the driving bit. I assume he still has the V5. If so that's a bit naughty as that should've been returned to DVLA and then only returned to him post VIC. He really shouldn't be driving but as long as his insurers know and are happy to offer cover then why not. Loon, Thanks. You are in the insurance industry - non? In which case, thanks for your professional advice. OK, so it sounds like the prohibition on driving would be from the insurance company not from the DVLA/Vehicle Inspectorate People/other gubbmint body. I know my Dad is watching this thread and I think he has told his insurance company so he just needs the formal go-ahead from them. The VIC is in less than a week away so it's only for a short period of time. Oli.
|
|
|
LoonR1
12,483 posts
46 months
|
I am in insurance but have up ownership of the Total Loss area nearly four years ago so my memory is a bit dopey. Personally I don't think he should be driving it bit only because te process should've seen the V5 taken away and the tax rebated.
If he's still got them then I'd drive it as long as it was in a road worthy condition eg no jagged edges. But I'd also get it fixed and VIC done as soon as.
Don't take the above as professional advice. It isn't.
|
|
|
dingg
632 posts
88 months
|
If your dad intends keeping the car he does not NEED to get it vic inspected at all.
as others have said its an ID check only and has no purpose other than that (to stop ringing of vehicles) and protect the buyer of a cat c vehicle that it isn't a ringer
There is no need/legal requirement to tell insurance companies whatsoever.
Tell him to save the £40 and not worry about it.
For info vans when cat c do not even need to be vic inspected.
|
|
|
LoonR1
12,483 posts
46 months
|
FFS. Why do people keep posting that you don't need to tell your insurers. Go and insure a Cat C or Cat D with Swiftcover and see what happens when / if you need to claim. Bikes don't need a VIC either but cars do. The OPs dad should do it as it negates any issues down the line. Advising him to avoid this is typical of the shoddy bulls  t that gets spouted as fact on this forum.
|
|
|
Viperz888
367 posts
27 months
|
LoonR1 said: Go and insure a Cat C or Cat D with Swiftcover and see what happens when / if you need to claim. If they ask whether it has been written off, fair enough. But none of my Insurers, past or present, have ever asked me that when getting quotes. Plus [I would have thought] they should be able to see when you give them the regi, no ?
|
|
|
Fish981
653 posts
54 months
|
Unless he wants to sell it he doesn't need a VIC. He wont get VED reminders or be able to tax it on-line but he wont need to with the V5. That's all from talking to DVLA. It's doesn't affect the MOT status at all, there are some crushed lumps of metal that are still MOTed.
My insurance company doesn't care if it's a Cat C or not.
|
|
|
RYH64E
3,093 posts
113 months
|
LoonR1 said: FFS. Why do people keep posting that you don't need to tell your insurers. Go and insure a Cat C or Cat D with Swiftcover and see what happens when / if you need to claim. Bikes don't need a VIC either but cars do. The OPs dad should do it as it negates any issues down the line. Advising him to avoid this is typical of the shoddy bulls t that gets spouted as fact on this forum. Many owners of Cat C cars won't even be aware of their car's status, unless they HPI the car or the previous owner tells them, how would they know? Does that mean that their insurance would be invalid?
|
|
|
TPS
1,567 posts
82 months
|
abbotsmike said: HE shouldn't be driving it until it's passed the VIC. Wrong.
|
|
|
Noger
6,779 posts
118 months
|
Tend to agree about the VIC check, "strictly" you don't need to do it, but you will get pinged on ANPR, and will have problems taxing or selling. At some point the DVLA will chase you, and it may even get referred to the Police. Unlikely, but possible. You don't always get the v5C taken off you.
You need to tell any new insurer if they ask you. But most insurers won't ask you, they just pay you less if you write if off again ! Don't see anything that would make you uninsured prior to VIC, it needs MOT/Tax/Insurance for VIC anyway, so it should be there.
If a TP insurer writes off the vehicle, then I would suggest you need to tell your insurer, as it is a material change. Obviously, if it is your insurer that wrote it off, they know anyway (or at least should, which is good enough).
|
|
|
lgw
305 posts
79 months
|
RYH64E said: LoonR1 said: FFS. Why do people keep posting that you don't need to tell your insurers. Go and insure a Cat C or Cat D with Swiftcover and see what happens when / if you need to claim. Bikes don't need a VIC either but cars do. The OPs dad should do it as it negates any issues down the line. Advising him to avoid this is typical of the shoddy bulls t that gets spouted as fact on this forum. Many owners of Cat C cars won't even be aware of their car's status, unless they HPI the car or the previous owner tells them, how would they know? Does that mean that their insurance would be invalid? There are many cars on the road that have been repaired and never registered as Cat C when they should have been because of insurance assessors fiddling
|
|
|
RYH64E
3,093 posts
113 months
|
lgw said: There are many cars on the road that have been repaired and never registered as Cat C when they should have been because of insurance assessors fiddling Cat C or D mean very little anyway, they are just a measure of the cost of repair vs value of car, a very cheap car will be declared Cat C with very little damage whereas an expensive car is still worth repairing (without being classified Cat C or D) after a major accident. People assume that a Cat C car has been extensively damaged which isn't always the case.
|
|
|
Rollcage
9,219 posts
61 months
|
Noger said: If a TP insurer writes off the vehicle, then I would suggest you need to tell your insurer, as it is a material change. Obviously, if it is your insurer that wrote it off, they know anyway (or at least should, which is good enough). I'm assuming that the need to notify would be based on the material change aspect, rather than the fact it's a Cat C. If I knowingly buy a car as a cat C, and am not asked if it is on the register, then am I under any obligation to tell them (assuming they don't know anyway)? As a non-expert party, I can't be expected to know if a car is on the register or not, and so I can't see how non-disclosure would hold up in court. I would, however, expect a lower payout.
|
|
|
lgw
305 posts
79 months
|
RYH64E said: Cat C or D mean very little anyway, they are just a measure of the cost of repair vs value of car, a very cheap car will be declared Cat C with very little damage whereas an expensive car is still worth repairing (without being classified Cat C or D) after a major accident. People assume that a Cat C car has been extensively damaged which isn't always the case. If you have seen the wrecks that have gone back on the road that I have and been unregistered or even classed as a Cat C you would not be making such a naive statements Though i will agree an old clunker with a damaged bumper would be written off due to cost
|
|
|
RYH64E
3,093 posts
113 months
|
lgw said: RYH64E said: Cat C or D mean very little anyway, they are just a measure of the cost of repair vs value of car, a very cheap car will be declared Cat C with very little damage whereas an expensive car is still worth repairing (without being classified Cat C or D) after a major accident. People assume that a Cat C car has been extensively damaged which isn't always the case. If you have seen the wrecks that have gone back on the road that I have and been unregistered or even classed as a Cat C you would not be making such a naive statements Though i will agree an old clunker with a damaged bumper would be written off due to cost So what do you think is incorrect in my statement?
|
|
