Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1 2 3 4
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

B4rker

200 posts

35 months

[news] 
Tuesday 2nd October 2012 quote quote all
SMcP114 said:
B4rker said:
State to the insurance company that you would like to keep the vehicle even if it is written off.

What will then likely happen is the insurance company will make you an offer for the vehicle say £2,000 and then say the scrap vaule is £200. They will then deduct the £200 from the amount and give you a cheque for £1800 plus the vehicle.

If the vehicle is classed as a Cat D write off, all you will need to do is re MoT the vehicle after to satisfy the insurance company that it is road worthy and the DVLA will not have to be told although you will have to disclose it when selling the car.

If it is classed as a CAT C the vehicle will need to have an engineer's report before the insurers are likely to insure it again.
I asked in the feedback section if we could have a sticky on damage classification. This is why.

Cat D does not need to be re-MOT'd, nor do you 'have' to disclose it.

Cat C does not need an engineer's report. A simple VIC test is all it needs.
Unless you work for an insurance Broker who deals with different insurers and their weird and wonderful ways on a day to day basis and know what happens in the real world and not on the internet wink

daz3210

5,000 posts

124 months

[news] 
Tuesday 2nd October 2012 quote quote all
Red Devil said:
Never heard of Z - no doubt Loon R1 can clarify.
Layman's guide to A/B/C/D/X - http://www.carsalvagefinder.co.uk/car_salvage_cate...
Cheers, so X is basically the stolen one then.



Mr Happy

4,473 posts

104 months

[news] 
Tuesday 2nd October 2012 quote quote all
CBR JGWRR said:
Mr Happy said:
To be fair though, the argument of 'if you've claimed before, you're statistically more likely to claim again' is about as meaningful as saying 'if you lose your virginity, you're statistically more likely to have sex again'
Both statements are true though...

getmecoat
They are, but it highlights just how daft it is to use it to base a decision on. It could be said about anything at all. If x happens, then x is more likely to happen again. It is quite possibly (in my eyes anyway) one of the most useless statistics ever!

daz3210

5,000 posts

124 months

[news] 
Tuesday 2nd October 2012 quote quote all
Mr Happy said:
CBR JGWRR said:
Mr Happy said:
To be fair though, the argument of 'if you've claimed before, you're statistically more likely to claim again' is about as meaningful as saying 'if you lose your virginity, you're statistically more likely to have sex again'
Both statements are true though...

getmecoat
They are, but it highlights just how daft it is to use it to base a decision on. It could be said about anything at all. If x happens, then x is more likely to happen again. It is quite possibly (in my eyes anyway) one of the most useless statistics ever!
If I win the lottery jackpot then, does that make me statistically more likely to win again?

LoonR1

18,896 posts

61 months

[news] 
Tuesday 2nd October 2012 quote quote all
daz3210 said:
What are classes X or Z?

Reading the document linked to if a vehicle is no longer within A,B, C, or D DVLA should be notified. So does that mean they drop into X or Z? Or are removed from the database?
See below

Red Devil said:
Never heard of Z - no doubt Loon R1 can clarify.
Layman's guide to A/B/C/D/X - http://www.carsalvagefinder.co.uk/car_salvage_cate...
Cat Z is a holding category at the start, but recovered write offs may still be on it when they get recovered. There are quite a few different new categories flaoting about, but the main ones are A to D.

daz3210 said:
Perhaps I am thinking of rare exotica in somewhat different terms to you then. I know blokes who have what I would describe as such, and would like to think some of the motors I have seen would never be written off. The sort of stuff where spare parts aren't available anyway, and the old guys who own them would simply retire to their workshop and make a part to fit. Some of those vehicles are pretty much one off vehicles and as such could never be replaced, and thus would be fairly difficult to value.
In which case I'd hope they buy the correct specialist insurance and not off comparetheconfusedmeerkat@tesco.com in which case the discussion would be moot as they'd have a wholly dofferent proposition in terms of cover.

Advertisement

Noger

7,011 posts

133 months

[news] 
Tuesday 2nd October 2012 quote quote all
daz3210 said:
Cheers, so X is basically the stolen one then.
Cat X is no longer allowed. It used to be there for "insurer repair" and wasn't reported on HPI etc. It was used by insurers to avoid the reduction in value from the write off on re-sale and wasn't really fair.

Stolen Recovred now has its own marker.

Edited by Noger on Tuesday 2nd October 19:32


Edited by Noger on Tuesday 2nd October 19:33

Mr Happy

4,473 posts

104 months

[news] 
Tuesday 2nd October 2012 quote quote all
daz3210 said:
Mr Happy said:
CBR JGWRR said:
Mr Happy said:
To be fair though, the argument of 'if you've claimed before, you're statistically more likely to claim again' is about as meaningful as saying 'if you lose your virginity, you're statistically more likely to have sex again'
Both statements are true though...

getmecoat
They are, but it highlights just how daft it is to use it to base a decision on. It could be said about anything at all. If x happens, then x is more likely to happen again. It is quite possibly (in my eyes anyway) one of the most useless statistics ever!
If I win the lottery jackpot then, does that make me statistically more likely to win again?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2121409/Emily-Leach-Millionaire-lottery-winner-claims-260-000-jackpot--accidentally-gives-beggar.html

It would appear so, although this strictly wasn't two jackpots. I'm not a maths wiz though so I can't give you the odds. There's one in France at the minute who might be able to help though...

daz3210

5,000 posts

124 months

[news] 
Tuesday 2nd October 2012 quote quote all
LoonR1 said:
In which case I'd hope they buy the correct specialist insurance and not off comparetheconfusedmeerkat@tesco.com in which case the discussion would be moot as they'd have a wholly dofferent proposition in terms of cover.
Well, to be fair, I don't think the blokes I am thinking of need to save every last few quid on car insurance. If I had something like that I would be using a broker, since as you say the correct type of policy is required.

LoonR1

18,896 posts

61 months

[news] 
Tuesday 2nd October 2012 quote quote all
Noger said:
Cat X is no longer allowed. It used to be there for "insurer repair" and wasn't reported on HPI etc. It was used by insurers to avoid the reduction in value from the write off on re-sale and wasn't really fair.
I didn't know that, but it's been a while since I had the joy of total losses.

Fireblade69

558 posts

87 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
onesickpuppy said:
Red Devil said:
LoonR1 said:
Those who have made a claim in one year are statistially more likely to make another claim in the follwing year when compared to those who haven't. The risk increases significantly based on liability stance, but even a non-fault makes you more likely to claim statistically.
Fireblade69 said:
In the last 7 years I've had a rock drop from a lorry smashing my roof, some idiot driving into me on the M4, some thieving git freewheeling a stolen car down the road and ramming my parked car, some stupid cow doing a 3 point turn into my parked car, some knob turning right from the left lane of a roundabout via the side of my car and someone accusing me of reversing into their car in Southend when I was in Derby with 10 other people and the reported car was actually my motorbike which I was on; they took down the number wrong.
Apart from the last incident (vehicle wrongly identified) I think the post above supports the point LoonR1 was making!
Well, if I owned an insurance company I sure as fk wouldn't want him on the books at any price!
Actually, none of those incidents were paid for by my insurers; they were all claimed against from the respective 3rd party who caused the incident and they all had to be declared to comply with the insurers requirements. What do you want me to do, declare them, pay a higher premium AND pay for my own repairs?

londonman

29 posts

44 months

[news] 
Sunday 14th October 2012 quote quote all
Any advice on getting a decent price out of the insurance company for a write-off? Do you have to simply accept what they offer you or can you argue the toss and if so, what is the best way to get a decent value?

TallPaul

1,082 posts

142 months

[news] 
Monday 15th October 2012 quote quote all
londonman said:
Any advice on getting a decent price out of the insurance company for a write-off? Do you have to simply accept what they offer you or can you argue the toss and if so, what is the best way to get a decent value?
No, you dont have to accept their offer, but you'll need to have a good reason not to. If the insurance co offer you £xx but you want £xx+£yy you'll have to justify why its worth the extra. Most insurers will want a speedy end to a claim so if your additional value is reasonable, they may move. If you're dreaming or cannot demonstrate why your car is worth more you could be in for a tough fight!
1 2 3 4
Reply to Topic