Admiral writing off a 3 month old car

[Dave Hedgehog]

speedking31 said:

Dave Hedgehog said:

but i am also not silly enough to finance a car without ALA gap insurance

... but you are silly enough to pay for GAP insurance that may be useless if your standard car insurance offers new for old cover anyway Either way, you should know the cover you're getting for the price you pay.

better to be over covered than under, especially when it costs pennies

and should the worst happen my gain gets better as time passes on

[AH33]

What hit her? A steamroller??

[Sheepshanks]

Dave Hedgehog said:

but i am also not silly enough to finance a car without ALA gap insurance

I know it sounds odd but the cheapness that finance GAP is available for shows that it isn't good value - it's cheap because hardly anyone ever claims against it, and even when they do, the payouts are generally very small. It's even worse value if you don't know any better and take it from the supplying dealer.

Of course if you get 3 year replacement vehicle GAP and you write off your car when it's 2yrs 10mths old, you'll be very glad you had it!

[Trixxz]

I fear your friend is going to be out of pocket. Even with a "new for old" clause in your insurance, they are usually subject to a specific time frame so getting a new car of the exact spec can be difficult in say, 6 weeks. Most GAP companies will defer the 1st year if you have new for old on your main policy.

Earlier this year my 2 week old Focus ST was stolen with Keys after a break in. I had Return to Invoice GAP - Had new for old on my policy but couldn't use it as there was an 8-12 week wait for my Paint/Spec and none in the UK. Insurers paid out, GAP paid out, I was happy,

Edited by Trixxz on Thursday 20th October 16:01

[jon-]

Thanks for all the advice guys, good to know!

Thanks to a large deposit the total amount owed on the finance is well below the market value so there won't be any shortfall for finance, but it looks like she will be out of pocket, and that's a real shame for something not her fault.

I'll advise her to push for a repair, and get a second quote from another garage. It must be borderline write off.

[funkyrobot]

Sheepshanks said:

Probably not until they had an issue, unless they were an avid reader of forums.

They are legendary for passing out non-fault claims to Albany Assistance who, let's say, don't have a great reputation.

I've no idea if this is true or not, but I've read they disregard the options value on cars - likely to significant if you write off a nearly-new BMW, Merc, Porsche etc.


Having said all that, I used them for both my kids cars from when they left uni until age 25. Admiral were the cheapest recognisable name. The annual battle with stupidly high renewal quotes was annoying, and I was glad to be able to ditch them as each daughter reached 25.

I was insured with Admiral in 2010 when my car was written off. Albany were utterly useless. They took an age to sort the claim, messed up the courtesy car I was entitled to, tried to take the car back too early, didn't do any work to prove my accident was non fault (I did everything) and pretty much dragged their heels.

I complained and was told it was because they had staffing issues. They really couldn't care. Admiral were a joke too.

I will never go near Admiral again. Partly due to the fact that when I last checked, they won't pay out if your car sets on fire due to a fault. They also penalise speed awareness course attendance (not that I've had to go on one yet).

[davepoth]

speedking31 said:

What difference ?

The difference between the amount she'll have to pay to the finance company for a brand new car, and the amount she'll get from the insurers for a 3 month old car?

[speedking31]

But she's not out of pocket that amount. She's paying for the three months use she's had of the vehicle and associated depreciation.

[Wacky Racer]

speedking31 said:

But she's not out of pocket that amount. She's paying for the three months use she's had of the vehicle and associated depreciation.

This.

You have to feel sorry for her though. st happens.

[funkyrobot]

speedking31 said:

But she's not out of pocket that amount. She's paying for the three months use she's had of the vehicle and associated depreciation.

Indeed. She isn't owed the amount the car depreciated. The moment she took it home, it dropped 'x' amount. That's what happens to the majority of vehicles.

The only way to get a return to invoice value would have been through GAP.

[Aretnap]

davepoth said:

The difference between the amount she'll have to pay to the finance company for a brand new car, and the amount she'll get from the insurers for a 3 month old car?

She didn't have a brand new car before the accident though. She has a three month old car. The other driver's obligation (and therefore his insurer's obligation) is to pay her the value of a three month old car. If she prefers to buy a new car rather than a replacing it with another three month old one that's up to her - but the other driver isn't responsible for the extra costs she incurs as a result.

That's the theory at any rate. In practice of course it may be that there isn't a three month old Evo of the same spec for sale at this moment - which would be a pain as it means that she'll have to spend the extra on a new one, buy a different sort of car, or else wait for a three month old one to become available. But that's not something she can claim for. She still doesn't get to replace her car with a superior/newer one and then bill the other driver, or his insurer, I'm afraid.

[grumpy52]

jon- said:

Thanks for all the advice guys, good to know!

Thanks to a large deposit the total amount owed on the finance is well below the market value so there won't be any shortfall for finance, but it looks like she will be out of pocket, and that's a real shame for something not her fault.

I'll advise her to push for a repair, and get a second quote from another garage. It must be borderline write off.

Many insurance companies have a lower threshold for writing off cars under a year old ,it used to be 50-60% of value .
Mechanical parts on a new 4×4 will be eye wateringly expensive, the forces involved to remove a complete corner will have been considerable with the resultant chassis damage being very time consuming and difficult to repair .
Having watched the shock wave that travels through a car in this sort of impact I personally wouldn't want a car back afterwards regardless of how well it was repaired.
The salvage value will have probably the biggest sway on whether it's written off .

[HoHoHo]

grumpy52 said:

jon- said:

Thanks for all the advice guys, good to know!

Thanks to a large deposit the total amount owed on the finance is well below the market value so there won't be any shortfall for finance, but it looks like she will be out of pocket, and that's a real shame for something not her fault.

I'll advise her to push for a repair, and get a second quote from another garage. It must be borderline write off.

Many insurance companies have a lower threshold for writing off cars under a year old ,it used to be 50-60% of value .
Mechanical parts on a new 4×4 will be eye wateringly expensive, the forces involved to remove a complete corner will have been considerable with the resultant chassis damage being very time consuming and difficult to repair .
Having watched the shock wave that travels through a car in this sort of impact I personally wouldn't want a car back afterwards regardless of how well it was repaired.
The salvage value will have probably the biggest sway on whether it's written off .

Our 3 month old X5 was hit by a hail storm in France on holiday and the total bill was near on £20000 to fix.

It wasn't written off because the damage was less than 40% of the cost of the car. If had a huge amount of work to every panel, new roof, bonnet and god knows what else.

It was unfortunately never the same and we sold it some months later.

[Sheepshanks]

Trixxz said:

Even with a "new for old" clause in your insurance, they are usually subject to a specific time frame so getting a new car of the exact spec can be difficult in say, 6 weeks.

Hmmm....that's something that's never occurred to me before. If you factory ordered almost any car it could be on anything from 3-6mths leadtime.

You're going to be pretty stuffed regardless of whose fault it is - they aren't going to give you a hire car for 6 months.

[Trixxz]

Sheepshanks said:

Hmmm....that's something that's never occurred to me before. If you factory ordered almost any car it could be on anything from 3-6mths leadtime.

You're going to be pretty stuffed regardless of whose fault it is - they aren't going to give you a hire car for 6 months.

yes, the exact thing happened to me - car wasnt being repaired. so no hire car. Couldn't do new for old due to lead time. It was a complete faff to be honest.

[davepoth]

Aretnap said:

She didn't have a brand new car before the accident though. She has a three month old car. The other driver's obligation (and therefore his insurer's obligation) is to pay her the value of a three month old car. If she prefers to buy a new car rather than a replacing it with another three month old one that's up to her - but the other driver isn't responsible for the extra costs she incurs as a result.

That's the insurance position. But AIUI consequential losses are claimable in this situation - loss of earnings if you rammed a taxi for example - so if the claimant could prove that they'd incurred a net financial loss as a result of the accident (on account of the contractual obligation to the finance company) they could claim for it, surely?

[Ken Figenus]

Good old PH! Thanks for the ALA GAP tip - 2 years more cover than what dealer offered for less than half the cost. Bagged

[Hugo a Gogo]

HoHoHo said:

Our 3 month old X5 was hit by a hail storm in France on holiday and the total bill was near on £20000 to fix.

It wasn't written off because the damage was less than 40% of the cost of the car. If had a huge amount of work to every panel, new roof, bonnet and god knows what else.

It was unfortunately never the same and we sold it some months later.

OT, but there are travelling teams of hailstone damage fixers who travel around Europe in the wake of these storms that can easily damage thousands of cars in one small area, overwhelming any local bodyshops

[ralphrj]

davepoth said:

That's the insurance position. But AIUI consequential losses are claimable in this situation - loss of earnings if you rammed a taxi for example - so if the claimant could prove that they'd incurred a net financial loss as a result of the accident (on account of the contractual obligation to the finance company) they could claim for it, surely?

The loss would not have been caused by the accident though. If there was a difference between the finance outstanding and the market value of the car then the loss already exists before the accident.

For example:

You have £20,000 of finance on a car that is worth £18,000. A 3rd party crashes into you and your car is written off. The 3rd party's insurers offer you the market value of £18,000 but you have to settle the outstanding finance of £20,000.

No additional loss has been incurred as a result of the accident. You had a £2,000 shortfall before the accident and a £2,000 shortfall after the accident.


Loss of earnings is a completely different thing as it is something that has occurred as a consequence of the accident.

[Dave Hedgehog]

AH33 said:

What hit her? A steamroller??

traffic stopped on M Way, guy behind distracted smashed into her