£35k Car Stolen, what happened to me thereafter
Discussion
mrmr96 said:
Tin Hat said:
In the interim, I gained some trade in quotes from Webuyanycar, these were surprisingly quite 'generous' and actually increased by £400.000 over the next 4 weeks, finally indicating a trade in value of £31,850.00. I found similar cars online, the value of which varied between £35 and £36k and I recorded this info for reference.
So, after 13 weeks, we were offered £32,250.00, less our excess of £500.00. I felt that this was unreasonable, but the insurers backed it up with a Glass' guide , despite me pointing out that this specific sum was a 'trade in value' as opposed to a 'retail price'. The insurer sent me £31,750.00 as an interim payment, possibly hoping that this would be the end of the matter.
I had it explained to me previously that you're supposed to be put back in the position you were before. You had an asset you could sell for £31.8k, and you were offered about the same.So, after 13 weeks, we were offered £32,250.00, less our excess of £500.00. I felt that this was unreasonable, but the insurers backed it up with a Glass' guide , despite me pointing out that this specific sum was a 'trade in value' as opposed to a 'retail price'. The insurer sent me £31,750.00 as an interim payment, possibly hoping that this would be the end of the matter.
It's supopsed to replace the value of the asset, not let you buy another at retail price. It's a common misconception I think.
Having to take my insurance co to court after admitting liability in an accident and still to this day not paid out, coming on for 15 months now, doesn't make you want to bother with it, it's a farse
Due in court December, we shall see, glad the op managed to get what he wanted in the end.
Carl
Due in court December, we shall see, glad the op managed to get what he wanted in the end.
Carl
Condi said:
Who was the insurance co? Direct Line couldnt have been more helpful when I needed them.
Lol. Direct Line tried to stitch me up in the same way when my C43 was stolen. Arrogant assessor with zero knowledge about anything other than a Corsa. Sent me a cheque, I took them to Ombudsman and the day after they lost the case, a cheque magically appeared in the post. I advise anyone who asks to steer clear of them. Ironically, their sister company - Churchill - handled the household element of the claim with the utmost integrity, sympathy and efficiency.Direct line will never have a penny from me or my family ever again.
Surprised that nobody has mentioned Tracker.
We recently bought an ex demo Audi and it came with Tracker as it was a requirement for the dealers demo fleet. The first question might be whether you actually wanted back a car that had been previously stolen - is it easier to go through the claim process for a total loss situation ?
However, we didn't transfer over the Tracker for a couple of reasons. We are in a very low risk area and its only a diesel Avant. And whilst insurers can insist you have Tracker, when it suits them, they won't give you a discount to offset its cost when you voluntarily have it fitted.
We recently bought an ex demo Audi and it came with Tracker as it was a requirement for the dealers demo fleet. The first question might be whether you actually wanted back a car that had been previously stolen - is it easier to go through the claim process for a total loss situation ?
However, we didn't transfer over the Tracker for a couple of reasons. We are in a very low risk area and its only a diesel Avant. And whilst insurers can insist you have Tracker, when it suits them, they won't give you a discount to offset its cost when you voluntarily have it fitted.
Tin Hat said:
I had it explained to me previously that you're supposed to be put back in the position you were before. You had an asset you could sell for £31.8k, and you were offered about the same.
It's supopsed to replace the value of the asset, not let you buy another at retail price. It's a common misconception I think.
Err, no. I think the misconception is all yours. Read you policy document - For total loss, they should pay you the "Market Value" : defined (in mine) as "the cost of replacing the car with one of a similar age, type, mileage and condition".- replacement cost is NOT trade-in value.It's supopsed to replace the value of the asset, not let you buy another at retail price. It's a common misconception I think.
I can't help but think so many of these tales of insurance woe come about because as a nation we've been brain washed into buying cheap insurance, pay peanuts and you'll find your claims department staffed with monkeys...... And this why I people experience poor claims service. In a industry where a customer makes a buying decision over as little as £5/10 premium difference this will inevitably lead to insurers either employing too few/low quality staff to cut costs, or ruthlessly playing hard ball on settlement costs. Just think how many extra policies OP's insurer has to sell to make up the £3.7k extra they have to spend.....
I work for a broker and actively get involved (unlike the OP's it seems) in dealing with claims and regularly have to get insurers to revisit write off/theft valuations, and I genuinely don't think insurers actively go in with a low first offer on purpose (not the ones I deal with), it's usually just a case of time pushed staff going for an easy glasses guide price with little or no consideration to the actual car spec, condition, etc. this gets even worse when you start dealing with more specialist machinery.
My advise is to supply the minimum amount of documentation and information to get the first offer, then send all the service history, tell them about the 'individual' spec interior, and the £1000's worth of PZero's fitted last week, after all if they can get to £x without knowing that your M3 any service history at all, how can it not be worth more with FSH???
I have a very useful link at work which I'll post up from the FOS which details exactly how they expect insurance companies to value cars, and this is how they review any complaint they get on the subject, so if anyone's having trouble I suggest forwarding this on to your insurers as they will know full well there's no point in pushing you to complain to FOS unless their valuation follows their published views....
And OP, assuming nothing untoward going on, then 13 weeks for settlement is a joke. I'd be pushing for interest, given the amounts involved, or at least your excess waived.
I work for a broker and actively get involved (unlike the OP's it seems) in dealing with claims and regularly have to get insurers to revisit write off/theft valuations, and I genuinely don't think insurers actively go in with a low first offer on purpose (not the ones I deal with), it's usually just a case of time pushed staff going for an easy glasses guide price with little or no consideration to the actual car spec, condition, etc. this gets even worse when you start dealing with more specialist machinery.
My advise is to supply the minimum amount of documentation and information to get the first offer, then send all the service history, tell them about the 'individual' spec interior, and the £1000's worth of PZero's fitted last week, after all if they can get to £x without knowing that your M3 any service history at all, how can it not be worth more with FSH???
I have a very useful link at work which I'll post up from the FOS which details exactly how they expect insurance companies to value cars, and this is how they review any complaint they get on the subject, so if anyone's having trouble I suggest forwarding this on to your insurers as they will know full well there's no point in pushing you to complain to FOS unless their valuation follows their published views....
And OP, assuming nothing untoward going on, then 13 weeks for settlement is a joke. I'd be pushing for interest, given the amounts involved, or at least your excess waived.
mrmr96 said:
I had it explained to me previously that you're supposed to be put back in the position you were before. You had an asset you could sell for £31.8k, and you were offered about the same.
It's supopsed to replace the value of the asset, not let you buy another at retail price. It's a common misconception I think.
If my 3YO Volvo is stolen off the drive then putting me back in the position I was before would involve putting a 3YO Volvo on the drive - or giving me enough money to do it for myself. I can't buy the car for trade-in value because I'm not a dealer.It's supopsed to replace the value of the asset, not let you buy another at retail price. It's a common misconception I think.
Sheepshanks said:
dacouch said:
Must have been with an Admiral group company as virtually every other Insurer would offer new for old on a brand new car in the first year of ownership from new
The OPs story sounds like Admiral too - there's a lesson there.Butter Face said:
RTI GAP is a no brainier on any new car.
Op, £3.7k premium? Ouch.
I actually think it's an okish deal. We get up to £150 k of vehicles insured fully comp, as long as no single vehicle exceeds £75k. I have 3 motorbikes and 3 cars, the 'best' of which is a C63, parked on an East London street with business use. I did shop around, but this looked like the best on offer?Op, £3.7k premium? Ouch.
A year or two back A Plan were offering a payout booster -IIRC for around £40 per annum per policy this would boost your insurance payout over and above what you offered by your insurance company - I am sure there were ceilings and terms and conditions etc but it did seem fairly good value even if to cut out the angst of fighting
Hoover. said:
are you saying you pay £3.5k a year insurance on ...
my merc coupe (when new £36k) was less then £400
my TVR Griffith less the £300
most expensive is an old X Reg Jeep Grand Cherokee at a tad under £500
....... or may be I'm miss reading your thread
Er, no.my merc coupe (when new £36k) was less then £400
my TVR Griffith less the £300
most expensive is an old X Reg Jeep Grand Cherokee at a tad under £500
....... or may be I'm miss reading your thread
I have an Elise, C63, Evoque, E30 BMW and 3 motorcycles for 3.7k, all fully comp, incl Mrs TH
The OH and I had two of our three bikes stolen back in April in the early hours of Tuesday the second. One was with eBike who are underwritten by Ageas and mine, a 3 year old R1 was with Bennets and underwritten by Axa.
Given that I'd heard bad things about eBike policies they were actually brilliant. I dealt with all the OHs bike theft so I did all the talking; I was indeed "interviewed" on the phone - it was quite obvious what they were inferring (who last put the bike in the garage, who rode it last). I simply pointed out that it had done 12 miles the previous year, so establishing a "main" driver wasn't really fair, and in any case it was a theft claim. That put that to bed. I accepted their second offer and they paid out the following Thursday (9 days) by BACS.
Axa paid out on the Friday (10 days). They weren't as good returning calls and stuff and I had to do some chasing. Still much better than expected though.
As to car insurance - my SLK is with Privilege (plus I have GAP) but they told me that it's new for old in year one.
Given that I'd heard bad things about eBike policies they were actually brilliant. I dealt with all the OHs bike theft so I did all the talking; I was indeed "interviewed" on the phone - it was quite obvious what they were inferring (who last put the bike in the garage, who rode it last). I simply pointed out that it had done 12 miles the previous year, so establishing a "main" driver wasn't really fair, and in any case it was a theft claim. That put that to bed. I accepted their second offer and they paid out the following Thursday (9 days) by BACS.
Axa paid out on the Friday (10 days). They weren't as good returning calls and stuff and I had to do some chasing. Still much better than expected though.
As to car insurance - my SLK is with Privilege (plus I have GAP) but they told me that it's new for old in year one.
Financial Ombudsman Service
FOS said:
Assessing the value of a used vehicle is not an exact science – though we take all relevant evidence into account to make sure we are as consistent as possible:
OP - all claims need to be vetted/verified and some claims will require some additional investigation to help verify, but that length of time is crazy. - . We pay most attention to valuations given in motor-trade guides, such as Parkers’, Glass’s and CAP. These are based on extensive nationwide research of actual selling prices (rather than just advertised prices).
- . Evidence from an independent engineer can be helpful, if available – particularly where the vehicle is not a standard one (for example, because it has been heavily modified).
- . We do not usually find advertisements for similar vehicles very persuasive. A vehicle may often be sold for less than the advertised price – and differences in mileage, year of registration, model type etc can significantly affect the value.
Sheepshanks said:
dacouch said:
Must have been with an Admiral group company as virtually every other Insurer would offer new for old on a brand new car in the first year of ownership from new
The OPs story sounds like Admiral too - there's a lesson there.
king sging84 said:
Mr Trophy said:
There is a well known "fancy" garage here in Edinburgh.
Someone's Bentley got stolen and was offered - £45K under what he paid for it (car was literally months old). To cut a long story short, his insurance company asked why he never got GAP insurance for such a high value car £120K + "they never offered me GAP insurance, so I assumed I couldn't get it due to the value of the car"
Guess what happened next, garage couldn't prove that they had/hadn't offered GAP insurance and had to pay the £45k difference. Ouch.
Never in a million years is this a true story.Someone's Bentley got stolen and was offered - £45K under what he paid for it (car was literally months old). To cut a long story short, his insurance company asked why he never got GAP insurance for such a high value car £120K + "they never offered me GAP insurance, so I assumed I couldn't get it due to the value of the car"
Guess what happened next, garage couldn't prove that they had/hadn't offered GAP insurance and had to pay the £45k difference. Ouch.
It is very unfair for you to question someone’s credibility without even knowing the dam person or other facts about the story. If it’s a lie then don't give it any traction by posting about it, if its true then it’s nice of the poster to go to the effort of writing about it.
Honestly this is becoming a silly joke now where people start to question someone’s honesty. The world is not so "simple" as people think it is and guess what s
t sometimes does happen that you may see as "impossible".I have seen posters literally bullied into supplying private information on a deal they have done or provide back of a story they have told and it’s ridiculous.
I am in the fortunate position that it has not happened to me however it doesn’t mean it’s something I (or people) should agree with or condone when they do see it happening.
It’s bullying. Unless someone has information to question someone’s story then DON’T start ripping it to shreds without proof.
silentbrown said:
Err, no. I think the misconception is all yours. Read you policy document - For total loss, they should pay you the "Market Value" : defined (in mine) as "the cost of replacing the car with one of a similar age, type, mileage and condition".- replacement cost is NOT trade-in value.
This.Nothing to do with how the car is financed, insurers should be paying out for cost of replacement not the trade in value. Its just a trying on tactic that a lot seem to employ. Had it with both times Ive had a total loss (both non fault) but they've always crumbled in the end.
With this in mind GAP insurance is usually only beneficial for the first few months of ownership on a regulated agreement unless of course a ridiculously low deposit has put in or if financed with some dodgy low rent lender.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff