New car in a smash within 12 hours - write off?
Discussion
I was told before by a Lotus bodyshop that when a car is damaged and insurance are paying for repairs there are two cases. One, the claim is a fault claim, in this case they will pay upto about 75% of the value of the car before declaring it a write-off. Two, it was a non-fault claim and the other party are paying, in this case they tend to only pay up to 50% of the value of the car before writing it off. When someone backed up into my Lotus and it needed a new front clamshell and headlights it was almost half the value of the car with labour and they almost wrote it off.
ZX10R NIN said:
If Market value is 14k then he'll probably get 13.5-14k as long as he can show cars with the same age & mileage
As posted subsequently I was saying that he won't get a full payout of he's keeping the damaged car. However, the rest of your comment is b
ks too. Nobody uses adverts, even the FOS are explicit in saying they don't find them particularly compelling as evidence. Everyone uses the three trade guides and takes the average of the three, unless one is miles out then they ignore that.
They use retail prices too not trade prices despite the Urban Myth to the contrary.
Another update:
Independent assessor viewed the car and said the insurance company valued it at £11,000. Told him I bought it the day before for £13,995 and had the invoice etc. He then said "Yeah I thought with the condition of the car, mileage etc you'd be up around that figure. Right, well, I'll put my report in as the car should be fixed."
Next day, insurance company phone and say the car is a total loss and offer £11,000. I say absolutely not. They come back with £11,300. Again, no. Then all of a sudden, the car is economical to repair and is now getting repaired.
Independent assessor viewed the car and said the insurance company valued it at £11,000. Told him I bought it the day before for £13,995 and had the invoice etc. He then said "Yeah I thought with the condition of the car, mileage etc you'd be up around that figure. Right, well, I'll put my report in as the car should be fixed."
Next day, insurance company phone and say the car is a total loss and offer £11,000. I say absolutely not. They come back with £11,300. Again, no. Then all of a sudden, the car is economical to repair and is now getting repaired.
petrolveins said:
I was told before by a Lotus bodyshop that when a car is damaged and insurance are paying for repairs there are two cases. One, the claim is a fault claim, in this case they will pay upto about 75% of the value of the car before declaring it a write-off. Two, it was a non-fault claim and the other party are paying, in this case they tend to only pay up to 50% of the value of the car before writing it off. When someone backed up into my Lotus and it needed a new front clamshell and headlights it was almost half the value of the car with labour and they almost wrote it off.
Do you believe everything you're told, as that is a complete and uter load of bks?Have to say there is a lot of b
ks being spouted as fact on this thread. LoonR1 said:
petrolveins said:
I was told before by a Lotus bodyshop that when a car is damaged and insurance are paying for repairs there are two cases. One, the claim is a fault claim, in this case they will pay upto about 75% of the value of the car before declaring it a write-off. Two, it was a non-fault claim and the other party are paying, in this case they tend to only pay up to 50% of the value of the car before writing it off. When someone backed up into my Lotus and it needed a new front clamshell and headlights it was almost half the value of the car with labour and they almost wrote it off.
Do you believe everything you're told, as that is a complete and uter load of bks?Have to say there is a lot of b
ks being spouted as fact on this thread. Jonno02 said:
Another update:
Independent assessor viewed the car and said the insurance company valued it at £11,000. Told him I bought it the day before for £13,995 and had the invoice etc. He then said "Yeah I thought with the condition of the car, mileage etc you'd be up around that figure. Right, well, I'll put my report in as the car should be fixed."
Next day, insurance company phone and say the car is a total loss and offer £11,000. I say absolutely not. They come back with £11,300. Again, no. Then all of a sudden, the car is economical to repair and is now getting repaired.
Are you ok with that?Independent assessor viewed the car and said the insurance company valued it at £11,000. Told him I bought it the day before for £13,995 and had the invoice etc. He then said "Yeah I thought with the condition of the car, mileage etc you'd be up around that figure. Right, well, I'll put my report in as the car should be fixed."
Next day, insurance company phone and say the car is a total loss and offer £11,000. I say absolutely not. They come back with £11,300. Again, no. Then all of a sudden, the car is economical to repair and is now getting repaired.
Positive take on things is you won't have to fight to get a satisfactory payout.
GreatGranny said:
Are you ok with that?
Positive take on things is you won't have to fight to get a satisfactory payout.
Yeah I'm alright with it. If I had sourced another similar car (miles/spec) I'd be pushing for a write off. The independent assessor went over the whole "If it's not done to a very high standard, you bring it back until it is" spout. Positive take on things is you won't have to fight to get a satisfactory payout.
Other bonus is that the garage I bought it from (Parks UK) want the car back in to do a full service and check off on the repairs to make sure it's not a, in their words, "chop shop job".
LoonR1 said:
As posted subsequently I was saying that he won't get a full payout of he's keeping the damaged car. However, the rest of your comment is bks too.
Nobody uses adverts, even the FOS are explicit in saying they don't find them particularly compelling as evidence. Everyone uses the three trade guides and takes the average of the three, unless one is miles out then they ignore that.
They use retail prices too not trade prices despite the Urban Myth to the contrary.
Is that right best you speak to AV because I successfully argued a better settlement by using Autotrader/Ebay to substantiate that the price they were offering my Mum for her written off 335i was to low.ks too. Nobody uses adverts, even the FOS are explicit in saying they don't find them particularly compelling as evidence. Everyone uses the three trade guides and takes the average of the three, unless one is miles out then they ignore that.
They use retail prices too not trade prices despite the Urban Myth to the contrary.
There's no harm in trying to get a reasonable settlement or he could take your outlook on it & take whatever they give him.
ZX10R NIN said:
Is that right best you speak to AV because I successfully argued a better settlement by using Autotrader/Ebay to substantiate that the price they were offering my Mum for her written off 335i was to low.
There's no harm in trying to get a reasonable settlement or he could take your outlook on it & take whatever they give him.
I reckon I know how it works, but thanks for the tip. There's no harm in trying to get a reasonable settlement or he could take your outlook on it & take whatever they give him.
petrolveins said:
I was told before by a Lotus bodyshop that when a car is damaged and insurance are paying for repairs there are two cases. One, the claim is a fault claim, in this case they will pay upto about 75% of the value of the car before declaring it a write-off. Two, it was a non-fault claim and the other party are paying, in this case they tend to only pay up to 50% of the value of the car before writing it off. When someone backed up into my Lotus and it needed a new front clamshell and headlights it was almost half the value of the car with labour and they almost wrote it off.
If there's any truth in that, I'd say it's the other way round. And that would be more logical too - making repair more likely if you're not at fault.Sheepshanks said:
petrolveins said:
I was told before by a Lotus bodyshop that when a car is damaged and insurance are paying for repairs there are two cases. One, the claim is a fault claim, in this case they will pay upto about 75% of the value of the car before declaring it a write-off. Two, it was a non-fault claim and the other party are paying, in this case they tend to only pay up to 50% of the value of the car before writing it off. When someone backed up into my Lotus and it needed a new front clamshell and headlights it was almost half the value of the car with labour and they almost wrote it off.
If there's any truth in that, I'd say it's the other way round. And that would be more logical too - making repair more likely if you're not at fault.What happens if it's a split fault? What happens if it started out as what looked like a non-fault and became a fault or split fault? All sorts of questions that this crappy conspiracy fails to take into account.
LoonR1 said:
There's no truth whatsoever to it. An insurer can not treat a customer who has paid a premium for the repair of their car to them differently based on fault or non-fault. There's a huge TCF issue amongst other things.
Well certainly some friends of ours had their car repaired after a non-fault accident when it didn't make any sense. And that's without the hire car bill unless the car was free from the bodyshop - it took 6 weeks to fix it. Could this be a result of no-fault claims being farmed out to AMCs? It's obviously not in their interest for cars to be written off.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff