Write off, how to?
Discussion
Right chaps, I need the benefit of wisdom/experience.
Touch wood, in (scarily) approaching 30 years of motoring I've never needed to know but:
My step-father was side-swiped on a roundabout. No reg-plate nor description of offending truck with trailer who may not even have been aware of contact. Not reported so probably too late for uninsured loss-recovery.
It's 100% cosmetic damage, not structural nor safety compromising but the cost of repair will exceed, or at least come close enough for the insurers to write it off, the value.
As an idiot, I need an idiot's guide as to how to proceed. What steps should each party take and what are their obligations to one another? For instance, the insurer has made two settlement offers. Neither has been accepted yet they have stated that they consider the car to have been 'written off' (no such statement in writing) and as such policy and MOT(?) is void.
The ideal outcome is that a reasonable settlement is reached which allows the car to be kept, repaired and returned to use. How do we go about this?
Another for instance, they've increased the offer for the value of the car as a result of evidence supplied but also the 'retention fee' i.e. the amount they'll sell the 'written-off' car back to the owners. Doesn't seem unreasonable, tbf, if one value increases probably so does the other. That said, I'd still call them on it, if only as a bargaining tool (two for that, you, must be mad - I'm straight-up s
te at bartering)
I appreciate that there may be many reasons why all of this, plus more, is my fault (even if it's not my fault) but if, just for sts and giggles, we could pretend that the scenario is legit that would be just fantastic.
Cheers, Jim
Touch wood, in (scarily) approaching 30 years of motoring I've never needed to know but:
My step-father was side-swiped on a roundabout. No reg-plate nor description of offending truck with trailer who may not even have been aware of contact. Not reported so probably too late for uninsured loss-recovery.
It's 100% cosmetic damage, not structural nor safety compromising but the cost of repair will exceed, or at least come close enough for the insurers to write it off, the value.
As an idiot, I need an idiot's guide as to how to proceed. What steps should each party take and what are their obligations to one another? For instance, the insurer has made two settlement offers. Neither has been accepted yet they have stated that they consider the car to have been 'written off' (no such statement in writing) and as such policy and MOT(?) is void.
The ideal outcome is that a reasonable settlement is reached which allows the car to be kept, repaired and returned to use. How do we go about this?
Another for instance, they've increased the offer for the value of the car as a result of evidence supplied but also the 'retention fee' i.e. the amount they'll sell the 'written-off' car back to the owners. Doesn't seem unreasonable, tbf, if one value increases probably so does the other. That said, I'd still call them on it, if only as a bargaining tool (two for that, you, must be mad - I'm straight-up s
te at bartering)I appreciate that there may be many reasons why all of this, plus more, is my fault (even if it's not my fault) but if, just for s
ts and giggles, we could pretend that the scenario is legit that would be just fantastic.Cheers, Jim
Once you've negotiated a final payout for the car, and they've given you a price for salvaging the written off car, you keep the car and get paid the difference.
Assuming it is not a 'Cat A' or 'Cat B' you can then repair it.
Simples.
If you are looking for more money out of them and think it is unfair offer then you'll need to provide evidence of why you think it is worth more than they offered. If you think the salvage price is too high then lay it on thick about the value/cost of repairs.... but if they've had an assessor out, which I assume they have, then you might be p1ssing up the wrong tree.
Assuming it is not a 'Cat A' or 'Cat B' you can then repair it.
Simples.
If you are looking for more money out of them and think it is unfair offer then you'll need to provide evidence of why you think it is worth more than they offered. If you think the salvage price is too high then lay it on thick about the value/cost of repairs.... but if they've had an assessor out, which I assume they have, then you might be p1ssing up the wrong tree.
jimmy the hat said:
It's 100% cosmetic damage, not structural nor safety compromising but the cost of repair will exceed, or at least come close enough for the insurers to write it off, the value.
Cat C? - https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/know-how/what-d...Or Cat D? - https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/know-how/what-i...
jimmy the hat said:
As an idiot, I need an idiot's guide as to how to proceed. What steps should each party take and what are their obligations to one another? For instance, the insurer has made two settlement offers. Neither has been accepted yet they have stated that they consider the car to have been 'written off' (no such statement in writing) and as such policy and MOT(?) is void.
The ideal outcome is that a reasonable settlement is reached which allows the car to be kept, repaired and returned to use. How do we go about this?
Another for instance, they've increased the offer for the value of the car as a result of evidence supplied but also the 'retention fee' i.e. the amount they'll sell the 'written-off' car back to the owners. Doesn't seem unreasonable, tbf, if one value increases probably so does the other. That said, I'd still call them on it, if only as a bargaining tool (two for that, you, must be mad - I'm straight-up ste at bartering)
Then you'll have to take a crash (sorry!) course, because negotiation is what this is all about. The first thing to do is get a realistic feel for what your car is worth.The ideal outcome is that a reasonable settlement is reached which allows the car to be kept, repaired and returned to use. How do we go about this?
Another for instance, they've increased the offer for the value of the car as a result of evidence supplied but also the 'retention fee' i.e. the amount they'll sell the 'written-off' car back to the owners. Doesn't seem unreasonable, tbf, if one value increases probably so does the other. That said, I'd still call them on it, if only as a bargaining tool (two for that, you, must be mad - I'm straight-up s
te at bartering)See the second link above. Also Parkers (whose database the link may in fact be using). Compare the two and the insurer' figure.
As the previous poster mentioned the latter is likely to be based on an assessor's opinion.
Which is not necessarily correct. I challenged one once (based on my very detailed maintenance records + MY rarity) and won.
jimmy the hat said:
I appreciate that there may be many reasons why all of this, plus more, is my fault (even if it's not my fault) but if, just for sts and giggles, we could pretend that the scenario is legit that would be just fantastic.
Not quite sure what you're saying here, but liability for the prang is completely irrelevant to the salvage buy-back process.ts and giggles, we could pretend that the scenario is legit that would be just fantastic.Thanks chaps. That's what I said. I'm assuming a misunderstanding of no MOT = no insurance and therefore vice-versa.
At what point is the car written-off is the most pressing issue at the moment? The insurer is saying that they've "written it off" and therefore the policy has ceased. The car is still driveable and as far as I can see road-legal (bar insurance, apparently). It would certainly pass an MOT. Therefore, my parents would like to still be able to use it until an agreement over the figure has been reached.
Insurers have made two settlement offers and neither has been accepted, although the second is close to an acceptable amount.
Don't know if cat c or d, yet.
The last bit is because usually several people will find a way for whatever scenario to be the fault of the OP. I'm surprised I haven't at least been asked which lane I was in, even though I wasn't there.
Cheers, Jim
At what point is the car written-off is the most pressing issue at the moment? The insurer is saying that they've "written it off" and therefore the policy has ceased. The car is still driveable and as far as I can see road-legal (bar insurance, apparently). It would certainly pass an MOT. Therefore, my parents would like to still be able to use it until an agreement over the figure has been reached.
Insurers have made two settlement offers and neither has been accepted, although the second is close to an acceptable amount.
Don't know if cat c or d, yet.
The last bit is because usually several people will find a way for whatever scenario to be the fault of the OP. I'm surprised I haven't at least been asked which lane I was in, even though I wasn't there.
Cheers, Jim
In my experience the vehicle is only a write off once figures have been agreed.
Seems weird they want to end a policy because the vehicle thats on cover has been written off. You should either be able to a) transfer the cover onto a new vehicle with associated admin charges/policy increases or b) continue cover with them on the original vehicle but having it repaired and a fresh MOT put on it.
Some insurers will impose special clauses i.e the vehicle must have been repaired before they will keep it on cover. Some don't, I know the one I used to work for only stipulated that it had an MOT, was taxed and was also roadworthy. Cover carried on, if the vehicle was written off and disposed by them you had 30 days to change the vehicle on cover. If you retained it nothing changed until your renewal.
Its not as if the insurer carries out an inspection of the vehicle before it offers cover, if it finds damage when its involved in an accident it assesses the condition and values accordingly. If its been written off before it will obviously be worth less than one without a marker.
It all depends on whether the insurers are set up to take on the 'risk' of a previously written off car or not, some will - some won't.
Of course this is largely irrelevant as a lot of written off vehicles are done financially. My farther has an 04 plate Focus, and he collided with a traffic island when someone pulled out in front of him. 1 spring, track rod end, lower arm, wheel and tyre on the front - and a wheel and tyre on the rear later and it was repaired. The insurer would have written it off for that and placed a marker on it, however as it was repaired outside of insurance they are unaware and therefore cannot value the vehicle for less than an equivalent example.
My advice would be, cancel and reinsure the car elsewhere, telling them of course of its marker - as long as you are 100% that the vehicle is roadworthy.
This is the danger of not investigating policy wording and cover before a bump happens.
Seems weird they want to end a policy because the vehicle thats on cover has been written off. You should either be able to a) transfer the cover onto a new vehicle with associated admin charges/policy increases or b) continue cover with them on the original vehicle but having it repaired and a fresh MOT put on it.
Some insurers will impose special clauses i.e the vehicle must have been repaired before they will keep it on cover. Some don't, I know the one I used to work for only stipulated that it had an MOT, was taxed and was also roadworthy. Cover carried on, if the vehicle was written off and disposed by them you had 30 days to change the vehicle on cover. If you retained it nothing changed until your renewal.
Its not as if the insurer carries out an inspection of the vehicle before it offers cover, if it finds damage when its involved in an accident it assesses the condition and values accordingly. If its been written off before it will obviously be worth less than one without a marker.
It all depends on whether the insurers are set up to take on the 'risk' of a previously written off car or not, some will - some won't.
Of course this is largely irrelevant as a lot of written off vehicles are done financially. My farther has an 04 plate Focus, and he collided with a traffic island when someone pulled out in front of him. 1 spring, track rod end, lower arm, wheel and tyre on the front - and a wheel and tyre on the rear later and it was repaired. The insurer would have written it off for that and placed a marker on it, however as it was repaired outside of insurance they are unaware and therefore cannot value the vehicle for less than an equivalent example.
My advice would be, cancel and reinsure the car elsewhere, telling them of course of its marker - as long as you are 100% that the vehicle is roadworthy.
This is the danger of not investigating policy wording and cover before a bump happens.
gottans said:
Don't forget the guides they use are trade pricing, most people can't buy at trade price and pay full retail.
No they're not.They're based upon what the policy T&C's state.
Most are market values which is what the car can be bought for - not the advertised price.
edit - could word that a little better.
Most are market values which is the market value of the insured vehicle if you were to sell it immediately prior to the accident. Not the replacement cost, or what a similar vehicle is worth.
nipsips said:
Most are market values which is the market value of the insured vehicle if you were to sell it immediately prior to the accident. Not the replacement cost, or what a similar vehicle is worth.
Are they? The Financial Ombudsman says slightly differentlythe ombudsman said:
Most of the complaints we see involve disagreements about the “market” value of the vehicle. This generally means the price it would have sold for at a reputable dealership just before it was damaged or stolen.
ie the market value is the price you'd pay to replace the car at a dealer, not the price you'd get if you sold it privately or (worse) traded it in.You're correct of course that it should be based on actual selling prices - whcih tend to be a bit lower than advertised prices.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff