Stupid sodding bint!
Discussion
Got crashed into by a slack-jawed, mouth-breathing dim-witted moronic bint earlier.
Long story short - I have witnesses, photo's, and all available evidence points to her being at fault. Oh and shortly afterwards her Dad tried to provoke me and one of the witnesses into a rumble. She does have insurance(thank Jeebus)but is STILL not admitting fault.
So.. I reckon I'm in the clear BUT.... my car is almost certainly going to be declared a write off. Thing is there's no real structural damage (maybe an eighth/quarter inch movement of the slam panel - hardly perceptible even with a tape measure), but at silly insurance repair prices the cosmetic stuff will render it uneconomical to repair.
This is a real shame because it doesn't use a drop of oil or water and I've spent quite a bit on it just recently to make it nice and solid (clutch, belts, tensioner, pump, exhaust, good tyres etc. etc.) but I won't get any of it back as the face value is only about 1200-1500 max.
I understand that nowadays not many (if any) insurance companies are willing to let you buy the car back off them due to potential liability in the future. BUT... if the inspection report declares that it is beyond economical repair due to cosmetic reasons, but is still structurally sound - am I able to decline their offer and repair it at my own expense (or even better get a small cash settlement towards the costs of repair?)
Anyone got any useful knowledge on this?
BTW it's a Puma - bring on the ghey/hairdresser/rotbox comments - you wouldn't be making them if you'd threaded a well sorted one down a good set of twisties ;-)
Long story short - I have witnesses, photo's, and all available evidence points to her being at fault. Oh and shortly afterwards her Dad tried to provoke me and one of the witnesses into a rumble. She does have insurance(thank Jeebus)but is STILL not admitting fault.
So.. I reckon I'm in the clear BUT.... my car is almost certainly going to be declared a write off. Thing is there's no real structural damage (maybe an eighth/quarter inch movement of the slam panel - hardly perceptible even with a tape measure), but at silly insurance repair prices the cosmetic stuff will render it uneconomical to repair.
This is a real shame because it doesn't use a drop of oil or water and I've spent quite a bit on it just recently to make it nice and solid (clutch, belts, tensioner, pump, exhaust, good tyres etc. etc.) but I won't get any of it back as the face value is only about 1200-1500 max.
I understand that nowadays not many (if any) insurance companies are willing to let you buy the car back off them due to potential liability in the future. BUT... if the inspection report declares that it is beyond economical repair due to cosmetic reasons, but is still structurally sound - am I able to decline their offer and repair it at my own expense (or even better get a small cash settlement towards the costs of repair?)
Anyone got any useful knowledge on this?
BTW it's a Puma - bring on the ghey/hairdresser/rotbox comments - you wouldn't be making them if you'd threaded a well sorted one down a good set of twisties ;-)
mrtwisty said:
Got crashed into by a slack-jawed, mouth-breathing dim-witted moronic bint earlier.
Long story short - I have witnesses, photo's, and all available evidence points to her being at fault. Oh and shortly afterwards her Dad tried to provoke me and one of the witnesses into a rumble. She does have insurance(thank Jeebus)but is STILL not admitting fault.
So.. I reckon I'm in the clear BUT.... my car is almost certainly going to be declared a write off. Thing is there's no real structural damage (maybe an eighth/quarter inch movement of the slam panel - hardly perceptible even with a tape measure), but at silly insurance repair prices the cosmetic stuff will render it uneconomical to repair.
This is a real shame because it doesn't use a drop of oil or water and I've spent quite a bit on it just recently to make it nice and solid (clutch, belts, tensioner, pump, exhaust, good tyres etc. etc.) but I won't get any of it back as the face value is only about 1200-1500 max.
I understand that nowadays not many (if any) insurance companies are willing to let you buy the car back off them due to potential liability in the future. BUT... if the inspection report declares that it is beyond economical repair due to cosmetic reasons, but is still structurally sound - am I able to decline their offer and repair it at my own expense (or even better get a small cash settlement towards the costs of repair?)
Anyone got any useful knowledge on this?
BTW it's a Puma - bring on the ghey/hairdresser/rotbox comments - you wouldn't be making them if you'd threaded a well sorted one down a good set of twisties ;-)
Why do people always get mad trying to get the other party to admit liabiity? Read any insurance policy and it will specifically state that you cannot admit liability, that's up to the insurance companies to sort out. I think the best approach is to keep it calm and civilised, take pictures, notes, witness details, exchange details, that's it!Long story short - I have witnesses, photo's, and all available evidence points to her being at fault. Oh and shortly afterwards her Dad tried to provoke me and one of the witnesses into a rumble. She does have insurance(thank Jeebus)but is STILL not admitting fault.
So.. I reckon I'm in the clear BUT.... my car is almost certainly going to be declared a write off. Thing is there's no real structural damage (maybe an eighth/quarter inch movement of the slam panel - hardly perceptible even with a tape measure), but at silly insurance repair prices the cosmetic stuff will render it uneconomical to repair.
This is a real shame because it doesn't use a drop of oil or water and I've spent quite a bit on it just recently to make it nice and solid (clutch, belts, tensioner, pump, exhaust, good tyres etc. etc.) but I won't get any of it back as the face value is only about 1200-1500 max.
I understand that nowadays not many (if any) insurance companies are willing to let you buy the car back off them due to potential liability in the future. BUT... if the inspection report declares that it is beyond economical repair due to cosmetic reasons, but is still structurally sound - am I able to decline their offer and repair it at my own expense (or even better get a small cash settlement towards the costs of repair?)
Anyone got any useful knowledge on this?
BTW it's a Puma - bring on the ghey/hairdresser/rotbox comments - you wouldn't be making them if you'd threaded a well sorted one down a good set of twisties ;-)
If it's a total loss, you'll get paid out, you can negotiate on the payout if you can demonstrate that the market value of the car is higher than what they offer, but you'll need to prove it (i.e with comparables). You will be able to ask if you can buy the salvage off the insurance company or their agent. If you intend to do this, do it at an early stage.
It depends on their policy, and also the nature of the damage. They may say they can only sell salvage to approved salvage merchants, in which case you might be able to find out which agent they're using and buy it off them. I'd have thought you'd be better buying a replacement though if it is a write off.
Sorry to hear that.
A work mate of mine had his car smashed from behind and he bought his car back. He managed to get the car fixed and pocketed some cash which will absorb the loss when he comes to sell it. So it can be done, and is well worth asking.
If the driver doesn't admit fault straight away, and offer to repair without insurance claims, then just let it go to the insurance company to handle. Not worth the hassle.
A work mate of mine had his car smashed from behind and he bought his car back. He managed to get the car fixed and pocketed some cash which will absorb the loss when he comes to sell it. So it can be done, and is well worth asking.
If the driver doesn't admit fault straight away, and offer to repair without insurance claims, then just let it go to the insurance company to handle. Not worth the hassle.
bozmandb9 said:
Why do people always get mad trying to get the other party to admit liabiity? Read any insurance policy and it will specifically state that you cannot admit liability, that's up to the insurance companies to sort out. I think the best approach is to keep it calm and civilised, take pictures, notes, witness details, exchange details, that's it!
This is sort of what I was getting at in my previous post. Yes, the person may be a chav/waste of space/whatever, but the fact is they have been involved in a crash and will be shaken up. Calm and civilised is the only way forward- insurance is there for a reason (other than ripping us off).
Matt UK said:
bozmandb9 said:
Why do people always get mad trying to get the other party to admit liabiity?
Totally agree. Just make notes, take photos, exchange details and hand it all over to the ins co.Not sure about people not being able to admit liability themselves??? Surely if you say to your insurance company that you were at fault they will accept it and act accordingly? I agree that it only becomes formal once they have admitted it to the insurance company, but my point was that despite the overwhelming evidence she was still protesting her complete innocence.
I've saved all my pissy comments for you, the PH masses - that is what we all come on here for right ;-)
mrtwisty said:
Matt UK said:
bozmandb9 said:
Why do people always get mad trying to get the other party to admit liabiity?
Totally agree. Just make notes, take photos, exchange details and hand it all over to the ins co.Not sure about people not being able to admit liability themselves??? Surely if you say to your insurance company that you were at fault they will accept it and act accordingly? I agree that it only becomes formal once they have admitted it to the insurance company, but my point was that despite the overwhelming evidence she was still protesting her complete innocence.
I've saved all my pissy comments for you, the PH masses - that is what we all come on here for right ;-)
It is a bit of a weird one. When I used to drive company cars, they used to actually have an accident pack that said "Never admit fault, do not apologise, do not blame" or somesuch.
They just wanted the facts. I think the view was they would rather sort / fight / negotiate it and whatever you say at the scene could have an impact later on down the line.
mrtwisty said:
Luckily I did manage to stay calm, even when I had an ape in my face trying to incite violence. (Quite proud of myself about that actually, I must be growing up finally!) Took plenty of photo's, spoke to witnesses, got details, phoned insurance company straight away.
Not sure about people not being able to admit liability themselves??? Surely if you say to your insurance company that you were at fault they will accept it and act accordingly? I agree that it only becomes formal once they have admitted it to the insurance company, but my point was that despite the overwhelming evidence she was still protesting her complete innocence.
I've saved all my pissy comments for you, the PH masses - that is what we all come on here for right ;-)
So yes, you've done all the right things. The insurance company will usually accept fault admissions from you, however since it's their liability, neither you nor the other party have a right to ascertain which insurer bears liability.Not sure about people not being able to admit liability themselves??? Surely if you say to your insurance company that you were at fault they will accept it and act accordingly? I agree that it only becomes formal once they have admitted it to the insurance company, but my point was that despite the overwhelming evidence she was still protesting her complete innocence.
I've saved all my pissy comments for you, the PH masses - that is what we all come on here for right ;-)
For example you could get a scenario where a motorist gets rear ended, and thinks it's their fault (unlikely I know), but let's say it's an old lady who braked suddenly, and then at the scene she gets flustered and says 'so sorry it's all my fault' it puts the insurers in a very difficult position theoretically, since all rear enders are usually non fault for the car which was rear ended, but their clients has 'admitted liability', which doesn't make it right, but can make the claim a lot more messy!
More usually, nobody admits fault, both drivers blame eachother and try to get eachother to admit fault, and it just causes much aggro, so pretty pointless!
richtea78 said:
Getting pissed off with someone for not admitting it is ridiculous
I agree entirely, that's why I didn't get pissed of AT her, or in front of her, or anywhere near her. I didn't even ask her in fact - her protestations came completely unbidden. I saved it all for you guys 'cus I know you like it ;-) mrtwisty said:
I understand that nowadays not many (if any) insurance companies are willing to let you buy the car back off them due to potential liability in the future.
Is this true nowadays? In the past some idiot wrote my car off but I simply bought it back as 'salvage' from the ins. co. (£200) and pocketed the repair money (didn't bother - wasn't worth repairing). But is this not the normal practice now?ETA - not repair money, but the market value of the car, I should have said (written off).
Edited by geeteeaye on Sunday 8th May 00:07
geeteeaye said:
Is this true nowadays? In the past some idiot wrote my car off but I simply bought it back as 'salvage' from the ins. co. (£200) and pocketed the repair money (didn't bother - wasn't worth repairing). But is this not the normal practice now?
I'm with Elephant, and there is a clause in mine saying that once it has been 'written off' it cannot be bought back. It's my understanding that many if not most insurance companies have this policy now. As it's most likely that it will be her company that picks up the reins with this not mine (fingers crossed)I'm wondering where I will stand, especially if it's just deemed cosmetic damage, not structural. She's with Swinton - can anybody shed any light on this?
mrtwisty said:
I agree entirely, that's why I didn't get pissed of AT her, or in front of her, or anywhere near her. I didn't even ask her in fact - her protestations came completely unbidden. I saved it all for you guys 'cus I know you like it ;-)
Haha, I got crashed into a few years ago by a girl who had just picked up her 18th birthday present from a garage (a brand new Street Ka) and drove it straight into me not 50 yards away from the garage. Its very hard to get angry with a fit girl plus her dad was pretty good about it and sorted it out for cash
mrtwisty said:
geeteeaye said:
Is this true nowadays? In the past some idiot wrote my car off but I simply bought it back as 'salvage' from the ins. co. (£200) and pocketed the repair money (didn't bother - wasn't worth repairing). But is this not the normal practice now?
I'm with Elephant, and there is a clause in mine saying that once it has been 'written off' it cannot be bought back. It's my understanding that many if not most insurance companies have this policy now. As it's most likely that it will be her company that picks up the reins with this not mine (fingers crossed)I'm wondering where I will stand, especially if it's just deemed cosmetic damage, not structural. She's with Swinton - can anybody shed any light on this?
If they're not going to allow buy back then there's really no point in paying for comprehensive insurance. I pay more each year than they would pay out for a total loss.
Can't even go agreed value / classic policy due to wanting to use them as dailys/business vehicles.
Insurance in this country stinks. If buy back has gone then there really is no upside to it at all. You pay through the nose each year knowing that if the worst happens you lose your P&J and get a measly payout that won't even cover the petrol in the tank
Can anybody confirm/deny that buyback has gone?
NiceCupOfTea said:
If they're not going to allow buy back then there's really no point in paying for comprehensive insurance.
I've found that most of the quotes I do these days are actually cheaper as comprehensive policies! Mad isn't it? I think it's because third party policy holders are statistically more likely to make a claim. I know it makes sense financially, but still seems counter-intuitive somehow...
How'd she hit you? What did the dad say?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff