Insurers Unnecessarily Writing Off Cars
Discussion
I very nearly put this on the conspiracy theories thread, and am prepared to be ridiculed.
Is there possibly a collaboration afoot to write off perfectly repairable ICE cars over a certain age, in pursuit of an agenda that may or may not include net zero.
My only 'evidence' is the battle I had with my immaculate commuting car, that was rear ended with relatively minor damage and written off, despite my protestations. I subsequently discovered that the body shop had quoted around £300 less to repair the car than the insurance paid out for me to replace it.
Conversations with others (me moaning about it tbh) have turned out similar stories from others, which made me a bit
.
Or was it ever thus, before AGW etc raised its head?
Is there possibly a collaboration afoot to write off perfectly repairable ICE cars over a certain age, in pursuit of an agenda that may or may not include net zero.
My only 'evidence' is the battle I had with my immaculate commuting car, that was rear ended with relatively minor damage and written off, despite my protestations. I subsequently discovered that the body shop had quoted around £300 less to repair the car than the insurance paid out for me to replace it.
Conversations with others (me moaning about it tbh) have turned out similar stories from others, which made me a bit
.Or was it ever thus, before AGW etc raised its head?
Its not a conspiracy at all.
The repair price was 300 quid less than the value of the car, which is just an estimate and with a rear end its more than likely more damage is lurking. They would have to pay for hire car too at 50-60 quid a day plus. Then if the paint match was not 100% perfect you would be demanding its rectified which costs them more again.
They can pay you out, send it to salvage auction and probably be better off.
The repair price was 300 quid less than the value of the car, which is just an estimate and with a rear end its more than likely more damage is lurking. They would have to pay for hire car too at 50-60 quid a day plus. Then if the paint match was not 100% perfect you would be demanding its rectified which costs them more again.
They can pay you out, send it to salvage auction and probably be better off.
Yep I agree & so did the transporter driver who collected my late fathers car after the insurer wrote it off Cat S for a relatively minor gate post scrape to the nsr door & wheel arch. It made the probate calculation easier so not much protest from us at the time as it was one less thing to worry about & their offer was fair.
Conspiracy or not I too have heard of cars being written off for relatively little damage. EVs aside as they appear to be written off for something as little as a parking scatch (i jest but not far off).
Perhaps it is part supply/not enough capacity in repair shops meaning insurers make the decision to write off if they don't feel the car can be returned to the customer in a fair amount of time (and presumably them footing the bill for a hire car).
I've experienced big delays on getting parts myself recenlty - steering rack for a 10 year old Seat Exeo has taken 4 weeks via TPS so far and no delivered, wish i got the old one refurbed now, and some shocks and spring from Germany have taken 8 weeks and still not delivered. If my experiences here on 2 cars is extropolated to other parts and cars I can see how just writing cars off is an easier approach.
Perhaps it is part supply/not enough capacity in repair shops meaning insurers make the decision to write off if they don't feel the car can be returned to the customer in a fair amount of time (and presumably them footing the bill for a hire car).
I've experienced big delays on getting parts myself recenlty - steering rack for a 10 year old Seat Exeo has taken 4 weeks via TPS so far and no delivered, wish i got the old one refurbed now, and some shocks and spring from Germany have taken 8 weeks and still not delivered. If my experiences here on 2 cars is extropolated to other parts and cars I can see how just writing cars off is an easier approach.
budgie smuggler said:
They probably factored other costs into it. It may have been hire car costs while your car was in the garage for example.
If that's true then they need to have a rethink as their own rules stated I could keep the hire car for a month. Which I obviously did. To the minute.I don't know how quickly the body shop would have completed the job, but unlikely to take that long I would have thought.
So, £3000 to me plus an extra two weeks (?) of hire car, or repair at £2700.
Most insurers work to at or around of 60% of market value before writing vehicles off.
One insurer for example even defined this in their T & Cs - "Total loss - The repair costs exceed 55% of the vehicle value"
It does not take long to get to those sort of percentages if you include:
Replacement Parts
Labour
Materials (paint etc.)
Time delay for any of the above or finding more damage on stripdown
That is before we start talking about hire cars (which if there is time delays will only increase costs higher and make write off more likely).
Conspiracy - unlikely, it is the costs beyond just the cost of the parts that can ultimately make vehicles a total loss. EVs are possibly a bit more sensitive in some cases, but the fundamentally the issues amount usually down to lack of skills and knowledge, which means less people can work on them and extended timescales for repair - leading back to the same issues above. There is also concerns regarding battery pack integrity in some cases.
One insurer for example even defined this in their T & Cs - "Total loss - The repair costs exceed 55% of the vehicle value"
It does not take long to get to those sort of percentages if you include:
Replacement Parts
Labour
Materials (paint etc.)
Time delay for any of the above or finding more damage on stripdown
That is before we start talking about hire cars (which if there is time delays will only increase costs higher and make write off more likely).
Conspiracy - unlikely, it is the costs beyond just the cost of the parts that can ultimately make vehicles a total loss. EVs are possibly a bit more sensitive in some cases, but the fundamentally the issues amount usually down to lack of skills and knowledge, which means less people can work on them and extended timescales for repair - leading back to the same issues above. There is also concerns regarding battery pack integrity in some cases.
It's nothing new.
Back in the day my Aunt and Uncles Metro was written off when someone hit the back it, from memory they bought it back from the insurance company for a very small amount of money compared to its value, put a bumper from a scrap yard on it and carried on using it for the next 3/4 years until the inevitable tin worm got to it. The main cost for the repair was the frame behind the bumper was bent and it would have needed paint after the repair.
Depending on the car some parts are super expensive now, my brothers BMW was hit in a car park recently and the people that hit it wanted to pay cash until they found out a headlight was £2,000 + a wing + a bumper + paint. Even a small bump can run into the £'000's.
Personally if the damage wasn't bad and you want to keep the car and the parts aren't expensive I would buy it back, find the parts to repair it on eBay or an online scrappy, fix it up and keep driving.
Back in the day my Aunt and Uncles Metro was written off when someone hit the back it, from memory they bought it back from the insurance company for a very small amount of money compared to its value, put a bumper from a scrap yard on it and carried on using it for the next 3/4 years until the inevitable tin worm got to it. The main cost for the repair was the frame behind the bumper was bent and it would have needed paint after the repair.
Depending on the car some parts are super expensive now, my brothers BMW was hit in a car park recently and the people that hit it wanted to pay cash until they found out a headlight was £2,000 + a wing + a bumper + paint. Even a small bump can run into the £'000's.
Personally if the damage wasn't bad and you want to keep the car and the parts aren't expensive I would buy it back, find the parts to repair it on eBay or an online scrappy, fix it up and keep driving.
No, it’s a fixed cost to write off vs a potentially escalating one when repairing. Currently the lead time on parts is enormous in some cases with inflated hire car costs and increased labour and part costs anyway. Plus then you are guaranteeing the work moving forwards. All this means the bar is lower for when a company will declare TL. After all minimising the claims cost is in everyone’s interest, customer and company.
In any case a write off doesn’t take the car off the road as it will be sold at auction so that conspiracy doesn’t really stack up.
Also, were you due a hire car while yours was repaired? If so that cost would be on top. As another poster said if more damage is then discovered the cost escalates.
In any case a write off doesn’t take the car off the road as it will be sold at auction so that conspiracy doesn’t really stack up.
Also, were you due a hire car while yours was repaired? If so that cost would be on top. As another poster said if more damage is then discovered the cost escalates.
Dingu said:
No, it’s a fixed cost to write off vs a potentially escalating one when repairing. Currently the lead time on parts is enormous in some cases with inflated hire car costs and increased labour and part costs anyway. Plus then you are guaranteeing the work moving forwards. All this means the bar is lower for when a company will declare TL. After all minimising the claims cost is in everyone’s interest, customer and company.
In any case a write off doesn’t take the car off the road as it will be sold at auction so that conspiracy doesn’t really stack up.
Also, were you due a hire car while yours was repaired? If so that cost would be on top. As another poster said if more damage is then discovered the cost escalates.
Mine was never taxed again according to t'internet. Seems so wasteful for a car that, whilst 10 years old with mileage to suit, was immaculate and not one single thing had ever gone wrong with it. I fully expect that I would still have it now (five years later) had it not been written off. In any case a write off doesn’t take the car off the road as it will be sold at auction so that conspiracy doesn’t really stack up.
Also, were you due a hire car while yours was repaired? If so that cost would be on top. As another poster said if more damage is then discovered the cost escalates.
As above, had a hire car for a full month, and an expensive one at that. In theory at least, I would have it had it less time had they just fixed the blighter.
beagrizzly said:
I very nearly put this on the conspiracy theories thread, and am prepared to be ridiculed.
Is there possibly a collaboration afoot to write off perfectly repairable ICE cars over a certain age, in pursuit of an agenda that may or may not include net zero.
My only 'evidence' is the battle I had with my immaculate commuting car, that was rear ended with relatively minor damage and written off, despite my protestations. I subsequently discovered that the body shop had quoted around £300 less to repair the car than the insurance paid out for me to replace it.
Conversations with others (me moaning about it tbh) have turned out similar stories from others, which made me a bit.
Or was it ever thus, before AGW etc raised its head?
Is there possibly a collaboration afoot to write off perfectly repairable ICE cars over a certain age, in pursuit of an agenda that may or may not include net zero.
My only 'evidence' is the battle I had with my immaculate commuting car, that was rear ended with relatively minor damage and written off, despite my protestations. I subsequently discovered that the body shop had quoted around £300 less to repair the car than the insurance paid out for me to replace it.
Conversations with others (me moaning about it tbh) have turned out similar stories from others, which made me a bit
.Or was it ever thus, before AGW etc raised its head?
Yes, because insurance companies are just so moral and virtuous 
HustleRussell said:
beagrizzly said:
I very nearly put this on the conspiracy theories thread, and am prepared to be ridiculed.
Is there possibly a collaboration afoot to write off perfectly repairable ICE cars over a certain age, in pursuit of an agenda that may or may not include net zero.
My only 'evidence' is the battle I had with my immaculate commuting car, that was rear ended with relatively minor damage and written off, despite my protestations. I subsequently discovered that the body shop had quoted around £300 less to repair the car than the insurance paid out for me to replace it.
Conversations with others (me moaning about it tbh) have turned out similar stories from others, which made me a bit.
Or was it ever thus, before AGW etc raised its head?
Is there possibly a collaboration afoot to write off perfectly repairable ICE cars over a certain age, in pursuit of an agenda that may or may not include net zero.
My only 'evidence' is the battle I had with my immaculate commuting car, that was rear ended with relatively minor damage and written off, despite my protestations. I subsequently discovered that the body shop had quoted around £300 less to repair the car than the insurance paid out for me to replace it.
Conversations with others (me moaning about it tbh) have turned out similar stories from others, which made me a bit
.Or was it ever thus, before AGW etc raised its head?
Yes, because insurance companies are just so moral and virtuous beagrizzly said:
Dingu said:
No, it’s a fixed cost to write off vs a potentially escalating one when repairing. Currently the lead time on parts is enormous in some cases with inflated hire car costs and increased labour and part costs anyway. Plus then you are guaranteeing the work moving forwards. All this means the bar is lower for when a company will declare TL. After all minimising the claims cost is in everyone’s interest, customer and company.
In any case a write off doesn’t take the car off the road as it will be sold at auction so that conspiracy doesn’t really stack up.
Also, were you due a hire car while yours was repaired? If so that cost would be on top. As another poster said if more damage is then discovered the cost escalates.
Mine was never taxed again according to t'internet. Seems so wasteful for a car that, whilst 10 years old with mileage to suit, was immaculate and not one single thing had ever gone wrong with it. I fully expect that I would still have it now (five years later) had it not been written off. In any case a write off doesn’t take the car off the road as it will be sold at auction so that conspiracy doesn’t really stack up.
Also, were you due a hire car while yours was repaired? If so that cost would be on top. As another poster said if more damage is then discovered the cost escalates.
As above, had a hire car for a full month, and an expensive one at that. In theory at least, I would have it had it less time had they just fixed the blighter.
It would only have cost less if no parts were required (that may then have a long lead time), no additional damage was found and the job was satisfactory to start with. Otherwise it would have been more.
As said, known cost vs potentially growing cost. They know how likely the cost is to grow as they are dealing with lots of repairs. Ultimately you care about the bottom line too as it directly affects prices. You could have taken a cash payout for repair and kept the car in most cases too.
Dingu said:
beagrizzly said:
Dingu said:
No, it’s a fixed cost to write off vs a potentially escalating one when repairing. Currently the lead time on parts is enormous in some cases with inflated hire car costs and increased labour and part costs anyway. Plus then you are guaranteeing the work moving forwards. All this means the bar is lower for when a company will declare TL. After all minimising the claims cost is in everyone’s interest, customer and company.
In any case a write off doesn’t take the car off the road as it will be sold at auction so that conspiracy doesn’t really stack up.
Also, were you due a hire car while yours was repaired? If so that cost would be on top. As another poster said if more damage is then discovered the cost escalates.
Mine was never taxed again according to t'internet. Seems so wasteful for a car that, whilst 10 years old with mileage to suit, was immaculate and not one single thing had ever gone wrong with it. I fully expect that I would still have it now (five years later) had it not been written off. In any case a write off doesn’t take the car off the road as it will be sold at auction so that conspiracy doesn’t really stack up.
Also, were you due a hire car while yours was repaired? If so that cost would be on top. As another poster said if more damage is then discovered the cost escalates.
As above, had a hire car for a full month, and an expensive one at that. In theory at least, I would have it had it less time had they just fixed the blighter.
It would only have cost less if no parts were required (that may then have a long lead time), no additional damage was found and the job was satisfactory to start with. Otherwise it would have been more.
As said, known cost vs potentially growing cost. They know how likely the cost is to grow as they are dealing with lots of repairs. Ultimately you care about the bottom line too as it directly affects prices. You could have taken a cash payout for repair and kept the car in most cases too.
Long lead time for parts - more of a post-covid thing I think? I certainly hadn't encountered it before.
I take your point about the job turning out to be more expensive, and accept that this could happen. I have, however, have never found this when I have had to repair cars without insurance involvement.
That insurers know their business better than me goes without saying, but I can't see that it is more likely that they would have saved money by writing off in this instance.
I expect there's little judgmement in it anyway - more a 'computer says no' kind of decision.
beagrizzly said:
I very nearly put this on the conspiracy theories thread, and am prepared to be ridiculed.
Is there possibly a collaboration afoot to write off perfectly repairable ICE cars over a certain age, in pursuit of an agenda that may or may not include net zero.
My only 'evidence' is the battle I had with my immaculate commuting car, that was rear ended with relatively minor damage and written off, despite my protestations. I subsequently discovered that the body shop had quoted around £300 less to repair the car than the insurance paid out for me to replace it.
Conversations with others (me moaning about it tbh) have turned out similar stories from others, which made me a bit.
Or was it ever thus, before AGW etc raised its head?
Is there possibly a collaboration afoot to write off perfectly repairable ICE cars over a certain age, in pursuit of an agenda that may or may not include net zero.
My only 'evidence' is the battle I had with my immaculate commuting car, that was rear ended with relatively minor damage and written off, despite my protestations. I subsequently discovered that the body shop had quoted around £300 less to repair the car than the insurance paid out for me to replace it.
Conversations with others (me moaning about it tbh) have turned out similar stories from others, which made me a bit
.Or was it ever thus, before AGW etc raised its head?
That's one of the best ones I've seen for ages, bloody hell.Krikkit said:
beagrizzly said:
I very nearly put this on the conspiracy theories thread, and am prepared to be ridiculed.
Is there possibly a collaboration afoot to write off perfectly repairable ICE cars over a certain age, in pursuit of an agenda that may or may not include net zero.
My only 'evidence' is the battle I had with my immaculate commuting car, that was rear ended with relatively minor damage and written off, despite my protestations. I subsequently discovered that the body shop had quoted around £300 less to repair the car than the insurance paid out for me to replace it.
Conversations with others (me moaning about it tbh) have turned out similar stories from others, which made me a bit.
Or was it ever thus, before AGW etc raised its head?
Is there possibly a collaboration afoot to write off perfectly repairable ICE cars over a certain age, in pursuit of an agenda that may or may not include net zero.
My only 'evidence' is the battle I had with my immaculate commuting car, that was rear ended with relatively minor damage and written off, despite my protestations. I subsequently discovered that the body shop had quoted around £300 less to repair the car than the insurance paid out for me to replace it.
Conversations with others (me moaning about it tbh) have turned out similar stories from others, which made me a bit
.Or was it ever thus, before AGW etc raised its head?
That's one of the best ones I've seen for ages, bloody hell.beagrizzly said:
...the point being that I can't get my head around how it's good business to do what they do/did. Make's a chap's mind wander, and wonder.
Essentially the insurers are trapped between two sets of gouging - the bodyshops quote massive expenses for repairs, and the hire car companies quote enormous fees for their vehicles (especially "like-for-like" replacement).That results in the original claim being very expensive (90% of your car's value) any delay inflating a claim massively at £200/day hire charges for example.
It's just not worth it, especially with the internal costs of dealing with a claim. On the plus side you could buy back your car from them and have it repaired for a pittance and drive around with it essentially for free.
Forums | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff