Do insurance companies just Cat N cheaper cars these days?

[CraigyMc]

I was in a little (and I do mean little) bump a few days ago. While I was leaving a roundabout, another car drove into the drivers side rear door of mine while trying to use the one lane I was in. Other driver had to change lanes into the one I was in to do this. I say it was entirely the other driver's fault.

The damage is very limited on my car, only paintwork -- I think it actually will literally buff out. On the other car, similar, paintwork. neither car has visible denting.

My car is old (2011) and high mileage (172K) and consequently of limited value, probably in the range of £4K. I have a comprehensive insurance policy.

My insurer wants to declare the car a total loss over the damage rather than pay for a smart repair. I'm flabbergasted at this. It also appears they have no interest in fighting my corner for the blame for the incident.

Is this normal for older/lower value cars?

Should I cancel the claim and just get the car repaired myself leaving only the 3rd party claims management part for my insurer to pay for?

I could provide a photo of the damage but if you just imagine a car without any visible damage from 10ft away, you're already picturing it.

[BUG4LIFE]

I know you're meant to, but if the damage is small and won't cost a bunch, why did you bother to tell your insurance company?

[Krikkit]

Unfortunately this is the way the insurance industry goes - they won't really dispute roundabout collisions without really good footage, because it's too contestable, and old cars they can just assess and write off. Cheaper than trying any kind of repair.

[CraigyMc]

BUG4LIFE said:

I know you're meant to, but if the damage is small and won't cost a bunch, why did you bother to tell your insurance company?

I'd report any collision as it's a contractual requirement of the insurance policy.
It also smells like a cash for crash scam. I expected the 3rd party to claim whiplash and so on, based on the fact that the driver of the other car refused to provide any insurance or other details at the scene, as well as the fact that they'd just driven into the side of my car which would have been clearly visible.

Their front left wing connected with the driver's side rear door of my car. I was driving in a straight line at the time. If you picture what the other driver would have been seeing just before the collision, the whole left side of their windscreen and some of their front passenger-side window would have been my car as they steered left, into my car.

TL;DR, I thought this would be a scam.

[thiscocks]

I've had similar but a claim from the other party even though imo it was the other drivers fault. Probably a bit more damage than yours as both our cars had visible dents but I personally wouldn't have bothered claiming myself still. I just can't be arsed with the hassle unless it's serious damage. Not sure how it will work out- taken the best part of a year for it to move along to the stage where my insurance has just asked for my version of events.

[CraigyMc]

Krikkit said:

Unfortunately this is the way the insurance industry goes - they won't really dispute roundabout collisions without really good footage, because it's too contestable, and old cars they can just assess and write off. Cheaper than trying any kind of repair.

This is what I fear.

I've never been in an incident where my car has been worth less than tens of thousands of pounds before.

It does mean that for low value cars, insurance becomes quite a different thing than for high value ones.

• high-value: car will be repaired and returned, for light damage. Chances of Cat N are pretty slim.

• low-value: car will be declared Cat N without further ado, no repair valuation, for light damage.

What it effectively means is that the type of service the insurer provides is pretty different in each case. I feel sorry for people whose main car is always an older/cheaper one.

[J4CKO]

CraigyMc said:

I was in a little (and I do mean little) bump a few days ago. While I was leaving a roundabout, another car drove into the drivers side rear door of mine while trying to use the one lane I was in. Other driver had to change lanes into the one I was in to do this. I say it was entirely the other driver's fault.

The damage is very limited on my car, only paintwork -- I think it actually will literally buff out. On the other car, similar, paintwork. neither car has visible denting.

My car is old (2011) and high mileage (172K) and consequently of limited value, probably in the range of £4K. I have a comprehensive insurance policy.

My insurer wants to declare the car a total loss over the damage rather than pay for a smart repair. I'm flabbergasted at this. It also appears they have no interest in fighting my corner for the blame for the incident.

Is this normal for older/lower value cars?

Should I cancel the claim and just get the car repaired myself leaving only the 3rd party claims management part for my insurer to pay for?

I could provide a photo of the damage but if you just imagine a car without any visible damage from 10ft away, you're already picturing it.

A 13 year old car with 172k is largely worthless from their point of view, whatever you think its worth its generally much less, unless its something very tidy then you would struggle to sell it at that mileage unless very cheap.

They pay you out, then stick it through a salvage auction, then hike your premiums for making a claim.

Its not worth involving them for bumps like that, get the T cut out or live with it, you involve them and they just make things worse in these scenarios, mad to call them for a scuff.

[Roger Irrelevant]

Sounds alright to me - isn't there a high chance that you'll be able to buy the car off the insurer for buttons, take the payout, effect a repair for much less (or just don't bother), pocket the difference, and continue to drive the car for several years yet? That's what I'd do anyway; I couldn't care less about the Cat N marker itself so I'd quite like it to happen to me!

[CraigyMc]

J4CKO said:

CraigyMc said:

I was in a little (and I do mean little) bump a few days ago. While I was leaving a roundabout, another car drove into the drivers side rear door of mine while trying to use the one lane I was in. Other driver had to change lanes into the one I was in to do this. I say it was entirely the other driver's fault.

The damage is very limited on my car, only paintwork -- I think it actually will literally buff out. On the other car, similar, paintwork. neither car has visible denting.

My car is old (2011) and high mileage (172K) and consequently of limited value, probably in the range of £4K. I have a comprehensive insurance policy.

My insurer wants to declare the car a total loss over the damage rather than pay for a smart repair. I'm flabbergasted at this. It also appears they have no interest in fighting my corner for the blame for the incident.

Is this normal for older/lower value cars?

Should I cancel the claim and just get the car repaired myself leaving only the 3rd party claims management part for my insurer to pay for?

I could provide a photo of the damage but if you just imagine a car without any visible damage from 10ft away, you're already picturing it.

A 13 year old car with 172k is largely worthless from their point of view, whatever you think its worth its generally much less, unless its something very tidy then you would struggle to sell it at that mileage unless very cheap.

They pay you out, then stick it through a salvage auction, then hike your premiums for making a claim.

Its not worth involving them for bumps like that, get the T cut out or live with it, you involve them and they just make things worse in these scenarios, mad to call them for a scuff.

My understanding is that I have to involve them to report the incident in the first place - as a contractual obligation. Am I wrong?

As for the claim part, I think I can probably just cancel that process. It's new news to me as of today that insurers actually behave like this, which is where the thread came from.

You're spot on with the "T-cut it yourself" although I'd probably just take the car to a local chips-away franchisee or someone else handy with a wet sander. I don't have the time or space to learn how to do it properly.

It hurts that I put £2600 in the thing in August to have the timing chain and clutch renewed, and it is quite a tidy example (the paintwork is like a mirror other than the scratches from this). The car has practically every factory option going from that era, but of course that counts for nothing in a glass's guide valuation, so while it's worth it to me, it isn't in the market for people who don't look at stuff like that.

The injustice stings acutely on this for me. It's not really about the money to me but that's all it is to the insurer. Also that from my point of view it should be a non-fault claim.

[CraigyMc]

Roger Irrelevant said:

Sounds alright to me - isn't there a high chance that you'll be able to buy the car off the insurer for buttons, take the payout, effect a repair for much less (or just don't bother), pocket the difference, and continue to drive the car for several years yet? That's what I'd do anyway; I couldn't care less about the Cat N marker itself so I'd quite like it to happen to me!

I've read some bad things about that process with this insurer. They appoint copart to do valuations, which involves them taking the car away. In some cases it doesn't come back, but instead goes for auction and you get the cash payout without any possibility to buy the car.

In my case that would suck as the car is not replaceable in the market (having recently been overhauled) for any money never mind what the insurer is likely to pay.

Edited to add: I'd like to b esure before I do something like that.

Edited by CraigyMc on Thursday 19th December 12:59

[J4CKO]

CraigyMc said:

J4CKO said:

CraigyMc said:

I was in a little (and I do mean little) bump a few days ago. While I was leaving a roundabout, another car drove into the drivers side rear door of mine while trying to use the one lane I was in. Other driver had to change lanes into the one I was in to do this. I say it was entirely the other driver's fault.

The damage is very limited on my car, only paintwork -- I think it actually will literally buff out. On the other car, similar, paintwork. neither car has visible denting.

My car is old (2011) and high mileage (172K) and consequently of limited value, probably in the range of £4K. I have a comprehensive insurance policy.

My insurer wants to declare the car a total loss over the damage rather than pay for a smart repair. I'm flabbergasted at this. It also appears they have no interest in fighting my corner for the blame for the incident.

Is this normal for older/lower value cars?

Should I cancel the claim and just get the car repaired myself leaving only the 3rd party claims management part for my insurer to pay for?

I could provide a photo of the damage but if you just imagine a car without any visible damage from 10ft away, you're already picturing it.

A 13 year old car with 172k is largely worthless from their point of view, whatever you think its worth its generally much less, unless its something very tidy then you would struggle to sell it at that mileage unless very cheap.

They pay you out, then stick it through a salvage auction, then hike your premiums for making a claim.

Its not worth involving them for bumps like that, get the T cut out or live with it, you involve them and they just make things worse in these scenarios, mad to call them for a scuff.

My understanding is that I have to involve them to report the incident in the first place - as a contractual obligation. Am I wrong?

As for the claim part, I think I can probably just cancel that process. It's new news to me as of today that insurers actually behave like this, which is where the thread came from.

You're spot on with the "T-cut it yourself" although I'd probably just take the car to a local chips-away franchisee or someone else handy with a wet sander. I don't have the time or space to learn how to do it properly.

It hurts that I put £2600 in the thing in August to have the timing chain and clutch renewed, and it is quite a tidy example (the paintwork is like a mirror other than the scratches from this). The car has practically every factory option going from that era, but of course that counts for nothing in a glass's guide valuation, so while it's worth it to me, it isn't in the market for people who don't look at stuff like that.

The injustice stings acutely on this for me. It's not really about the money to me but that's all it is to the insurer. Also that from my point of view it should be a non-fault claim.

Key thing is to not take it personally when dealing with insurance or people buying your car.

Its hard not to take it as a personal affront when people offer you pennies for something you have looked after and cherished, for tens of thousands of miles and years of your life but, it counts for nothing with insurance companies and buyers.

They want the most of the least, and are often unrealistic about it, but turn it round, from their point of view its a high mileage, older car that could expire expensively, they dont know you have spent money on it and done it properly as most folk dont and try to offload cars with thousands in deffered maintenance.

I have a Fiesta ST I have put a lot of time and effort into, had some joker on the ST Facebook group tell me it was worth three grand, on a good day, the front uprated brakes were two alone, and you dont get all your money back but three grand ? Good job am not selling.

Need to focus on what its worth to you, its weird how attached we can get to cars and there is this stark and insensitive time when you need to move it on where its reduced down to a few quid, usually by the chancers on the phone "Best price for cash", its only a car but that can sort of smart a bit.

Insurance companies are generally hard to deal with and best avoided if possible, there mainly just to cover big mishaps and the legal requirements.

I still find it weird how a perfectly good car can be crushed for minor paint damage.

[FA57REN]

Also consider that booking a shop slot for paintwork repair can defer more extensive work that other, more 'valuable', damaged cars might require. So it's not that your car isn't worth repairing, just that there's also an E63 that would cost 60k to write-off or 7k to repair. There are only so many repair jobs that can be done in a year.

Plus there's the subtle advantage of slowly migrating the insured stock of cars to newer, 'safer' models with active measures that reduce the risk of how most people drive.

Edited by FA57REN on Thursday 19th December 14:30

[Shaoxter]

CraigyMc said:

I feel sorry for people whose main car is always an older/cheaper one.

Why do you feel sorry for them? They get a payout and can buy another car. Many people would prefer that to driving around in a crash repaired car.

If your car is valuable to yourself for sentimental reasons or whatever, you can always buy it back and repair it yourself. Yes it will have a marker against it but presumably at that mileage you'd just run it into the ground.

[Davie]

You see this all the time on forums whee people are arguing the repair costs are minimal thus why it's been deemed a Cat N is a joke and how Barry could fix it for a fiver... however that's not how the industry operates and if the insurers sent Barry round with a touch up stick, there would be outrage! What is a huge factor is associated costs - even getting a car into an approved bodyshop for a "simple" cosmetic repair can very quickly start to escalate in costs, then there's potential hire car charges and possible parts delays, customers not happy at the work etc etc.

It's sometimes just far more cost effective to total loss it, write a cheque for the owner and send it to the salvage auctions and that's pretty much it - or yes, offer it back to the owner for a nominal fee plus a slightly reduced payout cheque and that's it, done.

[MustangGT]

As far as I am aware you need to agree to a write-off. Talk to them about an offer for an amount without writing off the car.

If you really think it is not your fault then the 3rd party should be paying anyway.

[mikey_b]

Davie said:

You see this all the time on forums whee people are arguing the repair costs are minimal thus why it's been deemed a Cat N is a joke and how Barry could fix it for a fiver... however that's not how the industry operates and if the insurers sent Barry round with a touch up stick, there would be outrage! What is a huge factor is associated costs - even getting a car into an approved bodyshop for a "simple" cosmetic repair can very quickly start to escalate in costs, then there's potential hire car charges and possible parts delays, customers not happy at the work etc etc.

It's sometimes just far more cost effective to total loss it, write a cheque for the owner and send it to the salvage auctions and that's pretty much it - or yes, offer it back to the owner for a nominal fee plus a slightly reduced payout cheque and that's it, done.

^^^ This all day ^^^. Insurance repairs on a 13yo high mileage car are absolutely not worth it. OP - take the payout, arrange to buy it back, and if you want to sort the scuff on the door out then use some of the payout cash to do so. Then you still have the same car, and some extra cash in your pocket.

[Stick Legs]

My classic car policy has an agreed value & a buy back if written off clause.

Essentially if someone bumps my TVR there is no way the insurance company will want to get involved in rebuilding it to industry standards.

Easier for them & me to pay out 2/3 the agreed value & let me restore it myself.

I think in some ways this is tacit acceptance that thats exactly what the OP is suggesting they do.

Edited by Stick Legs on Thursday 19th December 15:25

[J4CKO]

Shaoxter said:

CraigyMc said:

I feel sorry for people whose main car is always an older/cheaper one.

Why do you feel sorry for them? They get a payout and can buy another car. Many people would prefer that to driving around in a crash repaired car.

If your car is valuable to yourself for sentimental reasons or whatever, you can always buy it back and repair it yourself. Yes it will have a marker against it but presumably at that mileage you'd just run it into the ground.

Because, sometimes you have an old, cheap car because you dont have loads of money but keep it in good order, then someone wipes it out and you end up with the "market value" which is the square root of bugger all and then have to go searching for a car, looking at all the overpriced toss thats out there.

Which invariably needs work, comes on four bald and or ditchfinders and is more than you got paid out.

So you lose out in money, time and can end up with a worse car unless you spend loads more.

[POIDH]

J4CKO said:

Shaoxter said:

CraigyMc said:

I feel sorry for people whose main car is always an older/cheaper one.

Why do you feel sorry for them? They get a payout and can buy another car. Many people would prefer that to driving around in a crash repaired car.

If your car is valuable to yourself for sentimental reasons or whatever, you can always buy it back and repair it yourself. Yes it will have a marker against it but presumably at that mileage you'd just run it into the ground.

Because, sometimes you have an old, cheap car because you dont have loads of money but keep it in good order, then someone wipes it out and you end up with the "market value" which is the square root of bugger all and then have to go searching for a car, looking at all the overpriced toss thats out there.

Which invariably needs work, comes on four bald and or ditchfinders and is more than you got paid out.

So you lose out in money, time and can end up with a worse car unless you spend loads more.

^ exactly this.
My 'cheap' car is worth a huge amount to me as I know it, it wears decent all-season tyres, is serviced, too weeks and weeks to find the one which was well maintained and spec wanted etc etc.
If a car is written off I have a week to find some vaguely similar car, without the servicing and car I have spent on mine to make sure it is reliable.

What I do not get is the economics of a minor damage at perhaps £1k for insurer to fix, but they are keen to pay out £more to write something off.

[CraigyMc]

POIDH said:

J4CKO said:

Shaoxter said:

CraigyMc said:

I feel sorry for people whose main car is always an older/cheaper one.

Why do you feel sorry for them? They get a payout and can buy another car. Many people would prefer that to driving around in a crash repaired car.

If your car is valuable to yourself for sentimental reasons or whatever, you can always buy it back and repair it yourself. Yes it will have a marker against it but presumably at that mileage you'd just run it into the ground.

Because, sometimes you have an old, cheap car because you dont have loads of money but keep it in good order, then someone wipes it out and you end up with the "market value" which is the square root of bugger all and then have to go searching for a car, looking at all the overpriced toss thats out there.

Which invariably needs work, comes on four bald and or ditchfinders and is more than you got paid out.

So you lose out in money, time and can end up with a worse car unless you spend loads more.

^ exactly this.
My 'cheap' car is worth a huge amount to me as I know it, it wears decent all-season tyres, is serviced, too weeks and weeks to find the one which was well maintained and spec wanted etc etc.
If a car is written off I have a week to find some vaguely similar car, without the servicing and car I have spent on mine to make sure it is reliable.

What I do not get is the economics of a minor damage at perhaps £1k for insurer to fix, but they are keen to pay out £more to write something off.

Yup.

I've been the only driver of my car since new, I know it's been serviced properly, not ragged about and so on.

I'm not expert at the economics of repairs but I can sort of see where there might be a clip level below which the insurer just has a policy of paying out instead of actually repairing if the cost of admin+repair+risk of it not turning out correctly enough is higher than the cost of writing the car off.

I think some people may not have read the part where I'm concerned that when copart take the car for evaluation they may keep it and sell it on. That's happened to customers before.
--> https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DR...

Edited by CraigyMc on Thursday 19th December 16:53