Happy New Year - Not for me
Discussion
Wow! What a thread. Having read it all D1ckie have you got your solicitor to put a hold on the vehicle yet? This surely is the first thing you do and the cost can be charged back to the insurance company. The ombudsman would have a field day with this.
£8k for a Sag you know has been looked after and has service history, 20k to put back together and you aren't far off what the company that seem to have a poor reputation are asking for it in its broken state.
Get a hold notice put on that car ASAP!!
£8k for a Sag you know has been looked after and has service history, 20k to put back together and you aren't far off what the company that seem to have a poor reputation are asking for it in its broken state.
Get a hold notice put on that car ASAP!!
Sorry to hear what happened to your car and how things worked out.
I truly don't understand how the car cannot be yours anymore... It's a shame and I hope it will get sorted.
So many of us would see this as a unique opportunity to own a Sag even if there's 20k worth of repairs... Try to get it back as its better in our hands (a Tiv fan) then a dealers
I truly don't understand how the car cannot be yours anymore... It's a shame and I hope it will get sorted.
So many of us would see this as a unique opportunity to own a Sag even if there's 20k worth of repairs... Try to get it back as its better in our hands (a Tiv fan) then a dealers
I have been looking at the two rebuilt Tuscan 2 cars these guys have for sale. Cat D TVRs don't worry me providing they are repaired properly and priced accordingly. However, having read this thread I would rather boil my own testicles than go within 100 miles of their yard. What a cock up. It you look at the remaining TVR dealers it takes years to build up a good reputation, but five minutes on a keyboard to completely wipe it out.
I have followed and read this thread with interest. I would agree with the OP that if your car is damaged and repaired it never feels the same. Most insurance policies seem to allow them to use new, used and pattern parts in the repairs. In the past I have had insurance work done through non fault accidents and the results have varied to the point of OK to unacceptable but the cars were never the same to me.
So the OP got his agreed value for the car, which may have been more if it had a more up to date valuation, to start again without all the hassle.There are loads of threads on the cost of insurance, use of compare sites multicar policies etc to get the cost down. My average cost is about £500 per year so over my 33 years of driving I would have spent £16500 with various companies. The OP had an accident and his insurance company paid him his valuation which is what we would all expect. If it had been repaired for the OP it would have been unclassified, but now as CAT B/D the new owner at least buys with his eyes open and chooses to do so.
I understand wanting sentimental stuff back and would be the same but the only interest here seems to be to buy the car back for £8k spend £20k getting it fixed and then have the car and the £40k plus payout, why would this be fair?
Paul
So the OP got his agreed value for the car, which may have been more if it had a more up to date valuation, to start again without all the hassle.There are loads of threads on the cost of insurance, use of compare sites multicar policies etc to get the cost down. My average cost is about £500 per year so over my 33 years of driving I would have spent £16500 with various companies. The OP had an accident and his insurance company paid him his valuation which is what we would all expect. If it had been repaired for the OP it would have been unclassified, but now as CAT B/D the new owner at least buys with his eyes open and chooses to do so.
I understand wanting sentimental stuff back and would be the same but the only interest here seems to be to buy the car back for £8k spend £20k getting it fixed and then have the car and the £40k plus payout, why would this be fair?
Paul
m999psw said:
I have followed and read this thread with interest. I would agree with the OP that if your car is damaged and repaired it never feels the same. Most insurance policies seem to allow them to use new, used and pattern parts in the repairs. In the past I have had insurance work done through non fault accidents and the results have varied to the point of OK to unacceptable but the cars were never the same to me.
Paul
Dont think this would apply to some of the TVR bodyshops, general opinion seams to be they can achieve "better than new" and a lot of these guys are ex TVR workersPaul
,
Hi all
I've received two emails this week from the insurance company, but dont want to post details yet as this could go to court and I dont want to say anything that might cause any issues and also because of PH Name & Shame rules. So until I've got to a stage where I either get a satifactory response or commence with proceedings I do not want to say too much.
The main point that has come out of this is that their response to me was full of contradicting statements from their original correspondence which is the area that I am now discussing with them.
I will decide next week if I am going to commence legal proceedings against them and will update soon. I will also let you know the companies involved both broker and insurance company and how they both give you different information, especially about the policy I had at the time of the crash
I've received two emails this week from the insurance company, but dont want to post details yet as this could go to court and I dont want to say anything that might cause any issues and also because of PH Name & Shame rules. So until I've got to a stage where I either get a satifactory response or commence with proceedings I do not want to say too much.
The main point that has come out of this is that their response to me was full of contradicting statements from their original correspondence which is the area that I am now discussing with them.
I will decide next week if I am going to commence legal proceedings against them and will update soon. I will also let you know the companies involved both broker and insurance company and how they both give you different information, especially about the policy I had at the time of the crash
.
LOVE that idea. Richard - good luck, fingers crossed, and thanks for the update.m999psw said:
the only interest here seems to be to buy the car back for £8k spend £20k getting it fixed and then have the car and the £40k plus payout, why would this be fair?
Paul
The agreed valuation is paid by the insurer. What was it again? 40k odd?Paul
28k of that is spent getting the car back on the road although being a cat C it is now worth considerably less. The remaining wedge in the OP's pocket covers this "loss" in the cars worth... Not to mention paying for his time and effort. Simples.
m999psw said:
Gutu12, but that's the point the OP had a crash and the insurance company paid him the value he asked them for (agreed beforehand)so the car is no longer his. Why does he think he has the right to now buy it back fix and have both.
Although I certainly don't want to put words in the OP's mouth, he presumably does feel that the settlement isn't the issue. However, instead of using the payout to buy a replacement car he may have liked the opportunity to buy back the write off in order to attempt a repair.I do take your point (if this indeed is what it is) that had the car been in anyway repairable it shouldn't have been classified a cat B in the first place and any settlement should have been based on the cost of repair. That wasn't his call, it was the insurers, although they clearly changed their mind when approached by the breaker.
It seems that it has now become an argument of principle anyway, the OP being clearly irked by the whole scenario and IMO he should be.
Also, apologies to the OP for discussing your business openly.
Edited by gutu12 on Saturday 27th April 09:15
gutu12 said:
m999psw said:
Gutu12, but that's the point the OP had a crash and the insurance company paid him the value he asked them for (agreed beforehand)so the car is no longer his. Why does he think he has the right to now buy it back fix and have both.
Although I certainly don't want to put words in the OP's mouth, he presumably does feel that the settlement isn't the issue. However, instead of using the payout to buy a replacement car he may have liked the opportunity to buy back the write off in order to attempt a repair.I do take your point (if this indeed is what it is) that had the car been in anyway repairable it shouldn't have been classified a cat B in the first place and any settlement should have been based on the cost of repair. That wasn't his call, it was the insurers, although they clearly changed their mind when approached by the breaker.
It seems that it has now become an argument of principle anyway, the OP being clearly irked by the whole scenario and IMO he should be.
Also, apologies to the OP for discussing your business openly.
Edited by gutu12 on Saturday 27th April 09:15
It's awful that he's lost his Sag, and that those rouges in the North East are rubbing his nose in it about the value of his Sag, but what is his loss, once his insurance company have paid out, he no longer has any claim on it. IF his insurance company or the salvage team have fraudulently changed the status of the car to enable it to be sold on, that's where the fault is and action should be taken by the appropriate ombudsman. But as I read it, the only thing that the op has lost is the opertunity to buy back the car, which surly would be at the insurance companies discretion anyway!
Paul
The point is the change of classification - the OP was told the car would never be on the road again, so he accepted the payout (Cat B).
The classification of the car then changed (to Cat C), thus allowing it to be repaired and put back on the road - without the ex-owners knowledge. The car was then found up for sale, and you know the rest.
The point is if the car was Cat C from the beginning, then it would be repaired, end of story.
The classification of the car then changed (to Cat C), thus allowing it to be repaired and put back on the road - without the ex-owners knowledge. The car was then found up for sale, and you know the rest.
The point is if the car was Cat C from the beginning, then it would be repaired, end of story.
I think the point is that the insurance company said the car was a Cat B which means it can never return to the road so the owner had no option but to settle nor to buy the car back and the OP has this in writing!!!! but as soon as it was settled the insurance company then changed there mind and said it was a cat C and sold it to the company up north for a very low price of 8k now up for sale for 22.5k so i think if it were me i would want to know why this has happened and i would feel very annoyed and would want some answers.Hope you get things sorted richard.
Sorry Don i think i have said pretty much what you have!!
Sorry Don i think i have said pretty much what you have!!
Hmmm, some interesting comments....
To clear things up, I am considering my position for two reasons;
1) I settled as I was told the car was Cat B, what else could I do?? Had I been toild the car was Cat C then this would have given me the option of buying the car off the insurance company, remembe that the car belongs to the policy holder, not the insurance company.
2) The value they paid me has been based on contradicting statements from the insurance company. They firstly offered me X in settlement to which I disputed as I had a guarnateed value Y on the car when I renewed in December. They then agreed this and paid me Y, however they have since said that they paid me based on the market value, however the market value is greater than Y so this now also forms part of my complaint with them.
This dispute is due to the insurance companies advice to me I made a decision that would not have been the decision I would have made had I known the car was Cat C. Trying to find a replacement car of the same condition and mileage is not going to be easy.
To clear things up, I am considering my position for two reasons;
1) I settled as I was told the car was Cat B, what else could I do?? Had I been toild the car was Cat C then this would have given me the option of buying the car off the insurance company, remembe that the car belongs to the policy holder, not the insurance company.
2) The value they paid me has been based on contradicting statements from the insurance company. They firstly offered me X in settlement to which I disputed as I had a guarnateed value Y on the car when I renewed in December. They then agreed this and paid me Y, however they have since said that they paid me based on the market value, however the market value is greater than Y so this now also forms part of my complaint with them.
This dispute is due to the insurance companies advice to me I made a decision that would not have been the decision I would have made had I known the car was Cat C. Trying to find a replacement car of the same condition and mileage is not going to be easy.
In my opinion it's the insurance company who should have an issue with their assessor:-
Firstly he assesses a car to be Cat B valued at £5k then changes his mind and says it Cat C at £8k
Secondly as a Cat C car with no work being done on it , it goes up for sale at £22.5k giving a nice profit for someone with little effort.
I think the assessor has a few questions to answer.
Firstly he assesses a car to be Cat B valued at £5k then changes his mind and says it Cat C at £8k
Secondly as a Cat C car with no work being done on it , it goes up for sale at £22.5k giving a nice profit for someone with little effort.
I think the assessor has a few questions to answer.
If anyone would like a bit of amusement re TVR Dean, he recently bought a damaged S1 Elise that had done 319,000 miles. Poor chap mustn't be too hot with numbers as he tried to sell the car on stating the mileage was 31,900. He also declared it as Cat D, not the reality that it was a Cat C. Naughty naughty.
Gassing Station | Tamora, T350 & Sagaris | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff