So what control can I exert over Insurance Company....?

[T40ORA]

My 17 year old but low mileage, extremely good condition, MX5 was rear-ended whilst the wife was driving it. Clear not at fault accident.

The engineer visited yesterday and said that the cost of the repairs are more than the value of the car, so the insurance company would make the car a total loss. Which I obviously don't want.

The other party's insurance will have to pay, and it looks like I have legal cover to claim back uninsured loss; so what chance do I have of getting the repairs made rather than have a write off and having to buy back as a Cat C?

I'm prepared to make a nuisance of myself, writing to the world and their brother as I am irate that through no fault of ours my car gets damaged and not repaired....

TIA

[robinessex]

Have it written off. Take the money. I believe you have first claim on the wreck. Buy it at cost. Pay to have it fixed. I don't think you can force an insurance company to repair it regardless of ecconomic cost

[T40ORA]

robinessex said:

Have it written off. Take the money. I believe you have first claim on the wreck. Buy it at cost. Pay to have it fixed. I don't think you can force an insurance company to repair it regardless of ecconomic cost

But if I buy it and then have it repaired, I will be out of pocket. And end up with a car no better than it was before.

[eltax91]

T40ORA said:

But if I buy it and then have it repaired, I will be out of pocket. And end up with a car no better than it was before.

Now that depends on the level of damage and figures involved for the salvage, payout and repair doesn't it

[Gruber]

First of all, I'm sorry to hear about the accident. Is the good lady ok?

Secondly... The insurance won't pay out more for repairs than the car is worth. Take the money and buy another.

Sadly, life isn't fair. st happens. It's not worth the energy, effort and stress to fight a losing battle. Take the money and move on.

[randlemarcus]

But look at the salvage value, as the parts are almost certainly worth more than the whole. F'rinstance, I might need a steering rack end, a radiator and a Front bumper after a balletic entry into an icy ditch.

[T40ORA]

The Good Lady is fine - I was a very good boy and made sure I asked that before asking about the car damage when she called me

The damage to my car is only small - just the rear bumper and one lens so for a 49k miler in otherwise perfect condition it would be criminal to scrap and break her.

But said bumper, brace, light/lens and labour and paint it is nearly £1500. I am sure that it could be repaired for less than that, but it will still be touch and go.

Wasted energy? Yeah, I guess so. But giving someone a good bking because their practices are iniquitous? Priceless!

[SMGB]

As I understand it case law does let the insurance company do exactly this and its very unfair. There is no way I could replace our 12 year old family holdall Fiat without losing out substantially, its been here from 1 year old and looked after. No way would the market value get anything remotely close.
Buy the salvage back is your only chance to save a car you know and which should live on.

[T40ORA]

SMGB said:

As I understand it case law does let the insurance company do exactly this and its very unfair. There is no way I could replace our 12 year old family holdall Fiat without losing out substantially, its been here from 1 year old and looked after. No way would the market value get anything remotely close.
Buy the salvage back is your only chance to save a car you know and which should live on.

It really is criminal. It it were an at-fault accident, I might understand it more. But some numpty who can't drive (shouldn't drive!) causes me to lose money? Bah.

[SMGB]

T40ORA said:

It really is criminal. It it were an at-fault accident, I might understand it more. But some numpty who can't drive (shouldn't drive!) causes me to lose money? Bah.

Does the MX5 qualify for classic insurance? I have both MGs on an agreed value deal. I realise this is horse/bolt/stable door arsy versy this time but after the payout and repair you will need to re-insure the car

[Monkeylegend]

T40ORA said:

But if I buy it and then have it repaired, I will be out of pocket. And end up with a car no better than it was before.

Which is why the Insurance Co are not prepared to pay for the repairs.

[Krikkit]

Why is it wrong that the company should be allowed to declare the vehicle a loss? The repair industry is a whole can of worms, but assuming the damage was enough (say you scratched/punctured all the panels down the side of a car, for example, making even a realistic repair cost too much) why can't they cut their losses?

In this case buy the car back, repair it and tot it up to experience.

[Gruber]

Pleased to hear the GLW is ok.

I think I misunderstood your first post - I think I'd assumed the damage was worse than it actually is. That being the case, I can absolutely understand why you'd be so miffed with the insurance company's position. Seems such a shame to write off a car over such minor damage.

Good luck with it all.

[rotarymazda]

Gruber said:

It's not worth the energy, effort and stress to fight a losing battle. Take the money and move on.

If the OP really want to repair the vehicle, they can. They will need to learn about:

1. HPI categories
2. Motor Salvage Code of Practice
3. Financial Ombudsman rules, technical notes on car insurance, how to complain.
4. Insurers complaint procedures
5. DVLA/VOSA requirements for write-offs (see VIC process for Cat C and above).

I was told mine was a losing battle, it took three months of arguing but I bought back salvage for two cat B cars, one needs extensive work, the other was an easy fix, all professionally done. I had help from an insurance engineer who knew the law better than my insurance company.

Cat C cars have low market value when repaired. However, there is an HPI approved process for removing a cat advisory.

I had to deal with three layers of management at the insurance company, direct access to their (outsourced) engineers, clarifications on legal requirements from HPI, VOSA and DVLA.

I considered my cars were worth the effort/energy/stress to save from being scrap. Both would have been very difficult to replace.

[T40ORA]

Krikkit said:

Why is it wrong that the company should be allowed to declare the vehicle a loss? The repair industry is a whole can of worms, but assuming the damage was enough (say you scratched/punctured all the panels down the side of a car, for example, making even a realistic repair cost too much) why can't they cut their losses?

In this case buy the car back, repair it and tot it up to experience.

Because it isn't just. I understand the economics of it, but the driver at fault should be paying for his mistake. If it means that his premiums increase due to his failure to take care so be it. He was at fault.

Therefore he should pay - not me. My insurance company should be making his insurance company pay. They in turn extract the money from their client via his premiums.

I should not suffer in any way. And that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is why the laws and regs in this country can be an ass.... IMHO

[Krikkit]

T40ORA said:

Because it isn't just. I understand the economics of it, but the driver at fault should be paying for his mistake. If it means that his premiums increase due to his failure to take care so be it. He was at faults.

Therefore he should pay - not me. My insurance company should be making hos insurance company pay. They in turn extract the money from their client via his premiums.

I should not suffer in any way. And that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is why the laws and regs in this country can be an ass.... IMHO

Have I missed something? You're claiming for someone else's accident on your insurance?

That aside, how will you have lost out of this process? Get the fault party's insurers to give you a settlement representative of the pre-accident value of the car, buy it back at salvage price, repair it, you'll probably break even unless you go insane with the repair standards.

[T40ORA]

Krikkit said:

T40ORA said:

Because it isn't just. I understand the economics of it, but the driver at fault should be paying for his mistake. If it means that his premiums increase due to his failure to take care so be it. He was at faults.

Therefore he should pay - not me. My insurance company should be making hos insurance company pay. They in turn extract the money from their client via his premiums.

I should not suffer in any way. And that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is why the laws and regs in this country can be an ass.... IMHO

Have I missed something? You're claiming for someone else's accident on your insurance?

That aside, how will you have lost out of this process? Get the fault party's insurers to give you a settlement representative of the pre-accident value of the car, buy it back at salvage price, repair it, you'll probably break even unless you go insane with the repair standards.

I claim through my insurance company - they claim back from the party at fault. However, the settlement initially comes from my insurance company. They then grab it back from the other party.

As far as I know (and I don't claim much on insurance) that is one of the things fully comprehensive covers, to simplify things.

So my company send an engineer to assess the damage. They agree the ampunt to be paid. THEN claim back from the party at fault.

So my argument is that they should fix my car, back to the standard before the accident, then claim back whatever the cost is from the guy that caused the accident.

If I buy the car as salvage it will still be a Cat C. And I will then need to find a cheaper way of repairing it; so filling a damaged bumper instead of having a new one. Not replacing the damaged strut behind the bumper etc.

So I will lose out on any combination of time, money, standard of car.

And I repeat - through no fault of our mine,or my wife who was the driver. So where is the justice there?

[rotarymazda]

Krikkit said:

how will you have lost out of this process?

Permanent reduction in car value.
Hassle of VIC process and getting a new V5C. (assuming cat C)
Future increased premiums, even for a "no-fault".
Their insurers will attempt to offer less than the car is worth.



I could go on....

[rotarymazda]

T40ORA said:

So my argument is that they should fix my car, back to the standard before the accident, then claim back whatever the cost is from the guy that caused the accident.

Your insurance will (should) get you back in the position you were pre-accident, whether this involves repair or replacement (their choice).

T40ORA said:

So I will lose out on any combination of time, money, standard of car.

Insurance repair quotes usually involve new components. Used MX5 parts are easily available and very cheap. Mine needed a new ECU, £1500 from Mazda but £200 used.

T40ORA said:

And I repeat - through no fault of our mine,or my wife who was the driver. So where is the justice there?

Not a lot. At least insurance will mitigate your losses.

[T40ORA]

rotarymazda said:

T40ORA said:

So my argument is that they should fix my car, back to the standard before the accident, then claim back whatever the cost is from the guy that caused the accident.

Your insurance will (should) get you back in the position you were pre-accident, whether this involves repair or replacement (their choice).

T40ORA said:

So I will lose out on any combination of time, money, standard of car.

Insurance repair quotes usually involve new components. Used MX5 parts are easily available and very cheap. Mine needed a new ECU, £1500 from Mazda but £200 used.

T40ORA said:

And I repeat - through no fault of our mine,or my wife who was the driver. So where is the justice there?

Not a lot. At least insurance will mitigate your losses.

I have legal/uninsured loss cover. I am hoping that they will be of some help in making sure that I am back to pre-accident standards. Might be pi**ing in the wind with that though....