On or around Sat, 19 May 2007 07:44:48 GMT, "Simon Cochran" enlightened us thusly:
I thought the point of the VIC was to check that it was the same vehicle and to get rid of the cat C write-off. in my limited understanding, cat C doesn't mean "this thing should never go on the road again", it's a financial decision only and usually the result of arsey insurers and garages on the make.
if it's once repaired correctly and thereafter MOTed, then it should be back on the road as before.
On or around Fri, 18 May 2007 18:42:12 +0100, Mark Solesbury enlightened us thusly:
were you aware of the insurance write-off problem at the time you sold it? Obviously, you didn't have to get a new V5 since you already had one. Did you insure it elsewhere after the rebuild? If so, how come the insurers didn't flag up the cat C on it?
HPI costs, though.
If you want to appear totally up front and since you know the thing's legit, I'd offer either to pay for the VIC or to split the difference.
Sadly a Cat C is for life, and that is why it has a huge impact upon the value of the vehicle. Resulting in the book price for a vehicle being reduced by 50%.
It's a bit of a bugger, no matter the standard of repair carried out, there is no way of havving the Cat C removed.
Thats why accident damaged cars with the accident recorded fetch less than an equally damaged car but with unrecorded damage.
I know that a Cat C is earmed for relatively minor stuff when it's the dealers that are estimating for the repairs.
In the real world cars get damaged and thats not a problem, but a recorded catagory of damage affects the price big time.
The insurance dont seem to have a problem with it, I insured it with Sureterm for 6 months, and the new owener has had it for 4.
Its only the DVLA that have this issue - Ive not got much of a clue on the cats, and what they mean. All i know that it was because the cost of the repair was more than 50% of the vehicle.
On or around Sat, 19 May 2007 11:51:30 GMT, "Simon Cochran" enlightened us thusly:
Bloody system's crook, then. Granted, if it's written off as "unfit for safe repair" (cat D?) then that should stick.
but, FFS, Mark's 90 only had panel damage, and it was only "non-economic" thanks to morons. I had one almost written off on that basis, but I made them send me a copy of the quote and then paid to have the car hauled back to my local garage and got a sensible quote, which included the use of second-hand parts and didn't include a whole lot of unnecessary work and parts. The 2 quotes, IIRC, were something over £3500 and something under £2000, and it was repaired under the insurance.
I reckon I'll start one of those petitions, campaign for a change in regulations such that cat C can be removed following an engineer's inspection and VIC that the motor is the correct one and that it's been properly fixed.
I'm assuming that the system is a government one. anyone know for sure? It'll affect the wording rather...
GrnOval uttered summat worrerz funny about:
Why were you taking your Horse to the small claims court? And I though your name was Simon......
Lee D
On or around Sat, 19 May 2007 17:51:47 +0100, Mark Solesbury enlightened us thusly:
how many quotes? see my other post...
Sorry about the quotes..
No, really this time. ;)
On or around Sat, 19 May 2007 21:41:04 +0100, Mark Solesbury enlightened us thusly:
I meant how many quotes for the repair...
Nah leave it as it is. I managed to use the system to my favour when I was "negotiating" a settlement on the RR. Used wisely it can be quite a potential embaressment to an intransigent insurance comapny.
On or around Sat, 19 May 2007 21:08:31 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones) enlightened us thusly:
I guess it has pluses and minuses, like anything else. In the case of Mark's ex-motor, though, it was written off due to panel damage and has been repaired - it's a technical write-off with no safety aspects and as such it ought to be possible to remove the stigma.
I'm all in favour of a thing that indelibly marks something that's been bent all out of shape - even if it is straightened out and repaired, chances are it's not as strong as the original.
Any remaining "stigma" is something you need to negotiate with the insurance at the time of the settlement. You have to make a decision based on all the implications. In my case I made it perfectly clear that I would only accept the money on offer in lieu of repair with no Cat A, B or C to remain on the vehicle. It was obviously a big enough issue to swing a decent extra payment ;)
It probably also helps that I keep my insurance with one firm and can make a strong argument that maybe that loyalty should have some rewards.
I've seen enough bodged repairs to support the concept of a record of a repair big enough to involve the insurance having been made. Maybe we need extra tiers in the system?
The only way a vehicle can get a catagory is when the insurance declare it as beyond economic repair. If a vehicle is repaired and the repair is paid for by the insurance company, then no catagory is attached to the vehicle.
On or around Sun, 20 May 2007 14:39:43 GMT, "Simon Cochran" enlightened us thusly:
yeah, this is the root of the problem. "Beyond economic repair" on my sierra, for example, which they value at £200, would be almost any damage. However, I choose to think that it's worth preserving, if I can, and as such would not baulk at spending more money than it's "worth" here and now to repair it if it were damaged. In this case, the car's not "worth" much right now, but it's one of quite a small production of cars and since they're all now 20+ years old and not "sought after" for the most part they're not being preserved. Perhaps in 10 years or maybe 20 it'll be "worth" lots of money as a rare classic.
As someone who has just been through a long and protracted claim "negotiation" the only thing I would like to see changed is an open declaration by my insurers of the book value they put on the vehicle at each policy renewal. I could then make an informed decision with regard to which level of cover was most cost effective.
On or around Sun, 20 May 2007 12:38:26 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones) enlightened us thusly:
Maybe so.
OK... just found
Mark's, provided (as I believe to be the case) it had no damage to the chassis probably was really cat D not cat C, although in practice the only difference appears to be the VIC, which is not required for a cat D but is for a cat C.
However, from the sound of it, the buyer knew that it'd been damaged and repaired and in that case it's rather up to the buyer to make sure of the status, caveat emptor an' all that. If the seller KNOWS it's been declared cat C and tries to sell it without mentioning that it was damaged, there might be a comeback, I suppose. But if it's properly repaired and safe, you'd have a hard time proving that it was not fit for purpose or suchlike.
I still reckon there's scope for a method of revising the assessment. I had damage to the 110 which, had it been quoted by a LR main dealer, would have got it written off, basically a front end shunt involving mainly one wing and the track rod and nothing much else. But to get a dealer to supply and fit a wing probably costs well into 4 figures.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.