No fault accident - stopping car from being Cat "C"

In article , Concerned about this writes

Counter the insulting offers by scouring the paper and online ads for same model car, similar year, similar mileage and use those as evidence that the settlement they are offering is too low.

Never take the first offer.

If you like the car and want to keep it, say so. They'll probably be glad not to have to pay to dispose of it.

Went through this with a VW Passat which was rear-ended and got a fair settlement in the end, but you have to be persistent. The damage looked minor (cracked bumper) but the boot lid wouldn't open. Once the garage got it open they found the boot floor was buckled = write off.

Concerned about this gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

The only difference between a CatC and a CatD is that you'll need to get a VIC on the car before you get another V5C issued for it.

If your main priority is to bring this to an end, there's an easy answer.

Thanks Mike. Made it clear from day one that I wasn't prepared to be out of pocket by even one penny, that I wanted to either keep my car or wanted a direct replacement. The stumbling block here is very definitely the engineer, even my claims manager made a complaint about him. Unfortunately, his female manager is no better.

Cheers,

Which is of course time/inconvenience and money.

It is my understanding (may be wrong) that with "unrecorded or "Cat D" your MOT stays in force, with "Cat C" it is canceled.

As the last claim I made was over 30 years ago, things are *very* different. God, it was easy back then ;)

Cheers.

Concerned about this gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Since an MOT is a bare minimum standard for any vehicle on the road, that should be a mere formality.

Indeed, but it is all time and money. I put my car through it's MOT a month ago, I'm damned if I'm going to do it again so soon.

Cheers.

Concerned about this posted

I had this a few years ago. I got nowhere with my insurer. After nearly a year of their (or rather their claims handling firm's) obstinacy and lack of cooperation, I personally took over the handling of the claim on the other party's insurer. They were quite reasonable and eventually I got fully reimbursed for the repairs to my car.

There does seem to be some financial incentive for insurers to want their clients' cars written off as cat Cs. Maybe it just simplifies the admin for them; or maybe the payout is cheaper than garage bills.

Concerned about this gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

It sounds from here as if you're willing to spend more time avoiding it than it'd take to do it? Do you put any financial value on your time & blood pressure?

I put great value on my time and time spent on the phone is far easier to justify than time spent driving here and there or sitting at home all day waiting for an engineer to visit to look at the car (requested & declined).

BP? I very rarely get stressed, and certainly not over something like this ;)

Cheers.

Their approved repairer quoted about 2 & 1/2 times the cars value (my value) to repair it. The offer made wouldn't allow me to replace like for like. Accepting "Cat C" and the salvage would also leave me out of pocket :-(

Cheers.

There is no need to involve your insurance company since your claim is against the other driver. Nor can his insurance company insist the car is recorded as a 'write off' either. Nor do you have to accept their first offer. If you have decent evidence of the actual value, go to the small claims court as a last resort. Usually threatening to do so in writing will bring a better offer.

Concerned about this posted

It was always insurers' practice just to pay out the write-off value if the cost of repairs exceeded it. They didn't have to have the thing condemned as unsafe. What's changed is that they seem dead keen now to Cat-C or Cat-D it. Perhaps they reckon it neutralises the owner's objections to scrapping ("well it's not safe is it...")

This is obviously where I went wrong as I just contacted my own insurers. The only call I had from her insurers, I told them to speak to my insurance co and not bother me. I foolishly thought my insurance co would be looking after my interests.

Can I now back track and contact her insurers?

Regards,

Big Les Wade gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Cat C & Cat D have nothing to do with "safety".

Cat C is purely "uneconomic to repair". Cat D is "economically viable to repair, but we're not going to do so for some other reason".

My E39 was in danger of a Cat C due to a dent in a rear door. The door still opened and closed as normal, so it was purely cosmetic. But the repairers said a new door was required, and would cost some 1500 quid in total. Which might be the 'value' of an average '97 528. But mine is two owners, low mileage and near perfect.

I would have been happy to take a cash settlement and fit a secondhand door - they cost under 100 quid in the correct colour. Say another 300 to have it painted if needed. But the insurance company decided to repair it anyway. And the repairer didn't fit a new door - they repaired the old one. I contacted the insurance company to tell them this. I'd rather it was me that ripped off my insurance company than a third party...;-)

I've never quite understood why insurance companies won't use good secondhand parts like this on an older car. Different if they are safety related.

Which is what both insurers rely on to pay out the minimum. Most can't be bothered demanding their rights.

Dunno - but you contact 'her' in the first place.

Adrian posted

You're right. I just looked up my records, and my insurer's assessor categorised my vehicle as Cat B, not C. Completely crazy; the vehicle only needed minor bodywork repairs and ran happily for another couple of years.

You insurance co are only interested in looking after *their* interests. First rule of car insurance. Are you prepared to name them here so we know who to avoid in the future?

-- DAS

A car with CatC has a lower scrap value than a CatD. I would be looking at the insurers perhaps paying you to keep the car!! The engineer, for the sake of an MOT could be doing you a favour.