Unfortunately that is far from the case. Even if they gave me the salvage (rather than deduct it from the payout) I would still be short to the tune of around £300 from the cheapest (non insurance) quote I've obtained. And, that's without including MOT fee & VIC costs.
Regards,
In due course, regardless of outcome, I most likely will.
Cheers.
It would be hard to think of a '96 car that would be worth more than a thousand or two even in mint condition, except for rare exotica or drop head coupes. It is also unlikely that once repaired the car would retain much of its remaining second hand value, especially if your insurer writes it off.
Start looking for over-priced examples of the same car in the Auto-trader etc. to bid up their offer and then buy something about six years old.
"Concerned about this." gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
Sorry, than the cheapest quote for repairing it?
If that's the case, then you've merely proved that it is most certainly a CatC write-off.
The payout is the pre-collision value of the vehicle. The deduction is the salvage value of the vehicle. Your choice to retain the salvage and repair it is not the insurer's problem, nor is funding the repair. They had an opportunity to fund the repair, and declined, preferring to pay out the replacement value.
You can haggle over that replacement value, sure. You can haggle over that salvage value, sure.
But the cost to repair is not your insurer's problem.
Done that already. The engineer, (who hasn't actually physically seen the car, only photo's) says he isn't prepared to revisit his valuation.
Hmm, do you work for my insurer? :-))
I disagree. I have maintained from the outset (to my insurers) that I expect, at the end of all this, to be in exactly the same position as I was at the beginning of October. Nothing they have offered so far puts me in that position.
Cash offer +salvage =Not enough to restore car to pre-accident condition.
Cash offer -salvage =Not enough to source replacement make/model/condition.
Regards,
"Concerned about this." gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
You can disagree with reality all you like. It won't make the slightest bit of difference.
Then haggle over their payout for the car's pre-collision value. With evidence.
This is _separate_ from the question of salvage.
Yep, that's why it's not economically viable to repair. Congratulations. You've just agreed with them that it should be at least CatC, not CatD.
When you say "Cash offer - salvage" do you mean what they give you _after_ buying your old one back? If so, then tough.
If you mean "cash offer = not enough", then haggle harder.
I sympathise with your position, but sadly, over 45 years of mine and others mishaps, I have learnt that in an accident situation you will almost certainly suffer loss in one form or another. This is totally regardless of whomever might be considered at fault.
It might not be fair, but then life seldom is!
Chris
I mean the cash offered, with them taking ownership of my car is insufficient to replace my car like for like. Last time I checked, the whole point of insurance was to return you to your pre-accident/theft/whatever position.
If that is no longer the case, I might as well not bother paying premiums.
Nope. It's to cover you for loss within the terms of your policy.
Well, you would need to have at least TP to legally be on the road. The amount you would save by having that over fully comp would mean you would need to have *many* accident free years to be in a better position financially than you are now.
Chris
Sorry Chris, that was meant to be tongue in cheek.
"Concerned about this." gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
What car (mileage etc), and how much have they offered?
It is. Since you're claiming from your own insurer, it's also subject to the Ts&Cs you agreed to when you took the policy out. What do they say?
You have no choice in the matter.
In article , Concerned about this. writes
That he hasn't even seen the car is in your favour, but make the effort to research the prices of similar vehicles for sale to strengthen your argument.
Couple points:
1) while all this is ongoing *the car remains your property* until settlement is agreed. If your insurer does what Direct Line did without my permission and scrap the car, you'll have the upper hand. A letter to DL stating that they had disposed of my property without my permission, and asking what they planned to do about it, resulted in a much improved offer :o) 2) you have the final recourse of the Financial Ombudsman. The insurance companies don't like it because they have to pay the FO's fees (you pay nothing) so they will try and avoid going down that route. To go to the FO you need a deadlock letter from your insurer.
Insurers have appointed an independent engineer to inspect the damage/cost repairs and ( i believe ) give a pre-accident value tomorrow.
My car remains in use by me and I only intend parting company with it to an authorised repairer or once an agreement as to it's value has been reached.
Duly noted, thanks Mike.
Is the damage likely to result in an MOT fail at its next test?
I reckon that a replacement bumper will take care of the appearance and once removed/replaced will no longer interfere with the tailgate. The small crinkle in the tailgate is no problem, likewise the small crease in the OSR wing..
Just a bit of an update for you all. Independent engineer came out on Friday to inspect & value the car. He agreed with the in-house engineers that it is a "Cat C" but his pre-accident valuation was 21% higher. So, won't be keeping my car but am a bit closer to a settlement figure.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required