I'm not sure if I've already asked this in this form so sorry if I have.
Mrs recently mildly pranged our 93 1.4i GLS Belmont, Class C write off, paid us £273 and we retained the vehicle (tried getting the figure raised but they weren't interested and we couldn't find solid examples of higher valued vehicles of the same spec at the time (depressed market etc)).
It has a dent in the f/n/s wing and had a broken indicator that I replaced.
We have been instructed to get the Vehicle Identity Check carried out but don't really want to bother with the repair just now (or even at all)? [1]
Q, do we *have* to repair it for the VIC? Aren't they just looking to see it's not a cut_n_shut or ringed etc? [2]
Cheers, T i m
p.s. The outgoing InsCo said the incoming InsCo *may* want to see a new MOT but I assume that wouldn't demand it be repaired (as long as it was safe and roadworthy etc)?
[1] If I can find a tidy wing in the right colour I might do the job quicker. ;-)
[2] It's been in the family from new and this is only it's second (minor) shunt.
Nope, no need to repair, the VIC is just a check of the numbers to make sure it all matches up and as you say, it's not dodgy.
As long as you'd had the VIC done, and it passed the MOT, you'd be fine :-) You won't fail on a dented wing unless it's got like, dangerous sharp bits sticking out.
As might I/we may actually end up doing, however, it's still a nice little and fairly clean car, she likes it so I'd like to try and keep it 'tidy' at least.
Great, thanks. ;-)
Understood.
Well, the indicator is a bit proud of the wing bit nothing sharp facing forward etc. I'll see what my (friendly) MOT man has to say about it, just to make sure first. (Apparently out VIC ctr is on about a 11 day backlog.
They will refuse to issue a certificate if the vehicle is deemed dangerous as a result of the damage... and in that scenario, if it's just had a fresh MOT, they'll be asking a few questions of the centre that issued it.
Has it still got MOT and tax, and if so, do you still have all the paperwork for it, i.e: MOT certificate / logbook etc?
MOT yes but it's due to be sent to the old InsCo, along with the Ins Cert and a copy of the Logbook (if / when we can find it) :-(
When I spoke to the old InsCo this morning they suggested that because the assessor said it was still basically roadworthy the MOT would not be revoked (my word) as such. However, the new InsCo may want to see a new one etc. If they don't we will just have to get a new one at the normal time (I think they said)?
It doesn't help that everyone (InsCo / Ins Agent / VOSA / Garage etc) seems to say something *slightly* different?
Ok... well then just bodge it / repair it accordingly, and keep on using it then.
The logbook... 'I'm sorry, we can't find it', even if you can - you'll be able to use the green slip to tax it when the time comes again, regardless of whether or not it's been through a VIC check.
In fact what will happen is come tax renewal time, because the car will still officially be in your name, you'll get the reminder regardless and be able to tax it with that.
I bought a Cat C car about three years ago and applied for the logbook and was then told I needed the VIC certificate before they'd issue the logbook.
Wasn't in a hurry to put it on the road so did nothing for a while - the tax reminder came through in my name even though I'd never been granted a logbook. ;-)
The MOT - if you do send it off, you can always go back to the issuing garage and obtain a duplicate. ;-)
To be fair they only want a copy of the logbook ... but we still can't find it .. ;-)
And we normally pay on line so no clerk has seen our paperwork for years in any case?
Ok ..
I always find it interesting how they can find us to charge us but not to repair / deliver stuff? :-(
Ah, good idea (assuming it's not iffy etc)? Any idea why they would want it in the first place. I mean I can see why they would want their Insurance Cert / paperwork back but we still own / have the car and it was only written off because the minor damage would cost more than the car was worth on the market. I still don't know what that's got to do with anything (well I do but bare with me) because we have been paying for Comp so that we would get 'our vehicle' repaired no matter (within reason of course and I know that's not how it works etc). We didn't want the money or another vehicle, we just wanted this one fixed and to carry on? [1]. I don't want to sell the car nor want another one, I want that one fixed (and in this instance that would cost lest than a couple of years of our premium). It's not always about money ....
What, them not wanting to see a new one Jack? You are probably right but that would be real silly if it was just scraped paint etc?
Cheers, T i m
[1] Insurance .. It's like all these builders with huge houses, houses abroad or big fancy cars etc. They whine when work dries up and they find themselves in the same position as the rest of us.
Yes, clever you, but in light of the minor extent of the damage (on their books as Class C), why are they asking for one? And why did the lady I talked to at VOSA suggest that "they normally like to see the repair completed" if it was irrelevant (and hence my question).
Do you think they would think that, all of a sudden and for no real / logical reason, we are going to go and join the remains of 6 vehicles together or clone another vehicle to avoid having to put a bit of filler in a wing? [1]
T i m
[1] The form asks if we know the vehicles history. What is the point of that? As it happens it's been in our family since new (that they could find in seconds if they cared to look) and this is it's second minor prang, but why ask NOW about it's history? Are we going to say "oh yes, 5 years ago we rebuilt it out of 6 stolen cars ..." ? I could understand the questions if they then decided to continue with the VIC or not but I don't believe that's the case.
Take two cars... both have similar damage - say a dig up both offside doors.
Car A is worth £2,500 on the open market pre-crashed, Car B is worth £250.
Which car is more likely to be rung out of the two?
Car A.
Yet Car A is marked down as a Cat D as it's economical to repair and therefore doesn't need the VIC check, and Car B will be marked down as a Cat C as the cost of repairs outweigh the pre-crash value.
Ergo, a lot of perfectly good cars with superficial damage end up going to the crusher because it's just not economically sound to repair them *and* pay the £35 or whatever it is they're charging these days for a VIC check.
Yup, for us 'no/low fiscal value but perfectly functional transport' owners it certainly appears to be. :-(
But I guess that's what happens when you try to apply a blanket 'system'?
Cheers, T i m
p.s. I wonder if when the next time I get a quote from InsCo A for say £100/pa, I then go back to InsCo B who can only go as low as £300/pa and say "I'm only going to pay you the £100 as that's the current market value" .. ?
"I have spoken to all my fiends and we all agree your insurance is only worth £100 / pa".
Hmm, I wish I'd actually had chance to meet the assessor at the time as I *may* have been able to get him to put it down as a Class D (mightn't I?).
Unfortunately I was elsewhere during the 90 seconds (according to my mate whose garage it was in at the time) he spent looking at it and the Mrs put down our home number rather than my mobile so I missed him again when he rang to 'discuss it'. :-(
My old Sierra wasn't written off because we agreed to have a door re-skinned rather than replaced, so I know there can be some flexibility in these things.
I haven't GOT to accept any such thing and irrelevant to me in any case.
What has that got to do with it? I think you have missed the point of why we have it and what we would like to think our insurance would do for us. [1]
I guess any of the (mainly) 3 drivers who between them put over
100,000 faultless miles on it would probably differ with you.
No. That perfectly functional and very suitable vehicle with full known history is still just that. I assume you must think we went out looking for that particular car or summat, like I must of done with my Rover 218SD ..? Or is it just possible they 'came along', probably quite cheap and have provided excellent vfm and functional transport over the years?
Because I guess I pay for other peoples pointless shit cars that would provide less functionality and with less known history than this one has? And what about the other 9 years (that they count) I haven't claimed or the several years before that?
You don't work in the insurance game do you perchance? ;-)
Cheers, T i m
[1] I bought an old Compaq laptop for about 75 quid. Bought it a new battery (£20) and it was a nice little 'tool'. I didn't care what anyone else thought of Compaq or that model, I liked it and it worked for me. It got knocked off the sofa whilst in it's padded carry bag but because it landed on the PCMCIA card I'd left in there (I don't normally do that) it shoved the card up inside the machine. I stripped it down, removed all the broken bits and got the machine running again but without a functioning PCMCIA slot. :-(
As an experiment I phoned the InsCo and told them what happened. They gave me a new laptop, probably worth 'on the market' 5 x the old one. No questions, no hassles, because that's what my policy said they would do and "I was a good customer" (so didn't get the hassle bit).
I was happy to accept whatever they offered in replacement because all I wanted was a working laptop again. I would also have been happy for them to repair it.
What they didn't do was tell me my laptop was only worth 75 quid, minus my £50 excess so here's £25 and f*off. They didn't cancel my policy, refuse to re-insure me or raise my premium. Why, probably because I was a 'good customer', had paid my premiums on time over many years and did everything in my power to take care of and protect my property. Oh, and we did claim some 5 years previously (Mrs - stolen handbag).
They had even contacted me to discuss our cover, calculated we were probably over insured and reduced the cover and premium to suit.
I'm not sure what the cutoff point is percentage wise, but AFAIK, they look at a vehicles book value and will then authorise repairs on it if they amount to under a certain amount of the book value.
However, I suspect with vehicles with a low book value (sub £1000, maybe), they automatically write them off however trivial the damage is.
I doubt it.
Again, I doubt it.
Any work carried out by an approved repairer has to be guaranteed for x amount of years, which probably helps bump up the cost.
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.