Hi all.
I was involved in an accident in March where whilst I was stopped at traffic lights a lady drove into me. Causing minor damage although the door hinges/area were allready suffering from corrosion, which when lifted by the accident snapped the remaining metal on the lower hinges. A cheap fix for me would have been knocking the bumper back into shape and repairing the hinges.
Anyway they wrote it off as a "category B" which means it can never go back on the road and can only be bought by people with the breakers license. I wanted to be able to buy it back which I could have done if they had done it to a category C.
I spoke to the engineer who was a pink fluffy dice, he said he thought it was too dangerous to put back on the road because of the doors. I told him it was ridiculous blah blah blah, he said he'd never recategorised a vehicle in 20 years.
Anyway I've appealed and now they are saying I can buy it back. Once I get it back I'll need to get it repaired, call the insurers back up where an engineer can assess the repairs and then reclassify the van as a category C if they think the repairs are to a sufficient standard?
Can they do this? Shouldn't they just give it me back as a Category C, as cars/vans are sold as cat c's without any conditions?
Regards
Vertical
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 10/07/2008 at 19:57
|
I don't understand how they can say that it is possible to reclassify it to a CAT C. But then put conditions on it especially on if it is repaired sufficiently. I don't think the quality of repairs are a concern of theirs, its either a CAT C or a CAT B but not a CAT C until the repairs are deemded sufficient at which point it will be reclassified as CAT C based on an engineers/assesors opinion.
I don't think i should be able to receive it as a cat b because I don't have a breakers license.
Regards
Vertical
|
|
|
She ran into you - presumably her liability? So her insurer inspected the vehicle?
If so; they can't write it off, only refuse to repair/offer a whole-value payment, less salvage and it's still yours - so why are you buying it back?
|
She ran into me.
She admitted responsibility.
Shes with Esure, i'm tesco's.
Tesco's told me it was a write off. I've only spoke to tescos.
They originally wrote it off as a cat B. Hence they automatically tried to pay me out. I refused and appealed.
Because of the appeal they are now saying that I can have it back, I'll have to repair it and that then they will send an engineer out to inspect it and to then classify it as a category C.
However I don't think this information is needed.
AS, my question is quite simple in that.
CAN THE INSURERS WRITE MY VAN OFF AS A CATEGORY B (BREAK ONLY).
THEN ON APPEAL THEY'VE SAID OK I CAN HAVE IT BACK BUT AS A CAT B WHICH THEY WILL ASSESS ONCE REPAIRED AND RECLASSIFY AS A CAT C.
i DON'T THINK THEY CAN DO THIS. What do you think?
Regards
|
I think you shouldn't shout at people when they have done nothing to contribute to your problems. It you're doing it to us, perhaps you are also doing it to the insurance companies? It's always helpful to be nice to all concerned, that way they may be more willing to help.
I'm afraid I have no idea about your situation, but I'm sure someone on here will.
|
I was intentionally shouting as I was highlighting the important information or the particular relevant parts.
If I'd have been nice with the insurance and agreed with what they say they'd have kept the van, they'd also try to pay me less for it aswell.
"Doing it to us", when I used the capitals the only reply was from screwloose, therefore if any one is justified in saying I'm screaming at them, its screwloose.
When I first contacted my insurers she hadn't admitted liability, I didn't think that this was a issue and contacted my insurers (first accident). What should I have done instead? I've only dealt with my insurance.
My big issue is I want my van back as a CAT C
They've agreed to give it me back as a CAT B which will be reclassed as a CAT C if the repairs are acceptable. ( I think this is illegal as I cannot take possession of a CAT B vehicle).
Vertical
|
If I'd have been nice with the insurance and agreed with what they say they'd have kept the van they'd also try to pay me less for it aswell.
Where did I say that you had to roll over and take what they offer? You certainly shouldn't, but I guarantee that every time you shout at them you diminish your chances.
You'll only get a good deal if you've very firm, completely reasonable, and remain friendly and courteous with the poor sod who is having to hold their line. Shouting will put their backs up and make them far less lkely to cooperate. Simple negotiation tactics.
When I first contacted my insurers she hadn't admitted liability I didn't think that this was a issue and contacted my insurers (first accident). What should I have done instead? I've only dealt with my insurance.
You're trying to avoid personal loss where the other side has admitted liability. If I understand correctly, you're therefore entitled to be put back in a situation equivalent to that you were in before the accident - not just to be paid a market value for the vehicle.
I would put the case in the hands of a claims firm who will deal with it for you from now on. They will work towards getting a good deal for you, and presumably can get you the van back repaired if that is the option you prefer. It worked for me when I had a no fault accident and needed to sell the car before the insurance sorted the repairs. My insurance washed their hands of it at that point, but I did eventually get all my cash back.
|
|
|
|
You shouldn't have claimed off your insurer if it was her fault. Your insurer has a simple contract with you to purchase the vehicle off you [if they consider it BER] and they can write it off.
Her insurer can only offer to pay you damages for your losses - the market value of the van [less any salvage value] and your consequential losses; which can be a lot more.
|
|
|
What do you think?
Despite your "SHOUTING", I am going to reply.
If you claim from your Insurer, Tesco, then they can do what it says in your contract with them.
As it was the other party's fault, you should be claiming from them or their Insurer - i.e. "the Lady" and/or "Esure".
|
|
|
|
|
