Uneconomic Repair

Can't see you finding a car with the exact spec you want on the 2nd hand market. Even then it will be the wrong colour/mileage/condition. You'll have to compromise. Putting someone back into the same position as pre-accident simply means the pre-acc. value of the car and the insurers will be looking at EBay etc to see what comparable cars cost and even then saying that's the asking price and not the selling price.
 
Sponsored Links
Am I missing some thing or is it the heat? They will give the car back on a third party only basis until a new MOT is obtained by your mum (which is presumably as it is in their T&C) before they will cover it fully comp as before – correct?

They have offered less than (you think) is the cost of buying an equivalent (on paper) car – correct?
 
Fred: Re; MOT, yes, we realise that. But if the ins.co. insist on an MOT (that is not legally required) they should cover the cost.
As I said previously,
securespark said:
...as far as I can ascertain, it is not a "legal" requirement at all, but is in the T's and c's of some ins co's, but not all do this.
However, this does not quite make sense as they have already looked at it from a repair point of view, so presumably know what needs doing to repair it and if they have concluded the damage is cosmetic only, the existing MOT should stand. Please note there are no crumpled, torn or sharp areas of bodywork, so the accident damage should not be an issue as far as the MOT is concerned.
Click to expand...

If they KNOW the damage is only cosmetic (backed up by their Cat N) and the bodywork is not in a dangerous state, why request an MOT?

RE value, yes. But they have asked for adverts (they have been supplied with ones from ebay and autotrader) showing what a similar car is going for.

It's OK to say, well the asking price is not the selling price, but if you are to replace your vehicle, it's no good offering a seller your insurance payout of (eg) £500 to a seller and saying here, I'd like to buy your car which is advertised at £1000+.

Edited for clarity.
 
You're lucky the insurers only want an MOT to show it's worth granting comprehensive cover. They could justifiably ask for an automobile assessors report which would cost twice (+) as much.
Re buying the replacement , if it's comparable and only worth £500, offer £500 and walk away if not accepted. There's loads of old Golfs around. If you really want the car, compromise at £750. Your mum can't be short of a few £'s if she's considering newish Golfs
 
Sponsored Links
Why? It's up to her to prove the car is fit for comprehensive cover. Otherwise they'll continue third party only for a cost only slightly less than comprehensive. I suppose you could try claiming the cost of the inspection/MOT against the third party as an uninsured loss.
I think you're making hard work of all this.
 
securespark said:
The insurance company has limited insurance to Third Party only until the car is issued with a new MOT.
Click to expand...
So what - the car is worthless.

securespark said:
They say she is "legally required" to have a new MOT inspection to prove to the insurance company that the vehicle is still roadworthy.
Click to expand...
Other insurance companies are available.
 
securespark said:
Third party does not include fire & swipe.
Click to expand...
True - but a worthless Cat N car isn't likely to get any kind of meaningful payout even if it was stolen.

Fire claims are rare and even when they occur, expect extensive investigations as to the cause, followed by shifting the blame elsewhere and no payout at all.
 
If she's expecting to use the hire car while she argues the pre-accident value and then during a long hunt for a replacement, don't be surprised if the third party insurers refuse to pay more than about 4 weeks from the date of the accident. They'll be arguing reasonableness of her conduct.
 
She has sent the hire car back.
I have potentially already found a replacement.
 
FWIW, over 40 years ago when I was on the spanners, a customer who bought back their written-off car and had it repaired had to get a new MOT before their insurer would let them put it back on the road. So what SecureSpark is describing is nothing new!
 
I've MOT'd quite a few motorcyles for insurance purposes over the years, nothing new!.

As far as insurance inspecting it, the employ "loss adjusters" so probably don't have the correct qualifications to legally sign it off as roadworthy..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top