Dented pride

Alan Surrey

Member
Messages
990
Ah. That's a shame.
Thank you for the information though.
The car went to the bodyshop this morning. Should have an estimate tomorrow and then wait to hear whether the insurers will accept the costs or dispute them.
 
Messages
1,117
As the third party ran into you at the back, the fault (blame) is on them. It is the third party insurer who will decide (assuming they accept liability) on repair or total loss. As it stands, it is a non-fault claim for you. IF they deem it uneconomical to repair based on 'market value' they may offer a total loss (write-off) value to you via your insurer. There MAY be some negotiating on the final figure, but generally they will agree a figure that is below your estimation of what the vehicle is worth.
If it means you dont want to accept their final offer (IF total loss) you can reject it and elect to claim repairs from your own insurer (assuming no structural damage). But then you will pay your excess and it will become a fault-claim that could affect premiums over the next 5 years.

Keep us posted. At least it went to a bodyshop and not Copart. That in itself is a good sign. Just so you know, i was rear-ended a year ago in my wife's Nissan Micra. My insurers algorithm concluded it be collected by Copart for "an engineers inspection" and they immediately wrote it off saying uneconomical to repair (£3500) v market value of £2200. They also stated it suffered 'structural damage' but did not send the report or speak to me on the phone what this damage comprised.
My insurer said the 3rd party insurer admitted liability and will jot authorise repairs. But that i coukd reject the offer and put it through my insurer as a fault claim and pay my excess - discretionary on seeing the extent of structural damage or they paying a fixed sum towards repair and rest up to me to fund.
 

mjheathcote

Centenary Club
Messages
9,033
You would think as a no fault the third party insurance company would have to tow the line, apparently not.
It's a disgrace when they offer less than what is available retail same age/condition when you are the innocent third party.
 

Phil H

Member
Messages
4,107
Ah. That's a shame.
Thank you for the information though.
The car went to the bodyshop this morning. Should have an estimate tomorrow and then wait to hear whether the insurers will accept the costs or dispute them.
If you'd had the car for a long time it would be easier for the insurers to argue the value (depreciation etc), but as it's a recent purchase I would think/hope you're in a more favourable position. Fingers crossed that the assessor is sympathetic.

PH
 

safrane

Member
Messages
16,746
Demand a like for like replacement car and threaten to use a claims Co re your broken neck etc... they will soon adjust anu offer to limit thier liability.
 
Messages
1,117
You would think as a no fault the third party insurance company would have to tow the line, apparently not.
It's a disgrace when they offer less than what is available retail same age/condition when you are the innocent third party.
Sad but true. No fault claim decision is entirely in the hands of the third party insurer. But a fault claim does not imply a different outcome. They just tot up the cost based on only new parts prices and labour and if it exceeds around 60% of the market valuation, they write it off and elect not to repair it. If there is structural damage it is very likely to be a write-off from the outset given the cost of straightening it. Amazingly if the air bag has gone off, on older vehicles, that can be an immediate total loss due to high cost of buying and setting up the airbag(s).
 
Messages
1,117
Demand a like for like replacement car and threaten to use a claims Co re your broken neck etc... they will soon adjust anu offer to limit thier liability.
This approach is unlikely to work today. I rejected the first offer arguing retail value of similar cars. They batted them down arguing flaws in my wife's car (normal for a 12 year runaround car) but with full annual servicing and good MOT history and low mileage at 60k miles. They upped their offer around £100, gave me 48 hours to accept or reject the offer - through my wife's insurer, who advised I could reject and make a fault claim and no guarantee that their inspection will lead to a repair decision and I'd have to pay the excess.

The personal injury claim has absolutely NO bearing on the offer value of a total loss. The 3rd party insurer offered an injury claim, as did my wife's insurer. I chose my wife's insurer obviously and they were a load of cr&p and couldn't negotiate their way out of a paper bag to get the best offer. One year on, we are nearly there at a settlement value far shorter than what they pitched. Don't believe everything you hear about settlement values and trying to negotiate with insurers and their lawyers.

The best advice I can offer to anyone with these prestige brand cars is an agreed valuation insurance policy. Even in the event of a no-fault claim, the total loss value is guaranteed at the agreed valuation. Whether it comes as market value from 3rd party and topped up by your insurer to agreed value without prejudice to your excess and retaining no-fault status or your insurer agreeing the full agreed valuation with the 3rd party insurer who was at fault and has admitted liability. If they dispute liability, then it becomes a whole new ball game - but agreed valuation still stands for total loss and for the threshold for a total loss decision.
 
Last edited:

lifes2short

Member
Messages
5,821
Ouch.
Realy don't want mine written off.

dont take any cr4p from the assessor and third party insurers, advise them that if the car is not repaired to your satisfaction you will start a small claims court action against their client, i speak from experience and it worked for me on a car that initially the third party insurer wanted to write off a few years ago
 
Messages
1,117
dont take any cr4p from the assessor and third party insurers, advise them that if the car is not repaired to your satisfaction you will start a small claims court action against their client, i speak from experience and it worked for me on a car that initially the third party insurer wanted to write off a few years ago
I don't know how long ago this was. But threatening legal action (in my view) is unlikely to get you to a comfortable place. These insurance companies have teams of in-house lawyers that will cost you plenty in a legal challenge. You would need to argue (a) they have been 'unreasonable' in their offer and decision and (b) the valuation on your car deserves to be higher. Both very difficult and costly to pursue with high risk that you won't win. Threatening legal action is pointless unless you are going to carry it out. 1st rule 9f negotiating is never ever make a threat that you wont carry out and see through. I used to be a professional negotiator in high value deals so I have seen this from the other party too often. I always called their bluff knowing I had some of the finest in-house lawyers at my disposal.

Weigh it up carefully is all I can say. They may just call your bluff and then you realise how exoensive it could be and your chance of winning.
 

lifes2short

Member
Messages
5,821
I don't know how long ago this was. But threatening legal action (in my view) is unlikely to get you to a comfortable place. These insurance companies have teams of in-house lawyers that will cost you plenty in a legal challenge. You would need to argue (a) they have been 'unreasonable' in their offer and decision and (b) the valuation on your car deserves to be higher. Both very difficult and costly to pursue with high risk that you won't win. Threatening legal action is pointless unless you are going to carry it out. 1st rule 9f negotiating is never ever make a threat that you wont carry out and see through. I used to be a professional negotiator in high value deals so I have seen this from the other party too often. I always called their bluff knowing I had some of the finest in-house lawyers at my disposal.

Weigh it up carefully is all I can say. They may just call your bluff and then you realise how exoensive it could be and your chance of winning.

there are no risks with a small claims court action other than you will lose the court application fee of some £30 to £300 max if you lose the case (depends on value of claim) , in reality most companies will want to avoid such action as it will cost them dearly to defend it, therefore, would want to avoid such action at all costs, the claimant has no legal costs as lawyers/solicitor are not required
 

rossyl

Member
Messages
3,312
there are no risks with a small claims court action other than you will lose the court application fee of some £30 to £300 max if you lose the case (depends on value of claim) , in reality most companies will want to avoid such action as it will cost them dearly to defend it, therefore, would want to avoid such action at all costs, the claimant has no legal costs as lawyers/solicitor are not required

Correct

You can however only claim up to £10k

I think this is quite a sensible idea.

Unfortunately fees have risen https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/small-claims-court/
 
Messages
1,117
there are no risks with a small claims court action other than you will lose the court application fee of some £30 to £300 max if you lose the case (depends on value of claim) , in reality most companies will want to avoid such action as it will cost them dearly to defend it, therefore, would want to avoid such action at all costs, the claimant has no legal costs as lawyers/solicitor are not required
This clarification is helpful. But my points about what the claimant needs to show and prove still stand and those ain't easy to prove - even in a small claims court. The insurer will simplify state book values which is the accepted norm in the motor trade to show they have been fair and reasonable in their decision and offer.
 

Motorsport3

Member
Messages
868
Ah. That's a shame.
Thank you for the information though.
The car went to the bodyshop this morning. Should have an estimate tomorrow and then wait to hear whether the insurers will accept the costs or dispute them.

I had my rear light cracked a couple of months back by a neighbour while parking. A new rear one is relatively inexpensive and easy to fit (c. £200) I recall checking the price of the front one and that was about X10 higher !
 

lifes2short

Member
Messages
5,821
This clarification is helpful. But my points about what the claimant needs to show and prove still stand and those ain't easy to prove - even in a small claims court. The insurer will simplify state book values which is the accepted norm in the motor trade to show they have been fair and reasonable in their decision and offer.

there are many factors that insurers use to write off motors and some of the reasons are simply that they cant be 4rsed to deal with getting a car repaired even though it should be, it's simpler and cheaper for them to simply write it off and sell the salvage on, in some cases it would be fairly easy to prove that a car deserves to be repaired regardless of what a book value states, why should an owner accept writing off a car that technically should be repaired purely because it suits the insurer, i do actually speak from experience and not spouting a loud of nonsense, it does seem that this car deserves to be saved/repaired and which is what the owner prefers
 
Messages
1,117
The option to reject a write off decision is always present. It can be turned into a fault claim or a repair funded out of pocket after claiming the wreck at a reduced value. No comment on subjective reasons such as cannot be 4rsed. Purely subjective and not factual. They simply state the facts of uneconomical repairs quoting repair costs versus book value. Or they condemn it for "structural damage'.

Arguing with them for a change of outcome is unlikely to work and your personal involvement will be a fault claim or take a reduced scrap value, keep the wreck (now with Cat X status) and pay out of pocket for repairs.
I too speak from experience and am not spouting out.
 

lifes2short

Member
Messages
5,821
The option to reject a write off decision is always present. It can be turned into a fault claim or a repair funded out of pocket after claiming the wreck at a reduced value. No comment on subjective reasons such as cannot be 4rsed. Purely subjective and not factual. They simply state the facts of uneconomical repairs quoting repair costs versus book value. Or they condemn it for "structural damage'.

Arguing with them for a change of outcome is unlikely to work and your personal involvement will be a fault claim or take a reduced scrap value, keep the wreck (now with Cat X status) and pay out of pocket for repairs.
I too speak from experience and am not spouting out.

no offence intended but that's simply poppycock, if you live your life like a sheep then prepare to get fleeced ;)
 

gb-gta

Member
Messages
1,127
This clarification is helpful. But my points about what the claimant needs to show and prove still stand and those ain't easy to prove - even in a small claims court. The insurer will simplify state book values which is the accepted norm in the motor trade to show they have been fair and reasonable in their decision and offer.

We all know the ‘book value’ will be a very low number. However, as the owner has only just got the car surely they would have difficulty claiming it had lost 5k or so in value in a matter of days! But it won’t stop them trying of course.....