Lease cars and Cat D - does this sound legit?

EddScott

EddScott

EddScott

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
9,503
Location
Pembrokeshire
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/3319807.htm

Found this on PH. Would a lease car be classed as a Cat D just for a bumper?

Doesn't seem likely to me. Isn't it possible to have a car removed from the register if it is inspected and deemed to be as good as when first manufactured?

Not sure whether the contact in case it's just some scam or something.
 
seems iffy a cat d for a bumper skin that implies the car was written off for a part that costs less than £400 plus maybe the same for paint


no danger thats accurate
 
Would an RAC inspection show up anything that was being hidden?

I've sent a message asking some questions so we'll see what comes back.
 
If it was a lease car, was damaged and then there was some sort of delay in getting the parts needed to sort it - could that write it off, as they'd have no income from it being leased?
 
If its a legit story then I guess it must be something to do with the lease company probably couldn't lease a cat D car and they would rather push their insurer for a replacement.
 
Firestar_3x said:
The front bumpers a different shade of silver from the rest of the car, looks like it was fixed by monkeys.
Click to expand...

Or just another case of people without standards working in the motor industry.

The car doesnt belong to anybody, its property of the hire car company. So nobody was going to give a damn when they send somebody along to pick it up. So they knew they could get away without fussing about the colour match.
 
Firestar_3x said:
The front bumpers a different shade of silver from the rest of the car, looks like it was fixed by monkeys.
Click to expand...

It's called reflection, look where it meets the bonnet.

Any difference can only be shown in proper light IRL photos in poor light aren't gonna show it properly.

Cat D is minor, is it good value at that price, 20% below list or more?

If so, would be fine.
 
Cat D is not minor at all. It simply means the repair cost exceeded the car value minus its salvage value.

This can range from minor damage on a low value car to quite major damage on a more expensive car.
 
[TW]Fox;20301976 said:
Cat D is not minor at all. It simply means the repair cost exceeded the car value minus its salvage value.

This can range from minor damage on a low value car to quite major damage on a more expensive car.
Click to expand...

It is minor as regards the rating as it is beyond economic repair rather than serious issues that are irreparable. It could just mean labour made it uneconomic even if the parts and materials were quite cheap, and can include the costs of storage etc. It is more an insurance company decision as opposed to say a category B where it is serious structural damage.

If it was seriously damaged, ie structural it would be a category b or even a, not a category d.

It depends on what you classify as major damage, and I have seen reshells that have served many years safely afterwards which would have been a category B before the ratings came about. You rarely see reshells these days as the new system makes them impractical, but many garages did this with Ford in particular ofefring new shells at very competitive rates, ie a Sierra shell at less than a bag of sand!

I have seen vehicles written off as category d when people have repaired them for a few hundred pounds at commercial rates!
 
Dr Who said:
It is minor as regards the rating as it is beyond economic repair rather than serious issues that are irreparable.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying otherwise.

People are classifying the level of potential damage - and you need to damage a car quite badly to write it off Category D when it's nearly new, provided there are no complications re: parts availability etc which is unlikely on a current production model. Few if any Cat D cars are unrepairable - but that doesn't mean they've been automatically subsequently repaired well!

People are saying it could have had quite a smack.

Which is entirely true. You are misleading them by saying it is minor - you cannot say that.

If it was a 52 plate Vectra it's entirely possible it was minor damage..
 
Simplest way to gauge the damage is compare accident date to birth date of the car, ie its age when written off. Its a ten plate car, the damage to write it off would be very considerable
 
Would an RAC inspection give me more information? Yes its been in an accident but to what extent?

If the seller is fibbing and not just a bumper the inspection would find it would it not?
 
[TW]Fox;20302323 said:
Nobody is saying otherwise.

People are classifying the level of potential damage - and you need to damage a car quite badly to write it off Category D when it's nearly new, provided there are no complications re: parts availability etc which is unlikely on a current production model. Few if any Cat D cars are unrepairable - but that doesn't mean they've been automatically subsequently repaired well!

People are saying it could have had quite a smack.

Which is entirely true. You are misleading them by saying it is minor - you cannot say that.

If it was a 52 plate Vectra it's entirely possible it was minor damage..
Click to expand...

The problem is that the current salvage price for many cars is so high that cars can be written off for very minor damage, the damage will not have been structural, therefore to my mind it is minor. I guess it depends what you class as major damage, obviously you class some non-structural damage as major, I don't.

It is possible to be repaired badly which is why they warrant an inspection and a 20%+ discount over an undamaged example.

You are right I cannot say for certain the damage is minor in YOUR eyes, but I can say that in my eyes, non-structural damage is minor.

See below for further info.
 
Locky said:
Just look on copart for the ridiculous Cat D write-offs
Click to expand...

After looking at some of those I would say I was wrong, some of those have to be structural.

Some of them are very minor damage, some are far from what I would consider non structural, the CLS for example surely has compromised the safety cell?

So yeah, apologies Fox, on this one I eat the humble pie :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom