They'll weld little pins on the the sill and then use something to pull the metal out.
Annoying thing with skins is they never get sealed properly and end up rusting after a few years.
Golf Mk5 GT TDI ... Write off or not ?
- Thread starter Apache14
- Start date
They'll weld little pins on the the sill and then use something to pull the metal out.
Annoying thing with skins is they never get sealed properly and end up rusting after a few years.
It'll be just like it should be then surely?
The mk5's are having some issues with rust! I'm not just picking on this guys car as I have one and I have quite a list to get looked at by VW when I can drive again!
I guess thats a question to ask if they do replace the skins only ?
It'll be just like it should be then surely?
They do around the front wheel arches, VW replaced the drivers side on this one about 1 month ago under warranty. Now there is no rust and just a small skuff of the rear bumper from a hit and run Ford KA in a multi level car park :/
My arches are clean, I've got some on the sill and some on the boot where the numberplate lights are. If you've had no trouble with that car I'd be pushing to get it fixed. Its better the devil you know and with what they'd probably offer you if they do write it off - you will be back in buying the unknown price range!
Yeah id much rather have this car fixed, it drives so well and the engine runs well its had some work done to it (new turbo + egr valve) in the last 2 years along with the VW repair, the first two i knew about when buying it. However i brought the car as it was in very good condition for the price and if the insurance repair would lead to shoddy / sub par fixes (like the door skin rust mentioned above) id rather them write it off for a reasonable price (between £3500 - £4000) looking at whats on the market at the moment.
You could get the repair done at VW, or rather - insist its done at VW? You'd have a warranted repair then by the dealers?
Yeah ill try that but i don't think it will fly at VW prices
im more than happy for the insurer (the at fault party) to do the repair wherever, as long as they grantee the repairs for a good amount of time. But from what I can see on their documentation it would only be for 2 years (So id try and sell it before that ran out anyway).It's not criminal, it's just statistics. If you've been in an accident you're statistically more likely to be in another one again. The "why" isnt relevant.
I dont agree, maybe if you have more than a few claims in X many years. But not just one, some things are totally out of the drivers control.
Example
-- Car 1 is sitting at traffic lights on red
-- Car 2's driver is on their mobile phone
-- Car 2 crashes into Car 1
The driver of car one in no way could have predicted or avoided that and it was totally out of their control.
It's not an opinion
As I said, cause and effect don't come into it - insurance is a probability calculation, nothing more. Many factors of insurance seem counter intuitive but you have to remember it's not somebody sitting there making an opinion when premiums are calculated - its just statistical based on historical claims.
Is it fair? Well, maybe. Ruthless mathematical calculations are the most repeatable and accurate way of calculating risk. Yes it does lead some people to feel like they're being treated unfairly, but that's life. If you were running your own insurance company and had statistics from hundreds of thousands of claims showing that someone who's been in an accident (regardless of circumstance) is more likely to claim again... wouldn't you need to charge them more?
Last edited:
It's not an opinion
As I said, cause and effect don't come into it - insurance is a probability calculation, nothing more. Many factors of insurance seem counter intuitive but you have to remember it's not somebody sitting there making an opinion when premiums are calculated - its just statistical based on historical claims.
Is it fair? Well, maybe. Ruthless mathematical calculations are the most repeatable and accurate way of calculating risk. Yes it does lead some people to feel like they're being treated unfairly, but that's life. If you were running your own insurance company and had statistics from hundreds of thousands of claims showing that someone who's been in an accident (regardless of circumstance) is more likely to claim again... wouldn't you need to charge them more?
Thats more of an "I dont agree with the system" and that there are situations where a driver is in no way at fault
but yes the system works in a harsh way Thats more of an "I dont agree with the system" and that there are situations where a driver is in no way at fault
Unfortunately nobody has figured out a fairer system, so its the one we've got
Of course there are many situations where the driver isn't at fault, but it doesnt mean he's not more likely to have another accident in future. Why that would be the case I don't know although I have some ideas.
My observations (based on around 400,000 miles of mostly urban driving) is that the vast majority of accidents are as a result of bloody mindedness by the "Victim".
Sure the accidents may be precipitated by error or recklessness by the "Other Guy" . But "most" of them are avoidable if the "Victim" is willing to swallow their pride and sense of entitlement and take measures to mitigate the situation.
There are a LOT of people out there who would clearly prefer a collision rather than relinquish their "Right of Way".
The InsCos know this and load the premiums accordingly.
InsCos dont care about "Moral Righteousness" they just care about the bottom line and the stats say what the stats say!
(I am sure that, were they not prevented from doing so by various laws, InsCos would happily take quite a lot of other factors into account such as Race, Nationality or even Name (They probably do this though in unofficial ways! And not just for motor insurance either!))
Whilst there are situations where a driver could not possibly have avoided an accident, in many / most cases, even if a driver is not at fault, it's entirely possible that he could have done something to mitigate the issue. That's where they get their statistics. Short of having an insurance company-provided drone follow every single car in the country to constantly monitor how they are being driven, I don't think there's any other way of doing things.
I always watch my rear view mirror when I'm at a red and a car is approaching the back of me, in case they don't stop. I did once panic and have to sound the horn and pull forwards through the red because they weren't slowing down, they just about stopped in time...