Cat D Can't Be That Bad Can It?

panthro · 13 Oct 2006 at 11:16

This is so tempting that its not even funny

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/101505.htm

I reckon that as long as a Cat D repaired car comes with fully documented history including the repair bills, photos etc, then you can grab yourself a bargain.

Your thoughts?

Phil W · 13 Oct 2006 at 11:17

IIRC Cat D is the lightest form of damage.

I'd be happy purchasing a Cat D car.

Psycrow · 13 Oct 2006 at 11:18

Get an AA inspection for peice of mind and I'd say go for it

wizardmaxx · 13 Oct 2006 at 11:21

Only problem imo is if you decide to sell the car at a later stage. Some people just won't consider a Cat-D at all.

pinkaardvark · 13 Oct 2006 at 11:22

An insurer will declare a car cat D if the the repairs cost more than 50% the value of the car. Considering the price being asked then that has to have been quite considerable damage and not "light panel damage" Not syaing theres anything wrong with CAT D but just ask yourself why the insurer classified it that way.

Saytan · 13 Oct 2006 at 11:24

stolen/recovered after payout also get cat D i believe

merlin · 13 Oct 2006 at 11:24

Why would the insurers write off the car with just "light panel damage"?

Needs investigating, thoroughly.

Bill101 · 13 Oct 2006 at 11:26

pinkaardvark said:
An insurer will declare a car cat D if the the repairs cost more than 50% the value of the car. Considering the price being asked then that has to have been quite considerable damage and not "light panel damage" Not syaing theres anything wrong with CAT D but just ask yourself why the insurer classified it that way.

that's a good point ,also factor in that the original owner got rid of it pretty smartish after it was repaired

merlin · 13 Oct 2006 at 11:26

I've seen many insurers repair a car up to 70% of value.

And they don't get classified as a write off unless the structural integrity is seriously compromised or costs get too close to market value less salvage value.

pinkaardvark · 13 Oct 2006 at 11:29

merlin said:
I've seen many insurers repair a car up to 70% of value.

And they don't get classified as a write off unless the structural integrity is seriously compromised or costs get too close to market value less salvage value.

Would they use CAT D against stolen recovered as suggested or simply mark it as stolen recovered on the register?

merlin · 13 Oct 2006 at 11:32

pinkaardvark said:
Would they use CAT D against stolen recovered as suggested

No. I don't agree with what Saytan said if he was inferring the car got a Cat D simply because it was stolen/recovered.

Don't work like that. Plenty cars get stolen and recovered and no Cat D. It only gets Cat D when repairs approach market value less salvage or it's simply dangerous to repair (then it's C).

panthro · 13 Oct 2006 at 11:38

merlin said:
No. I don't agree with what Saytan said if he was inferring the car got a Cat D simply because it was stolen/recovered.

Don't work like that. Plenty cars get stolen and recovered and no Cat D. It only gets Cat D when repairs approach market value less salvage or it's simply dangerous to repair (then it's C).

So does Cat D basically mean that it was not dangerous to repair, just uneconomical? If so, then I cant see the problem buying a Cat D as long as you have the full history as to why it was Cat D, how much it cost to repair, what parts were replaced, photos of the repair if possible, etc.

Thats the best colour for the interior and exterior IMO. I want!

merlin · 13 Oct 2006 at 11:44

panthro said:
So does Cat D basically mean that it was not dangerous to repair, just uneconomical?

Yes.

All I'm saying is think about it. Ask yourself why that car was uneconomical to repair at the time if it only suffered light panel damage. It doesn't ring true with me.

Say at the time it was worth £20,000. And Salvage was 25%. So Insurers could write it off at a cost of £15,000 to them. Now if repairs were £10,000 - obviously insurers would repair it, because thats the cheaper option.

Now they didn't repair it - they chose to write it off. So, it stands to reason repair costs were VERY high.

So, if the car suffered just light panel damage - how come repairs costs were so high?

Beepcake · 13 Oct 2006 at 11:46

I thought you could apply to have Cat D removed if the car was repaired completely? Or did I dream that?

merlin · 13 Oct 2006 at 11:47

Beepcake said:
I thought you could apply to have Cat D removed if the car was repaired completely? Or did I dream that?

I've not heard that. But I dont think it's right otherwise we wouldnt have Cat D cars being sold because everyone would get the Cat D removed.

panthro · 13 Oct 2006 at 11:50

merlin said:
Yes.

All I'm saying is think about it. Ask yourself why that car was uneconomical to repair at the time if it only suffered light panel damage. It doesn't ring true with me.

Say at the time it was worth £20,000. And Salvage was 25%. So Insurers could write it off at a cost of £15,000 to them. Now if repairs were £10,000 - obviously insurers would repair it, because thats the cheaper option.

Now they didn't repair it - they chose to write it off. So, it stands to reason repair costs were VERY high.

So, if the car suffered just light panel damage - how come repairs costs were so high?

Very good points. I would never rush into buying a car like that though. As much as I want one. I guess it could be difficult trying to get the complete truth out of the seller.

Tesla · 13 Oct 2006 at 11:51

I am in with Merlin on this one- He is stating the obvious after all.

Oh, I agreed on a final amount from my crash last year. Just waiting on a cheque.

merlin · 13 Oct 2006 at 11:54

panthro said:
Very good points. I would never rush into buying a car like that though. As much as I want one. I guess it could be difficult trying to get the complete truth out of the seller.

What you want is sight of the itemised repair account.

That car could have sat on a jig for a week for all you know.

Firestar_3x · 13 Oct 2006 at 12:01

Remember when Tax evader stuffed his at the track and had to pay out, now far as i understand the damage wasn't anthing more than bumper / bonnet / wing / lights and that cost him 10k iirc.

Wicksta · 13 Oct 2006 at 12:18

Hmmm I would be tempted if that car was a bit more local and he took p/x. It's the same colour as my 325Ci (steel grey) so I could have sneaked it home without the other half realising. Well, until she opened the door and saw the red interior.