Diminution in value after a non fault accident?

Dr House

Dr House

Dr House

Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
13,387
Location
London
So last week I'm sitting in traffic (one day after I took out my new insurance policy) and someone drives into the side of me, there was not too much damage but it will need a new door, paint on the front wing, new mirror and paint on the side skirt.

The car is only a year and half old and when I come to sell it on its going to be a real pain to move on and I'm going to lose thousands off the value, Who wants a high end carbon fibre car that has been in a accident?

https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/measuring-loss

So I got to thinking maybe its worth claiming damages from his insurance company, after all I was not at fault why should I suffer financial loss because of this.

Has anyone every successful claimed damages for loss in value of a car after a accident? Or am I best being a greedy git and I should leave it alone.

So far I have not taken a hire car because I have my fiesta but the summer weekends are here and I want to take road trips
 
If it can be repaired to an equal standard, why would it lose value?

I'd imagine you'd have a difficult time proving any financial loss until you actually sell it and show what you have lost. Until then you can't claim for a hypothetical loss.
 
How would the buyer know it's been in an accident? If it gets repaired it won't show up on a HPI check.
 
If it's not written off and repaired to a high standard it should be the same value surely.
 
Not sure how it works in the UK but I claimed it here, you mention it to their insurance and they'll come up with an amount.. which you refuse of course.

Saying that I only got $1500 on a 3 month old Subaru WRX, don't expect much.
 
disfunktion said:
It was the third parties fault - why would you not take a hire car from their insurance?
Click to expand...

If you don't need to, then what's the point? Do it out of spite?

A claimant also has a duty to mitigate costs as well as show a genuine need of a hire car.
 
muon said:
http://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/su...nd236000-ferrari-hire-car-charges-claim/n259/

Ferrari owner getting another Ferrari as a hire car when he had 4 other cars and in reality would have got by without the car for a while.

This is a more extreme example as the others generally don't make the news.
Click to expand...
If I read that right, he lost the case though.

Clearer report:-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/millionaire-loses-court-battle-insurers-7734628

Edit:- Or is that the point you're making? :o
 
Jokester said:
If I read that right, he lost the case though.

Clearer report:-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/millionaire-loses-court-battle-insurers-7734628

Edit:- Or is that the point you're making? :o
Click to expand...

Yeh it's my point. You can't just get a hire car for the sake of it and make the defendant pay.

Any reputable credit hire company will ask you if you have another car, how often you use your vehicle and for what purpose you may need a car that powerful/big.

So the OP could potentially cite that the Fiesta isn't good enough for road trips, especially if pre-planned.
 
Last edited:
I will see I can live without my car for a while but if its drags on too long I will want a replacement as actually I leave the fiesta in london for my mum to use so she has no car while I have taken it up north.

Also I sell my cars privately and would always disclose if its had a accident, its just not fair on someone spending £65k on a car to be lied to about its history.
 
Dr House said:
I will see I can live without my car for a while but if its drags on too long I will want a replacement as actually I leave the fiesta in london for my mum to use so she has no car while I have taken it up north.

Also I sell my cars privately and would always disclose if its had a accident, its just not fair on someone spending £65k on a car to be lied to about its history.
Click to expand...

Which is a perfectly acceptable approach.

However, what is more concerning is that a poster thinks it is bizarre that someone wouldn't claim for a hire car in a non-fault claim.

As for loss in value, I think your link sums it up better than any of us. It looks like a try it and see thing.
 
in the US they call it "diminished value" and its a totally normal part of non-fault claims on the other party

worth a try on a high-value vehicle, they've been blindly paying out thousands if not 10's of on dodgy injury claims for years so they probably won't want to fight a claim for this much either
 
Even if you decide to try and claim for "loss of future value" - how would you quantify it? What figure would you come up with and how?

You need to be able to justify something before thinking of another way to grab some extra cash!
 
muon said:
http://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/su...nd236000-ferrari-hire-car-charges-claim/n259/

Ferrari owner getting another Ferrari as a hire car when he had 4 other cars and in reality would have got by without the car for a while.

This is a more extreme example as the others generally don't make the news.
Click to expand...

The best part of the Ferrari claim is that it was a 360 Modena involved in the accident with approx £25k worth of damage. He then hired two Ferrari California Convertibles back to back at a cost of £236,724 which would easily exceed the value of the 360 as well as the damage on top. He could've bought a brand new Ferrari 488 for that and had change!
 
booyaka said:
Even if you decide to try and claim for "loss of future value" - how would you quantify it? What figure would you come up with and how?

You need to be able to justify something before thinking of another way to grab some extra cash!
Click to expand...
You don't come up with it, an independent engineer who's willing to justify their report in the event it goes to court does.
 
There are at least three legal precedents I know of for this .

Payton v Brooks (1974) 1 Lloyd’s Rep,
Woods v Parkinson 1985, Manchester
Brightmore v Eaton, Chester County Court October 1986


So the law now states that diminution in value beyond the cost of repair is a recoverable head of damage, subject to obtaining suitable expert evidence.

Great article here.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjo2YfH-5vTAhVDI8AKHSSzBwwQFgglMAA&url=https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/vehicular-diminution&usg=AFQjCNFOXA5w-Y1676tV1pcTDU5pXigJ5g
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom