girlfriend's car - write off?

[Rainmaker]

It's always you, isnt it...

She probably wont have a 50 quid excess. It's probably at least £250, as much as £400 if she's a younger driver. Claiming for a total loss on the vehicle also ends the policy with no pro rata refund - so if she's 6 months in she throws 6 months insurance down the toilet as well, at whatever value that is. She also loses 2 years NCB unless she has it protected, and suffers a premium loading for between 3 and 5 years depending on insurers.

Any more questions?

Yes, I have one. Why are you assuming the OP's girlfriend paid her insurance up front, and why are you assuming the accident was her fault?

I was driving a £400 405 GLXDT estate in 2005 and some dopey bint drove into the side of me because she was too busy looking at stuff in her passenger footwell to notice she was exiting a school car park at 20mph (at home time none-the-less).

I made a full claim, had my car written off, and received £1,000 for the car having paid no excess. My policy was cancelled but it was a PAYG monthly one, so no loss there. Great success. It didn't affect my consequent policies at all.

 

[DM]

I know MikeHiow probably has 20 years experience in the insurance business as well as being a racing driver and a mechanic for a Formula 1 team but I also don't see the point in claiming if the car is worth £700.

Yowza, straight in there with an upper cut to Mike, can he recover from that one, i think hes on the ropes!

 

[[TW]Fox]

Yes, I have one. Why are you assuming the OP's girlfriend paid her insurance up front

Errr why does that matter? If you are paying monthly you are simply paying off a loan for the amount of the insurance - the insurance policy is still paid in full at the beginning of the policy. You must still repay it.

, and why are you assuming the accident was her fault?

It's a reasonable assumption given the damage.

I was driving a £400 405 GLXDT estate in 2005 and some dopey bint drove into the side of me because she was too busy looking at stuff in her passenger footwell to notice she was exiting a school car park at 20mph (at home time none-the-less).

I made a full claim, had my car written off, and received £1,000 for the car having paid no excess. My policy was cancelled but it was a PAYG monthly one, so no loss there. Great success. It didn't affect my consequent policies at all.

That was a non fault accident and is completely different. You'd have received a refund of un-used premium had you paid in full, as well.

Had you driven it into a wall yourself it would have been a very different story.

 

[Rainmaker]

But that's my point. You can't just say "Why on earth claim on a £700 car", when you don't know the full story. You only assume the OP's gf was at fault. My car only cost me £400, but a claim certainly didn't affect me. I actually made a modest profit (and advised the insurance company of such, but they said they couldn't find a car as good as mine was for sub £1,000 so that was that). I didn't even lose my NCB.

EDIT: Just seen your addition about if I'd driven it into a wall. I DO agree, 100%. I wouldn't claim on a car at that value at all if I was at fault. No way. I was simply saying that we don't know the circumstances of the OP, so "Whose fault was it?" would have been a more prudent first question than "You're claiming on a £700 car?!1!".

 

[Sukh]

Whats with mikihow V Fox in every thread lately?


Apparently in Germany they repair parts with glues and the like to reduce the repair bills on crashes and hence the lower premiums. I wouldn't have claimed as it is likely to load your premium over the next few years more than the value of a replacement.

 

[[TW]Fox]

But that's my point. You can't just say "Why on earth claim on a £700 car", when you don't know the full story.

Do you know what a question mark is for? There was one in my original remark.

Myself and DiamondMark were expressing suprise at the idea of claiming for a £700 car and invited further comment from the OP, at which point he could quite easily say 'Yea, but it wasnt her fault' or 'She has no NCB anyway' or whatever.

Yet instead we have this thread, where I've made several posts containing rational and logical explanations of why it's often not worth claiming, and a load of people like you bashing me for doing so.

 

[Morba]

To be fair, Wesley has said there was an accident and that the car has been picked up already. Everything else that is being mentioned is assumptions.

 

[DM]

But that's my point. You can't just say "Why on earth claim on a £700 car", when you don't know the full story. You only assume the OP's gf was at fault. My car only cost me £400, but a claim certainly didn't affect me. I actually made a modest profit (and advised the insurance company of such, but they said they couldn't find a car as good as mine was for sub £1,000 so that was that). I didn't even lose my NCB.

EDIT: Just seen your addition about if I'd driven it into a wall. I DO agree, 100%. I wouldn't claim on a car at that value at all if I was at fault. No way. I was simply saying that we don't know the circumstances of the OP, so "Whose fault was it?" would have been a more prudent first question than "You're claiming on a £700 car?!1!".

Well its a front end bang so unless she was reversed into at 20 mph or a wall attacked its her fault isnt it.

 

[[TW]Fox]

To be fair, Wesley has said there was an accident and that the car has been picked up already. Everything else that is being mentioned is assumptions.

The question invites assumption. Nobody knows with 100% certainty whether the car will be written off.

Therefore if you say no assumption this thread has zero replies.

 

[Rainmaker]

Do you know what a question mark is for? There was one in my original remark.

Of course I do. But you didn't ask a question, you used a '?!' instead. While I agree that's not standard punctuation, and thus open to interpretation, as someone who is deaf and has grown up using subtitles (as has the OP iirc) then '?!' signifies incredulity rather than a question. Hence our misunderstanding, perhaps.

Yet instead we have this thread, where I've made several posts containing rational and logical explanations of why it's often not worth claiming, and a load of people like you bashing me for doing so.

I wasn't bashing you at all you overly sensitive Bavarian driving dipstick. I just said let's see whether it was the OP's fault or not before we decide it's silly to claim for a £700 car.

 

[Morba]

The question invites assumption. Nobody knows with 100% certainty whether the car will be written off.

Therefore if you say no assumption this thread has zero replies.

Completely, however this thread is heading in the normal argument direction based on the assumptions, which people are evidently getting fed up of.

 

[Rroff]

Did she drive into the back of a truck or something? damage looks a bit weird.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Completely, however this thread is heading in the normal argument direction based on the assumptions, which people are evidently getting fed up of.

Thats only because the usual suspects decided to invent a load of hypothetical situations where me and Diamondmark could be wrong.

BUT WHAT IF A SPACE ALIEN GAVE HER FREE INSURANCE? !HUH!?! THEN IT WOULD BE WORTH CLAIMING OMG

The funny thing is they missed the main reason why it might be worth claiming - that is that a third party is making a claim against her anyway.

 

[DM]

What if my aunty had ******, she'd be me uncle!

Maybe they are right Fox, lets see who's fault it was.

 

[sanaxe1]

Completely, however this thread is heading in the normal argument direction based on the assumptions, which people are evidently getting fed up of.

I'm not getting fed up of them as they are reasonable assumptions but i guess we will see when the OP comes back and gives us the facts. But it will be interesting to see how the loosing side in the argument acts. Will they admit the others were right/wrong or will they continue to argue for the sake of it.

 

[Rainmaker]

I'm not a 'usual suspect', I very rarely venture into motors. As I said above, our misunderstanding arose from the fact you used '?!' rather than a question mark.

It's still not unreasonable to consider the OP's gf may not be at fault. A car could have veered out of lane and clipped her o/s front or a hundred other variations. Or, she could have been driving like a girl and it was indeed her fault and the claim was at best ill advised. Just sayin'.

 

[DM]

I'm not getting fed up of them as they are reasonable assumptions but i guess we will see when the OP comes back and gives us the facts. But it will be interesting to see how the loosing side in the argument acts. Will they admit the others were right/wrong or will they continue to argue for the sake of it.

If a wall reversed into that poor girls car i will be the first to say im sorry

 

[Morba]

Thats only because the usual suspects decided to invent a load of hypothetical situations where me and Diamondmark could be wrong.

BUT WHAT IF A SPACE ALIEN GAVE HER FREE INSURANCE? !HUH!?! THEN IT WOULD BE WORTH CLAIMING OMG

The funny thing is they missed the main reason why it might be worth claiming - that is that a third party is making a claim against her anyway.

I know, but yo have to learn to just let people have opinions sometimes, regardless of how factually wrong or stupid they are.

You don't need to force things on people, which is how some people see it.

 

[Morba]

I'm not getting fed up of them as they are reasonable assumptions but i guess we will see when the OP comes back and gives us the facts. But it will be interesting to see how the loosing side in the argument acts. Will they admit the others were right/wrong or will they continue to argue for the sake of it.

Assumptions are fine and expected. It's the arguments that come from them where people fight their corner regardless of them being assumptions. Gets tiring.

 

[Morba]

If a wall reversed into that poor girls car i will be the first to say im sorry

Lol! That's some trick wall!