Pothole Damage

[Conscript]

Oh my, you got me. Actually I only keep them in my Rover 75.

Anyway, now seems like a reasonable time to cry "childkiller".. if you are seriously going to try to argue that it is unreasonable to drive at a speed which enables you to stop in the distance you can see ahead.

It's a pothole. It's not a broken down car, a sheep or fallen tree, as in your example, all of which would be much more visible from a distance. It's a pothole, something which is not often easy to distinguish at the best of times until you are right on top of it. Especially if it's full of water.

He could stop in the distance he could see ahead, but a pothole is not something that is obvious the moment your lights fall on it, whereas the things you mention, would be. So criticising him using your examples is irrelevant.

The OP could have been doing 15MPH and still not spotted it until he was about to strike it, and given the size, he would still of done considerable damage. Should we all drive at no more than 15MPH on the off chance that we encounter a monster pothole that's deeper than a standard kerb stone?

 

[Scania]

Let's us know what the estimate returns. It'd be interested to see how much they are paying for the repairs.

Does not compute?

Were you expecting the estimate to be less than the value of the car?... and hence mean its a Cat D and not a Cat C (your expectation)

No, I was wondering what the breakdown of the estimate would be, £3.5k seems an awful lot for not that much apparent damage, I'm sure it'll be full BMW parts prices & labour rates, and that's what I thought would make interesting reading, same interest as Cheechm I presume.

The cost may well be higher!

Computes to me mate.

 

[iaind]

It'll be full parts and labour rates multiplied by 2 due to the way most garages approach insurance claims!

 

[Jonnycoupe]

No, I was wondering what the breakdown of the estimate would be, £3.5k seems an awful lot for not that much apparent damage, I'm sure it'll be full BMW parts prices & labour rates, and that's what I thought would make interesting reading, same interest as Cheechm I presume.

Computes to me mate.

You not looked an an airbag price from BMW that would give the large price.

SO if this car is worth ~£3k and you expected a Cat C how have you come to the conclusion that £3500 is too much?

 

[Haggisman]

damn thats unlucky, wonder if it did any damage to the bushes etc.

The bushes look alright, a bit brown and dead, but I think that's more due to the time of year rather than any damage from the car, and the debris along the verge doesn't seem to have done any significant damage to them!

(Sorry, couldn't resist! )

 

[mattyprice4004]

Just been told by the insurer that the car is unfortunately a CAT C write-off. I've not spoken to the garage yet, so unclear why it's a CAT C and not a CAT D. If I repaired the car, I would therefore have to have the car MOT'd and get a Vehicle Identity Check done before I can drive it again.

I'll be speaking to the insurance company about settlement and buyback values tomorrow afternoon.

I'm really hoping it will be economic for me to repair the car as the car is in very good condition. I think a 530i Sport may be on the cards if it's not worth it though...

You don't need to re MOT or VIC check the car.

You'll need a VIC check if you sell it though.

 

[[TW]Fox]

You don't need to re MOT or VIC check the car.

You'll need a VIC check if you sell it though.

Why did you ignore all the questions about your Rover in the other thread

 

[iaind]

Why did you ignore all the questions about your Rover in the other thread

Shame is a powerful thing

 

[SaBBz]

I've just got home and got a copy of the estimate, which I've included below.

If anyone can let me know whether it looks like it's worth repairing and if there looks to be any damage other than the tyres, alloys and airbags I'd be really grateful.

I see that it mentions the 'R/F door trim' on page 2, which I think relates to the door card Fox mentioned, but at £364.76 + VAT surely it can't be? It also mentions that the headlining needs to be replaced, which I'm a bit confused about as the headlining looked fine except for the curtain airbag sticking out - I assumed this could just be folded back over the new airbag.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/849/damageestimatepage1.jpg/

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/191/damageestimatepage2.jpg/

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/651/damageestimatepage3.jpg/

Does anyone have any advice on the potential settlement and buy-back values? Thanks again guys, I really appreciate the advice I've received.

 

[[TW]Fox]

So no damage to anything other than the wheels themselves and the airbag related stuff. Looks repairable to me. The door trim panel is indeed the entire doorcard.

 

[Locky]

Don't try and understand the wisdom of insurance category wright-offs, they are bonkers.

I have seen cars CAT-D that should be classed as CAT-B they are that badly damaged.

I have seen a CAT-C for a small bump that all was required was the bumper needed clipping back into place.

 

[miniyazz]

It's a pothole. It's not a broken down car, a sheep or fallen tree, as in your example, all of which would be much more visible from a distance. It's a pothole, something which is not often easy to distinguish at the best of times until you are right on top of it. Especially if it's full of water.

He could stop in the distance he could see ahead, but a pothole is not something that is obvious the moment your lights fall on it, whereas the things you mention, would be. So criticising him using your examples is irrelevant.

The OP could have been doing 15MPH and still not spotted it until he was about to strike it, and given the size, he would still of done considerable damage. Should we all drive at no more than 15MPH on the off chance that we encounter a monster pothole that's deeper than a standard kerb stone?

I don't know at what point you decided I was criticising the OP
My posts are about exactly what you thought they were about: objects in the road, trees, etc, not potholes which are hard enough to notice in time in the daylight let alone at night.
My comments are relating to a couple of numpties who seem to think that it is idiotic to drive round corners slow enough that you can stop if there is an obstruction ahead.

 

[Scania]

You not looked an an airbag price from BMW that would give the large price.

SO if this car is worth ~£3k and you expected a Cat C how have you come to the conclusion that £3500 is too much?

Where did I come to that conclusion? all I said the breakdown would make interesting reading, because of the silly high BMW parts & labour prices, prices that I'm well aware of.

 

[SaBBz]

So no damage to anything other than the wheels themselves and the airbag related stuff. Looks repairable to me. The door trim panel is indeed the entire doorcard.

From looking at it it looks repairable to me too, assuming I can buy the car back fairly cheaply. Should be quite easy to get it fixed too - buy alloys from eBay and get a mobile tyre fitter to put tyres on them, then get airbagman to come out and fix the airbags.

Does anyone have any idea what I may get offered for the car? It's a 330i Sport, registered January 2002 with a private plate (R5 POD) and has done 124k miles. Optional extras are Xenons, Harmon Kardon speaker upgrade and a rear sun blind.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Where did I come to that conclusion? all I said the breakdown would make interesting reading, because of the silly high BMW parts & labour prices, prices that I'm well aware of.

Yes, the silly high BMW labour rate. £29 an hour. How extortionate and silly high.

 

[iaind]

Don't try and understand the wisdom of insurance category wright-offs, they are bonkers.

I have seen cars CAT-D that should be classed as CAT-B they are that badly damaged.

I have seen a CAT-C for a small bump that all was required was the bumper needed clipping back into place.

It's about value and cost of repair, not how bad it looks, not sure where the confusion is?

 

[[TW]Fox]

It's about value and cost of repair, not how bad it looks, not sure where the confusion is?

The confusion comes because it's actually not only about value at all. Category A for example is very much based on 'how bad it looks' and Category B will have severe structural damage.

 

[iaind]

The confusion comes because it's actually not only about value at all. Category A for example is very much based on 'how bad it looks' and Category B will have severe structural damage.

Source for cat A being "how bad it looks"?

Clarifying on lockys comment - I very much doubt any car has been cat C because a bumper needed clipping back into place.

A more expensive, but cheap to repair (newer ford/vauxhall) car may well look severely damaged but be a cat D. A 15 grand car could need 8 grand of repairs...which is a lot of repairing!

 

[[TW]Fox]

Well ok not actually 'how bad it looks' but Category A is for fire damaged/gutted vehicles that are to be crushed. Cat B is for vehicles damaged beyond economical repair or with very bad structural damage. Cat C is for vehicles which are deemed unecomomical to repair by an insurer, but could be repaired. Cat D is for vehicles which can be economically repaired but for whatever reason the insurer has elected to write it off instead (ie hire car charges, or parts shortages, or its pinched and found after they've paid out).

So only some of the categories are specifically related to the cars value. The rest are related to the condition of the car.

 

[iaind]

See your point, although its not quite how it looks

My original point being its perfectly valid for a car that looks like a wreck to be cat c based on the value, provided its not structurally damaged to a dangerous level - something you can't really tell from a glance