My first car has officialy today been written off absolutely devestated, someone crashed into the side of it parked aswell as my parents car writing both off police found him/her identified from wing mirror left behind and its going through the insurers. His/her insurance has decided the damage is to much and they will pay out for both cars instead of fixing, got a few questions what happens with my insurance premium do i need to still keep paying for a car i cant use up until 12 months is up? and also with regards to tax what happens to that? thanks guys.
Writen off :o
- Thread starter Walkerie
- Start date
I work for one of the major UK insurance groups in the UK.
You need to suspend your policy, while you dont have any car to insure.
This means you will carry on paying for the cover if you on installments each month.
Or you'll start gaining "credit" for the period of cover while you've not had any car insured if you've already paid in full.
Where I work, if a policy is suspended for 28days or more, you will start to get a full refund for period of cover (eg 3months, 3months refund).
This means you can carry on building up your set of no claims discount, and also not pay any sort of canx fee. Plus then get a refund for the time you've not had a car insured
With canx fee's ranging from £25-£75 on the markets atm, canx would not be wise, even more so if "WalkerUK" is not at fault.
Last edited:
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
His insurance cannot write your car off as "uneconomical to repair". You are entitled to have your car repaired to the standard it was in before the crash without detriment to yourself. This is a statute of UK civil law and non negotiable by the insurance companies.
They can only write it off if it unsafe to repair - i.e. major chassis damage etc and then they should offer you market value for it.
If however you are happy to take the money, ignore everything I have just written above - just don't take thier final offer and do some research of how much cars are selling for in the same nick as yours was before the accident.
They can only write it off if it unsafe to repair - i.e. major chassis damage etc and then they should offer you market value for it.
If however you are happy to take the money, ignore everything I have just written above - just don't take thier final offer and do some research of how much cars are selling for in the same nick as yours was before the accident.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
This is true yet little known by most people.
The reason why this is true is quite simple. The value of your car to somebody elses insurer is incidental and irrelevent to the accident. They must put you back in the place you were before their clients negligence - before the accident you had a Car Y, not a cheque for the 'value' of Car Y on the deflated used car market.
Had their client just driven into a 1 year old car they'd be paying ££££ to fix it. They don't 'luck out' simply because your car happens to be worth less. They still have to fix it.
BUT..
they'll tell you they dont and 99% of people think this is true.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 8,971
- Location
- Clydebank
[TW]Fox;14101027 said:
This is very interesting. Where is this written in the rules and regs?
Hi guys thanks, ive had a crash in my car before and the bonnet was a different colour and it suffered a few problems so not too bothered about the payout, although can i claim more than just the cars money itself due to driving to insurers for inspection and perhaps loss of car/use insurance/tax ?
You are entitled to be put back into the position you were in prior to the accident in a reasonable fashion and only a court of law can decide what is and isn't reasonable. Depending on the £1k car in question, a £4k repair bill may or may not be classed as reasonable.
You'd probably not be able to argue that the P reg Mondeo you bought the other day for £850 is worth spending £4k on a repair for. You might, however, stand a better change with the 1994 Jaguar you've owned since new and recently spent £2k on preventative maintenance, despite the fact its 'valued' at £1k...
What I mean is that the no, the insurer cant simply offer you a cheque instead of paying £5k to repair your £5k car.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Correct - with the terms Fox stated - i.e. reasonable. But this only applies if the accident wasn't your fault (or the third party cannot be traced to claim against). If it was your fault then they can write the car off and you get offered market value.
As a case example, my modded Sierra was crashed into by a taxi driver - market value was £650 (I had an agreed value of £3k but that was only for my isnurance under fully comp) but £2100 to repair - they tried to offer me £500 for it but I held out and I got it repaired AND I was able to choose my own garage. It took 6 months of fighting to do it, including writing some rather threatening letters to the other parties insurers and starting civil proceedings.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/
There is no single article determining "no detriment" but as with most of UK law the argument is built up from several articles (19 if I remember correctly) and around 11 instances of case law.
A level law is what put me off going to University as it was the only thing I was interested in.
Last edited by a moderator:
[TW]Fox;14106307 said:
The company can OFFER you absolutely anything it wants, whether or not that is accepted is another matter.
In your first post you hinted at an insurer taking advantage of a dip in the market value and suggested that wasn't acceptable. That IS acceptable - you even said it yourself you are entitled to indemnity - to be put back in the same financial position as you were before said accident. Let's bear in mind that your financial position before the accident was that you had say a car worth £10,000 - so if the insurer offers you £10,000 (or a £10,000 repair) then indemnity has occured; despite the fact you might have bought that car for £30,000 6 months previously and it's nose dived since. That is the financial position you were in at the time of the accident - you had a car that had lost £20k in 6 months, it's not the insurers problem your asset just lost it's value.
Bear in mind re-instatement of your financial position is what the law is concerned with - not re-instatement of your position in general. If it is not possible to give you back what you had physically then a suitable and fair financial payment is an acceptable alternative.
The classic car scenario is a good one, in those circumstances the market value is very much open to interpretation so yes you can certainly dig your heels in and get more.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Nitpicking here but that's incorrect - following the human rights elgislation the law now states you are entitled to be restored to your social, health (mental and physical), geographic, property AND financial positions before said event.
BUT you are correct about the indemnity issue - if your car has dropped to £3k before the accident then £3k is it's value. It still has barely any bearing on if it should be repaired or not though.
Market value is 99% irrelevant in this scenario. As Fox said - Car Y is not the same as a cheque for £3k.
I wouldn't even argue the value side of things in this case (as I didn't in my case) - I may be able to get another similar car for £3k BUT it wont be the SAME car - time and effort put into the car, knowing it's history, emotional attachment etc are all covered in the no detriment argument. An insurer can't "pay off" your time or emotional attachment.
Last edited by a moderator:
IMO, the UK law should be changed to make any 3rd party claims HAVE to be like for like (or money value - and your choice) - ie say you own a McLaren F1 and a truck crashes into it and writes it off.
You should be given the option of a like for like replacement (no matter the cost) or the current market value of the car.
Chances are that if you were to take the current market value of the car you would not be able to find and buy a new McLaren F1 as they do not come on the market that often really - however if you get the option to select a like for like replacement - it is up to the insurance company to go out and persuade an owner to part with their F1 - no matter the cost.
Makes it far more fair on the victim than the way the system works currently; plenty of people would prefer a like for like replacement than the market value.
You should be given the option of a like for like replacement (no matter the cost) or the current market value of the car.
Chances are that if you were to take the current market value of the car you would not be able to find and buy a new McLaren F1 as they do not come on the market that often really - however if you get the option to select a like for like replacement - it is up to the insurance company to go out and persuade an owner to part with their F1 - no matter the cost.
Makes it far more fair on the victim than the way the system works currently; plenty of people would prefer a like for like replacement than the market value.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Erm, that IS the way it works at the moment. Did you read my posts?
That wouldn't work under UK law as no person in their right mind would deem that reasonable.
Last edited by a moderator: