PLEASE HELP!!! car write off

Anihilator

becki_1990 wrote: »

also i have spoken to a few garages today and all of them said the mechanic should not have been driving it after it had all the work done and passed the mot it should have been left on site.

What a load of crap.

becki_1990

Anihilator wrote: »

What a load of crap.

actually it is not, WHY ON EARTH were they driving it after they did all the repairs and the service??? fair enough before it passed mot and before repairs but not AFTER

becki_1990

Anihilator wrote: »

Clearly not love

1) Yes it was in their care however they werent neglient in there care. They couldnt avoid the accident happening hence legally they are not liable to you for the damages beyond those insured against

2) Irrelevent. The car wasnt roadworthy without these repairs and where required. The accident has no bearing on this. If you hadnt paid for the repairs you couldnt have used the car and it would have been worth less

3) As shown you can purchase an equivalent car easily. Repairs and maintainance do not increase value. They are necessary. no repairs reduce value.

For example the car with the rust would be worth a fraction of the grand.

In all honesty I would snap there hands off now as 1k for a S reg Ka is exceptional for an insurer.

dont call me 'love' that is not my name

Anihilator

becki_1990 wrote: »

actually it is not, WHY ON EARTH were they driving it after they did all the repairs and the service??? fair enough before it passed mot and before repairs but not AFTER

To ensure the repairs they had carried out were of a high nature and hadnt caused other complications such as rattles, tracking etc.

I very much doubt any mechanic in the world would tell you in court under evidence that it was wrong to test drive a car once repairs had been made.

I would go as far to say it would be neglient to not test cars.

vaio

becki_1990 wrote: »

actually it is not, WHY ON EARTH were they driving it after they did all the repairs and the service??? fair enough before it passed mot and before repairs but not AFTER

Probably fetching some parts or maybe the chip shop run, what time did the accident happen?

becki_1990

vaio wrote: »

Probably fetching some parts or maybe the chip shop run, what time did the accident happen?

thats what i thought, it was by a mcdonalds at around 2oclock

becki_1990

Anihilator wrote: »

To ensure the repairs they had carried out were of a high nature and hadnt caused other complications such as rattles, tracking etc.

I very much doubt any mechanic in the world would tell you in court under evidence that it was wrong to test drive a car once repairs had been made.

I would go as far to say it would be neglient to not test cars.

or he went to get a mcdonalds

blue_haddock

Also bear in mind that if they have had to weld large areas of the car to make it structurally sound then there is almost certainly other cosmetic rust that will de-value the vehicle. I think the valuation given is extremely fair and you may be able to negotiate the price upwards slightly i dont think your going to get much more for the vehicle.

The other option is to accept their offer but purchase the vehicle back from the insurer then if the garage do bodywork repairs as well as mechanical you could buy the replacement panels and they do you a good deal on fitting them. a new bumper section is approx £30 and a whole quarter panel is about £90. That way you would have the car still along with a fair wedge of cash.

blue_haddock

Also do a search on autotrader for what cars you can get for that kind of money. Looking at 3 dr hatchbacks within 20 miles of me i can get a 2001 Saxo 1.6 VTR or a 2000 Rover 25 1.6 for less than £1000 - both of which are newer with better specs than your KA. For £800 there are a couple of 2000 fiat punto 1.2's

Anihilator

becki_1990 wrote: »

or he went to get a mcdonalds

Possibly, but prove it?
The fact is driving the car on a test drive is perfectly legal and normal and thats what they are claiming.

Your not entitled to the MOT costs back.