Category B. Good news!!

bigjl

A car as complicated as a Z3 with flood damage, no thanks, the same goes for any flood damaged car, there is a reason why they are Cat B, a loss adjuster has added it up and though a Cat C or Cat D car can be good value if the damage is minor, flood damage is too risky in my opinion, also depends what kind of water and how high the water got.

There will be hidden corrosion everywhere in the electrical system, especially with salt water flooding.

Not for me, but good luck with it, and Insurance companies may insure it but the insurance value won't be any where near what you might expect, they will probably have to refer it to the underwriters, and don't forget theat Q reg cars where always tricky to insure, and in these days of litigation for personal injury they may have to load the premium.

philip43

bigjl wrote: »

A car as complicated as a Z3 with flood damage, no thanks, the same goes for any flood damaged car, there is a reason why they are Cat B, a loss adjuster has added it up and though a Cat C or Cat D car can be good value if the damage is minor, flood damage is too risky in my opinion, also depends what kind of water and how high the water got.

There will be hidden corrosion everywhere in the electrical system, especially with salt water flooding.

Not for me, but good luck with it, and Insurance companies may insure it but the insurance value won't be any where near what you might expect, they will probably have to refer it to the underwriters, and don't forget theat Q reg cars where always tricky to insure, and in these days of litigation for personal injury they may have to load the premium.

Thank you for your comments. The type of car is a matter of personal choice for me.
At the time this car sustained flood damage, there were quite a number of cars in Scotland and England which suffered the same fate. Why the assesor decided this car was a category B I will never know, but I do know that when the police forensics officer examined it on Tuesday, I asked him if he thought the car should have been a category B. His reply was 'no way'.
The 'Q' plate issue does not come into play, as the car is going back on the road with it's original registration.

bigjl

philip43 wrote: »

Thank you for your comments. The type of car is a matter of personal choice for me.
At the time this car sustained flood damage, there were quite a number of cars in Scotland and England which suffered the same fate. Why the assesor decided this car was a category B I will never know, but I do know that when the police forensics officer examined it on Tuesday, I asked him if he thought the car should have been a category B. His reply was 'no way'.
The 'Q' plate issue does not come into play, as the car is going back on the road with it's original registration.

You have misunderstood my post a little, I have nothing against a Z3, but it is a complicated car, and it sounds like it may have been flooded with salt water,

The Q plate comment was more to do with insuring a non typical car, not that your car would be on a Q plate, and I didn't say it would be.

But as a Cat B car isn't usually put back on the road then you will be at the mercy of the underwriters, they only care about their liability.

From memory I am sure that any car flooded with salt water was an automatic Cat B due to the risk of hidden corrosion in the car electronics and inside the wiring.

philip43

bigjl wrote: »

You have misunderstood my post a little, I have nothing against a Z3, but it is a complicated car, and it sounds like it may have been flooded with salt water,

The Q plate comment was more to do with insuring a non typical car, not that your car would be on a Q plate, and I didn't say it would be.

But as a Cat B car isn't usually put back on the road then you will be at the mercy of the underwriters, they only care about their liability.

From memory I am sure that any car flooded with salt water was an automatic Cat B due to the risk of hidden corrosion in the car electronics and inside the wiring.

The car was flooded with rain water. At the time there was torrential rain storms in Scotland and England.

Cat B cars aren't usually put back on the road because the insurance industry would have us believe that they are not allowed to be put back on the road, by law. That is clearly not the case.

This raises a more serious issue though, and one which every driver should be concerned about. And that is that insurance premiums are used to pay out in cases like this, when it is evident that this car could have been repaired, rather than being destroyed. That would have cost less than paying the owner to replace the car.

Jakg

Remember there are complications with floods - the car may work now, but what if all of the electrics pack up in a few months or there is serious corrosion? Not all issues can be assessed straight away, and thus insurers like to err on the side of caution just in case.

dacouch

philip43 wrote: »

This raises a more serious issue though, and one which every driver should be concerned about. And that is that insurance premiums are used to pay out in cases like this, when it is evident that this car could have been repaired, rather than being destroyed. That would have cost less than paying the owner to replace the car.

The matter has no effect on insurance premiums, the Insurers paid out on the claim and sold the salvage on.

If they were to repair the car they would have to (In the majority of cases) use brand new genuine parts, guarantee the parts and have the possibility of further damage being discovered once they start the job.

There is also the issue of providing a courtesy car for such a long period and the vast majority of their customers would not want a car with extensive damage repaired and returned to them.

philip43

Jakg wrote: »

Remember there are complications with floods - the car may work now, but what if all of the electrics pack up in a few months or there is serious corrosion? Not all issues can be assessed straight away, and thus insurers like to err on the side of caution just in case.

I'll cross those bridges if and when I come to them. Even undamaged cars develop faults.

Kilty_2

philip43 wrote: »

This raises a more serious issue though, and one which every driver should be concerned about. And that is that insurance premiums are used to pay out in cases like this, when it is evident that this car could have been repaired, rather than being destroyed. That would have cost less than paying the owner to replace the car.

How old is the car?

If your nearly new Z3 you paid £xx,000 for was flood damaged would you want the insurer to repair it and give you it back?

Plus as said, brand new genuine BMW parts + approved BMW labour isn't going to be cheap :rotfl:

philip43

Kilty wrote: »

How old is the car?

If your nearly new Z3 you paid £xx,000 for was flood damaged would you want the insurer to repair it and give you it back?

The car is assessed for damage, not the owner.

Plus as said, brand new genuine BMW parts + approved BMW labour isn't going to be cheap :rotfl:

Neither are insurance premiums, but that's why you pay them.

Kilty_2

The car is assessed for damage yes however repair cost to a fairly new Z3 would be borderline total loss if it was not just an obvious total loss in which case the owner has the option to have them write it off or economise on the repair. (used parts, etc) . Nobody in their right mind would accept such a repair on a new expensive car.

Fair enough what you're doing because you'll have bought the car for pennies due to it's status.