Category B. Good news!!

philip43

loofer wrote: »

I'd still be a bit sceptical untill you have it on the road with documentation (V5 and VIC). Did you get it in writing from DVLA?

As with all companies, you only have to get through to the wrong person on the phone and you get wrong info.

I think you misunderstand. The DVLA are not a private company who can move the goalposts as and when they see fit. It is a government body with clearly defined terms of reference. They state quite clearly on their website, well,read it yourself...

1. What vehicles will be affected?

Any car that is notified to DVA Licensing on or after 7th April 2003 as having been written off (category A,B or C), regardless of the date of accident, will require a VIC before a replacement registration document can be issued. This notification will set a 'VIC marker' on the vehicle record on the DVA database. Vehicles cannot be volunteered for a VIC; DVA Testing will only accept applications for vehicles that have a VIC marker.

philip43

Hintza wrote: »

I wonder if anyone will insure it?

Another popular misconception.

If the car is deemed fit to be on the road by way of an MOT inspection, then why shouldn`t it be insurable?? It can`t be any different than a kit car someones thrown together in their garage while they`ve been avoiding the missus!!

philip43

philip43 wrote: »

Another popular misconception.

If the car is deemed fit to be on the road by way of an MOT inspection, then why shouldn`t it be insurable?? It can`t be any different than a kit car someones thrown together in their garage while they`ve been avoiding the missus!!

Actually no, it IS MUCH different than a kit car. It is a production line car that had a problem, and is now repaired and roadworthy.

philip43

...and before anyone takes the hump, i`m not slating kit cars. If they are MOT`ed then they have as much right to be on the road as a production car.

Rolandtheroadie

philip43 wrote: »

Another popular misconception.

If the car is deemed fit to be on the road by way of an MOT inspection, then why shouldn`t it be insurable?? It can`t be any different than a kit car someones thrown together in their garage while they`ve been avoiding the missus!!

Will a kit car not have to pass more stringent testing than a VIC (or indeed an MOT test) which, after all, is only confirming the identity of the vehicle.

motorguy

philip43 wrote: »

Needless to say they declined my polite offer.

Because they couldnt be bothered and there was nothing in it for them?

motorguy

I'm sorry Phil

I'm just not sharing your excitement here. You've now put a CAT B car back on the road that will probably be unsellable come resale time.

Theres no world shortages of perfectly good Z3's out there and theres no world shortage of perfectly repairable CAT C and CAT D cars.

I just dont see the 'good news' in CAT B cars getting back onto the road.

Just not feeling the love on this one.

Hintza

loofer wrote: »

I'd still be a bit sceptical untill you have it on the road with documentation (V5 and VIC). Did you get it in writing from DVLA?

This is the way I am thinking.

However, I am with the OP in one respect, why are the cars Cat B? Perhaps there should be a new category for flood damaged cars. Structurally they will be sound but electrics could be very dodgy.

philip43

pgilc1 wrote: »

I'm sorry Phil

I'm just not sharing your excitement here. You've now put a CAT B car back on the road that will probably be unsellable come resale time.

Theres no world shortages of perfectly good Z3's out there and theres no world shortage of perfectly repairable CAT C and CAT D cars.

I just dont see the 'good news' in CAT B cars getting back onto the road.

Just not feeling the love on this one.

Well, I haven`t put it back on the road just yet, but the point i`m trying to make is that most people think because insurance companies categorise damage as A, B, C, and D, that A, and B must never be returned to the road. These are industry guidlines.

The DVLA say that they will issue a V5 on completion of a VIC test. This is legislation.

I have no intention of selling it. I intend, like I do with all my cars, to drive it to the end of it`s natural life!!

philip43

pgilc1 wrote: »

Because they couldnt be bothered and there was nothing in it for them?

Exactly! However, when, as I hope, I return the car to road use, I shall be contacting the ABI, to ask for an explanation as to why flood damaged cars are cat B, when it`s quite obvious that with replacement of the water damaged parts, the car could quite easily have been categorised as a cat C. Repairable, but uneconomical.

And here`s another thing. If the car is cat B due to water damage, how can parts be salvaged to use on other cars? Surely the parts would have suffered water ingress?? Doesn`t that make the car cat A?