Category B. Good news!!

Hintza

philip43 wrote: »

Well, I haven`t put it back on the road just yet,...........

Well that is the acid test, report back when you have done so.

philip43

scotsman4th wrote: »

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.

I`m not aware of any other test that a car has to go through, other than an MOT, insofar as roadworthyness is concerned.

VIC checks that the car is not a "Ringer" and nothing else. However, if the car inspector notices something that would make the car dangerous to use on a public road, he will inform you.

The MOT checks that the car is roadworthy, and nothing else.

All the information is available on the DirectGov website. Just type VIC in the search.

philip43

Hintza wrote: »

Well that is the acid test, report back when you have done so.

Yes, it will be!! It will take a few weeks for everything to be arranged, but I will keep posting.

davemorton

philip43 wrote: »

I`m not aware of any other test that a car has to go through, other than an MOT, insofar as roadworthyness is concerned.

An IVA check which needs doing to a kit car before they can be registered.

philip43

davemorton wrote: »

An IVA check which needs doing to a kit car before they can be registered.

Thanks for that. I didn`t know that. I have been learning a lot this week!!:beer:

pborojon

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!!

It's up to each individual insurer if they wish to quote for the vehicle. You will have to disclose to them that the vehicle is a previous Cat B write off. I would think the majority of Insurers would be prepared to offer a quotation subject to sight of MOT, VIC and possibly an Independent Engineers report or some may be ok without.

Hintza

pborojon wrote: »

You will have to disclose to them that the vehicle is a previous Cat B write off.

Why would you if they don't ask the question? They have a database that will give them that information.

pborojon

Hintza wrote: »

Why would you if they don't ask the question? They have a database that will give them that information.

It's a material fact.

philip43

pborojon wrote: »

It's a material fact.

I would have thought it was a material fact, but if the car is deemed roadworthy, by way of an MOT, or an independent engineers report, then surely it`s not?

And my understanding of material fact, is more to do with add ons and modifications that have been made to the car which would increase it`s value, and therefore influence the amount paid in the event of a claim?

Isn`t it the driver that they are insuring? I mean, a stationary vehicle will NEVER cause an accident!

And furthermore, do you have to inform them when it`s a cat C, or D?

pborojon

philip43 wrote: »

I would have thought it was a material fact, but if the car is deemed roadworthy, by way of an MOT, or an independent engineers report, then surely it`s not?

And my understanding of material fact, is more to do with add ons and modifications that have been made to the car which would increase it`s value, and therefore influence the amount paid in the event of a claim?

Isn`t it the driver that they are insuring? I mean, a stationary vehicle will NEVER cause an accident!

And furthermore, do you have to inform them when it`s a cat C, or D?

Well, the definition of a material fact is something that may affect the insurers consideration of the risk. Surely the fact that it was a pervious total loss might influence what they would pay out in the event of a claim?

I would say an Insurer should be informed if a vehicle is a previous total loss regardless of the category. It's then up to them if they wish to quote.

All I'm trying to say is that it is probably better to inform them upfront and make sure everyone is happy than not tell them, have a claim and then have all the hassle that goes with it.

For what it's worth I believe someone was correct earlier, if the Insurer doesn't ask the question and then try to act after an incident you would probably be able to argue your case with FOS but would it be worth the stress/hassle having to go through it all?