Category B. Good news!!

philip43

pborojon wrote: »

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?

Fair point, well made!
I will of course inform the insurers of it`s previous history, because it would be my intention to ask a few awkward questions when the car is returned to the road!!

philip43

Here`s something else I discovered.

On doing the HPI check, they assert that certain information is obtained from the DVA, or the DVLNI.

I am now in a position to tell you that is not the case. I have checked information on the HPI check, with the DVA, and they have assured me that the information on the HPI check is wrong!

As I have checked with the DVA, I requested that they log my call, and the nature of my call. Should anyone inform them in line with what the HPI check says, it will be refused!

This just gets merkier, and it`s not painting the insurance industry in a very good light!

luap2411

I bought my car back from the ins co after it got written off last year. They wanted to book it as a cat C, which usually means chassis damage I gave them a hard time pointing out there was no chassis damage and they classified as a cat D. Know someone who bought a vectra b with a dented rear door, no other damage, got classified as a cat C !

Firstly I'm not convinced there is consistency in the grading system, secondly if a car is repaired properly and safely why should it not go back on the road ?

If it was a bargain price, you can get it insured, you are going to keep it, and it's safe, then good luck to you.

As for a Z3 not my personal choice, but we're all different, and someday it will likely be a classic that your grandchildren will pay silly money for !

vaio

pborojon wrote: »

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?

Yep, the FOS have pretty much neutered the “you must disclose all material facts” statement in insurance documents with rulings along the lines of if insurers consider something to be a material fact then they need to ask a clear and unambiguous question about it.

No question = no need to disclose

raskazz

luap2411 wrote: »

They wanted to book it as a cat C, which usually means chassis damage

No, it doesn't.

As for the OP - not sure where the 'good news' is in buying an old category B total loss that has is of dubious provenance anyway - as someone else pointed out, where has it been for the last 4 years since the flood damage? Why did the salvage agent let it back on the road, despite almost certainly being instructed to follow the ABI code of practice by the insurer? Personally, I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole, MOT and VIC or no MOT and VIC.

hellofreebies

funny i came across this post, as i have had a nightmare since monday morning after discovering in the post my new log book on a car i purchased privately 4 weeks ago had the wording 'SUBSTANTIALLY REPAIRED AND/OR ACCIDENT DAMAGED; IDENTITY CHECKED ON 17 04 2010' in the special notes.

further checks confirmed it was written off and categorised B when it was 6 moths old! the previous garage who mot'ed the car in April informed me when i called that he remembered the car as it was so low milege that it had flood damage. from matching up the car reg letter location and the date of the decision of write off i have figured it must of been from the beverley, east yorkshire severe flooding in june 2007

since having the car i have serviced it, taxed it, insured it and been using it daily...rang my insurers to explain the situation and the wording in the notes of the log book, i was then bluntly told that my policy with them will expire in 7 days, and cancellation documents will follow in the post as well as monies refunded back to me for the remaining period of the policy as they do not insure write offs!! obviously i was so gutted.

i have no choice but to scrap the parts due to the category b status, despite advise of well meaning friends i do not have the heart nor the guts to pass this car on to some other unsuspecting buyer.

my only saving grace is after speaking to a insurance broker and waiting since all day yesterday they have managed to find me an insurer for my B category (as long it has vic and mot) for the same price as a standard policy for just £340 with my 5 years no claims entitlement. i was told if i was to write off the car then i would normally be paid 20% less then the market value. im obviously feel a lot better today but for a peace of mind i will pay a expert engineer to see how badly the flooding has affected the car.

my situation could ve been avoided obviously if i made some simple checks prior to purchasing the car and i wouldnt wish anyone to have to go through this hassle as i did. i was not minding a cat c or d on the record as i got the car reasonably cheap even though the seller insisted it was totally clean. the B cateogory was totally not what i was expecting.

i suspect my car has been stored since july 2007 to dry out as its never been taxed since and i suggest everyone to be vigilant of cars just over three and four years and that they are not registered in a severe flooding area. from what i read there are many that were not written off near that time due to people selling on their flood damaged cars to save paying excess to there insurance. so let my mistakes not be in vain for others out there looking for a bargain.

KillerWatt

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?

A valid MOT does not guarantee roadworthiness, it tells you that on the certificate itself.

philip43

KillerWatt wrote: »

A valid MOT does not guarantee roadworthiness, it tells you that on the certificate itself.

yes you`re quite right. It only confirms that the car passed the MOT on that day. But unless they decide to introduce the MOT test on a daily basis, then we are stuck with it. Rule nothing in, and rule nothing out!

philip43

hellofreebies wrote: »

funny i came across this post, as i have had a nightmare since monday morning after discovering in the post my new log book on a car i purchased privately 4 weeks ago had the wording 'SUBSTANTIALLY REPAIRED AND/OR ACCIDENT DAMAGED; IDENTITY CHECKED ON 17 04 2010' in the special notes.

further checks confirmed it was written off and categorised B when it was 6 moths old! the previous garage who mot'ed the car in April informed me when i called that he remembered the car as it was so low milege that it had flood damage. from matching up the car reg letter location and the date of the decision of write off i have figured it must of been from the beverley, east yorkshire severe flooding in june 2007

since having the car i have serviced it, taxed it, insured it and been using it daily...rang my insurers to explain the situation and the wording in the notes of the log book, i was then bluntly told that my policy with them will expire in 7 days, and cancellation documents will follow in the post as well as monies refunded back to me for the remaining period of the policy as they do not insure write offs!! obviously i was so gutted.

i have no choice but to scrap the parts due to the category b status, despite advise of well meaning friends i do not have the heart nor the guts to pass this car on to some other unsuspecting buyer.

my only saving grace is after speaking to a insurance broker and waiting since all day yesterday they have managed to find me an insurer for my B category (as long it has vic and mot) for the same price as a standard policy for just £340 with my 5 years no claims entitlement. i was told if i was to write off the car then i would normally be paid 20% less then the market value. im obviously feel a lot better today but for a peace of mind i will pay a expert engineer to see how badly the flooding has affected the car.

my situation could ve been avoided obviously if i made some simple checks prior to purchasing the car and i wouldnt wish anyone to have to go through this hassle as i did. i was not minding a cat c or d on the record as i got the car reasonably cheap even though the seller insisted it was totally clean. the B cateogory was totally not what i was expecting.

i suspect my car has been stored since july 2007 to dry out as its never been taxed since and i suggest everyone to be vigilant of cars just over three and four years and that they are not registered in a severe flooding area. from what i read there are many that were not written off near that time due to people selling on their flood damaged cars to save paying excess to there insurance. so let my mistakes not be in vain for others out there looking for a bargain.

With all due respect, I think you are paying a little too much importance to the category B listing. It must be remembered, that it is the insurance body, the ABI, who got together and decided these categories. They have their own interests to serve.

The DVA, who are the legislators in all this say quite clearly that a category A, B, or C vehicle, must have a VIC check before being returned to road use.

Even the categories do not suggest a particular amount of damage has been inflicted on a car. The categories only determine what the insurance company thinks it will cost to repair, against the value of the car.

For example, a 1998 mini may have suffered damage to a front wing, front panel, and bonnet, meaning the cost of the parts, labour, and sundries would be greater than the vehicles pre-accident value. Therefore the car is written off as category C.

If the car were a 2008 Ferrari, and suffered identical damage, then it would be category D.

The reason for the VIC is to help prevent cars being cloned by thieves stealing a car and giving it the identity of a damaged one.

Your car has had a VIC check, which means it is the car it is purporting to be.

The insurance company have told you that in the event of a write off claim, they will pay out 20% less than the value of the car. The premium as you say is the same as a car that has not been damaged. I think thats fair enough, don`t you? ( You`re original insurance company, who terminated your policy may very well be the company who paid out on the car in the first instance, and they DON`T like paying out on the same car twice. They suspect the second claim could be fraudulant!)

By all means, get the car independantly checked over, for your own peace of mind, but do remember that cars do break down, things go wrong, wether they have been damaged or not. Think of the Toyota Prius. Manufacturers have reason to recall cars all the time, but you don`t get to hear about it unless you`re driving one.

I hope you have many more years enjoyment from your category B car, and you can tell your friends that all that stuff about category B cars having to be crushed is just nonsense!!

hellofreebies

ok another factor to consider is if you were to have a non fault accident in a cat b repaired car there is a chance that the 3rd parties insurance might be adamant about not paying out as the abi code suggests cat b are not to be allowed on the road accept parts can be resold and body crushed etc,, anyone had this experience or qualified to confirm what would happen...