Non fault car claim. Can I make them fix the car?

rdover

I was asleep a couple of weeks ago when someone crashed into my house and destroyed my Landrover. His Insurance have accepted liability and are being very good (so good I'm switching to them at renewal!).

My question is: The car is valued at £7,125 but would cost £9,500 to repair so it is a Category C write off. Is it correct, as some have told me, that I can require the 3rd party to repair the car regardless of cost rather than accept a settlement?

Thanks

adamc260

rdover wrote: »

I was asleep a couple of weeks ago when someone crashed into my house and destroyed my Landrover. His Insurance have accepted liability and are being very good (so good I'm switching to them at renewal!).

My question is: The car is valued at £7,125 but would cost £9,500 to repair so it is a Category C write off. Is it correct, as some have told me, that I can require the 3rd party to repair the car regardless of cost rather than accept a settlement?

Thanks

No, they will only ever pay whatever is less... in this instance the repairs clearly exceed the value of the car so you cannot expect them to pay that as the car isn't economical to repair. You could however be paid out for the vehicle, retain it and get the repairs sorted yourself, or put the difference in.

vaio

no, if you can replace it for £7k you have no chance of getting a £9k repair.

lisyloo

What you can do in some cases is get it repaired more cheaply yourself (if that is acceptable to you).

For example the insurer may well be looking at Landrover dealers.
It may be possible to get a cheaper repair done if you know a good garage or use some reconditioned parts.
So what you can do is take the settlement, purchase the vehicle back from the insurer and fix it.

For newer cars this generally is not acceptable, but for older cars where the aesthetics or perhaps the longevity are less important then it can work.
It really is down to whether you are prepared to accept the compromise.
The cat C may also lower the value of the vehicle and make it harder to insure.

Alternatively take the money and get another one.

silkyuk9

A friend of mine has car which was stolen but they could not start it so the ripped all the wiring out in the process. The insurance said the damage was £2000 and the car was only worth £500. anyway, the insurance have said its a right off and given him £300 plus the car back which he says is repairable for a few hundred quid.

rdover

My question was not what I could do - it is a landrover so everything above the chassis is cosmetic and as it is a big meccano set (and I'm a big kid) it is eminently fixable.

As I said in the OP, as I am not at fault and the concept of insurance, in this case, is to be covered against claims made against you, can I force the issue and refuse to accept anything less than a full repair. Am I legally bound to take an offer?

This is a conceptual question as I've been made a very fair offer, which I've accepted, which will allow me to repair the car myself or replace it or do something funky with it. That is not the question - if this were damage to a building then it must be repaired regardless of cost is this not the case with vehicles?

adamc260

rdover wrote: »

My question was not what I could do - it is a landrover so everything above the chassis is cosmetic and as it is a big meccano set (and I'm a big kid) it is eminently fixable.

As I said in the OP, as I am not at fault and the concept of insurance, in this case, is to be covered against claims made against you, can I force the issue and refuse to accept anything less than a full repair. Am I legally bound to take an offer?

This is a conceptual question as I've been made a very fair offer, which I've accepted, which will allow me to repair the car myself or replace it or do something funky with it. That is not the question - if this were damage to a building then it must be repaired regardless of cost is this not the case with vehicles?

No, motor and property insurance work differently I would imagine. You cannot force them to repair the car if you can replace it with another vehicle for less than the repairs would cost... indemnity exists to put you back in the same financial position you were in prior to the loss occuring, so if that means you are driving around in another vehicle that is similar to the one you had at a lesser cost to the insurer... they will pick that option. If repairs were less than the value they would pick that option instead of writing it off etc

rdover

I thought not, but a few car 'specialists' were insistent on the point.

adamc260

rdover wrote: »

I thought not, but a few car 'specialists' were insistent on the point.

Perhaps because they wanted the insurer to pay them for repairs?

vaio

I think it comes down to replaceability. Buildings are unique in that there is only one No 234 High Street and if it’s damaged then, as you say, you are entitled to have it rebuild essentially whatever the cost. Once this cost has been agreed then you don’t have to rebuild, you can go and buy No 235 and have a big garden with an “interesting” pile of rubble as a rockery.

Car are less hard to replace, if you drive a 2005 Corsa then you can easily go buy another. If you drive a 2005 Corsa with a unique body kit/sound system then the third party insurance will have to pay for a standard Corsa and the cost of modifications so you end up with what you had before.

What would happen if you had a truly unique car (the first Rolls or one remaining Audi Sport Quattro) I’m not so sure as the costs of repair (of mechanical bits) could be truly astronomical. I think a judge would say “you did the damage, you pay the bill”

dacouch

rdover wrote: »

I thought not, but a few car 'specialists' were insistent on the point.

I'm guessing one of them is Honest John