Wasn't told it was a write off - Options?

scheming_gypsy

MaseCTID wrote: »

+ the insurance I have been paying for the past 5 months as it has been worthless because if I'd crashed the insurance company wouldn't have paid me a bean because I didn't inform them of it being a Cat C (as I didn't know) + the cost of taking it to court.
.

you really need to stop making things up. Just like clocking being illegal and the car unroadworthy, the above isn't true either. If you insure a cat c car and have an accident they'll only pay out it's current value and not it's full value; unless there's enough evidence that you didn't know it hadn't been a write off

MaseCTID

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

you really need to stop making things up. Just like clocking being illegal and the car unroadworthy, the above isn't true either. If you insure a cat c car and have an accident they'll only pay out it's current value and not it's full value; unless there's enough evidence that you didn't know it hadn't been a write off

You sound like a proper prat my friend.

Make stuff up? I haven't told my insurance that the car is a Cat C, because I didn't know. So if I'd have crashed, then the insurance look at the car and see its been a Cat C and I should have been paying more, why should they pay out? They'll look for anything not to pay out and that's a pretty big thing.

Cheer up mate. I suggest a cold shower maybe?

scheming_gypsy

No, you sound like a prat because you're rattling off stuff that you think rather than checking.

You don't need to declare it's been a write off. When getting quotes they never ask you; if you have an accident and it's written off again they'll make you an offer based on its current value but if you bought it in good faith not knowing it was written off they'll pay the full value

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html#14

14. vehicles previously "written-off" and then repaired

Most buyers are (rightly or wrongly) put off by the knowledge that a vehicle was previously "written-off", no matter how well it was later repaired – and this can affect its value.
If the policyholder knew the vehicle was a repaired write-off, he/she is likely to have paid less for it. So we are likely to decide that it is not unfair for the insurer to make an appropriate deduction – not more than 20%, unless the insurer can provide good independent evidence for a higher deduction.
But if we are satisfied that the policyholder innocently bought (and insured) the vehicle in complete ignorance of its history, and the repairs were not obviously noticeable, he/she is likely to have paid full price (and a full insurance premium) for it. So we are likely to decide that it would be unfair for the insurer to pay less than the full market value.

i don't need a cold shower because i'm not making things up, i'm telling you what happens.

marlot

MaseCTID wrote: »

You sound like a proper prat my friend.

You've come here with a problem, and several people have given up their time to help you. Including me.

You've made a numbe of assumptions, such as a clocked car automatically being unroadworthy, that insurance will pay out less on a cat c, etc

Why don't you ask? That would save arguments when people point out that you're making wrong assumptions.

And calling people names isn't on.

flashnazia

I don't understand this, didn't the V5C show anything about it being a write-off at all?

I got this from Directgov:

Once a car has passed a VIC, the V5C issued will be annotated to show ‘substantially repaired and/or accident damaged; identity checked on dd/mm/ccyy’.

scheming_gypsy

flashnazia wrote: »

I don't understand this, didn't the V5C show anything about it being a write-off at all?

I got this from Directgov:

cough post 8 cough

flashnazia

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

cough post 8 cough

Yes I see it now. I've got a silly habit of switching off if I see a post longer than five sentences...

MaseCTID

marlot wrote: »

You've come here with a problem, and several people have given up their time to help you. Including me.

You've made a numbe of assumptions, such as a clocked car automatically being unroadworthy, that insurance will pay out less on a cat c, etc

Why don't you ask? That would save arguments when people point out that you're making wrong assumptions.

And calling people names isn't on.

Well hopefully he won't tell the teacher.

I've been given a lot of brilliant advice on here which I am very grateful for. There's some excellent people who know their stuff.

But if someone is saying to me "Stop making stuff up...." after my insurance have called me directly to advise me I am not insured with them and need to renew at a different price then I'm clearly allowed to defend myself.

Thanks for any previous advise give though Marlot.

liam8282

liam8282 wrote: »

Do insurance companies not know that a car is cat c anyway?

Is it not highlighted on their system when they enter the car details?

Does anybody know the correct answer to the above questions?

I ask because I was recently given a Cat C car, I rang up to get it insured before it had been recorded, was accepted for the insurance.... I then cancelled it because I realised myself that the insurance wouldn't be correct if I insured it as a non Cat C.

I then had the VIC check done on the car and it was recorded as Cat C, when the VIC check was done it was updated instantly on the DVLA database, and I then had to send a form off to get the new logbook, but was advised that the car could now be insured properly as it had no outstanding markers and was updated on the car database.

I rang up, and the insurance was about £100 - £200 more, as to be expected for a Cat C car. The insurers explained that they basically use the reg number to get the car details, and they must use whatever database the DVLA use, so therefore they know it is Cat C anyway if you don't tell them.

This was all done about a month ago, and I received the log book yesterday which has a note on the bottom about significant damage or whatever it says.

Now, this all relates back to my original point, can anyone confirm if this is correct?

I will add I stand to be corrected as I don't actually know, this is just what I believe is what happens.

liam8282

BTW with any car, I would use the car text check service, £3 to check the cars history instantly:

http://www.cartextcheck.co.uk/