Non fault car write off, but want 2nd opinion on repairs

vaio

NurseMoneySaver1122 wrote: »

My car is an x reg renault clio grande with 90000 miles. I paid for a valuation with Glasses, as that's who Churchill apparently use and results were:
Retail = £1,550
Private = £1,034
Trade in = £430 (excellent condition), £375 (average), £296 (below average).

Also had a look on auto trader but really does vary.

The Churchill engineer valued my car at £1015. I'm going to call Churchill tomorrow to find out what value they place on salvage of my car, and hopefully the figures all together will help me understand it a bit better.

Would that valuation seem fair, based on the information above?

FOS view is you get the retail value

foxyuk

Having been a claims handler here is a few points

1) that's an excellent offer from engineer
2) due to the age it will always be a cat c ( constructive total loss) repair costs exceed the value of car
3) I would be surprised if they will allow u to retain the salvage as companies have tightened up on this (( forgot to check did u claim direct via third party insurers ?
4) there is always a difference is a non insurance company repair and a cash deal
5) a previous post says u are entitled to retail value this information is INCORRECT You should be able to replace the car for similar or better as I think the engineers been generous

My advice is take the money and move on

dacouch

foxyuk wrote: »

Having been a claims handler here is a few points

1) that's an excellent offer from engineer
2) due to the age it will always be a cat c ( constructive total loss) repair costs exceed the value of car
3) I would be surprised if they will allow u to retain the salvage as companies have tightened up on this (( forgot to check did u claim direct via third party insurers ?
4) there is always a difference is a non insurance company repair and a cash deal
5) a previous post says u are entitled to retail value this information is INCORRECT You should be able to replace the car for similar or better as I think the engineers been generous

My advice is take the money and move on

You'd be wrong and Viao would be correct. The Ombudsman clearly states that in most cases the retail price from a comparable reputable dealer should be used but may allow a reduction for the typical amount a dealer would have built in as margin for negotiation.

On what basis are you saying an offer of £1015 when the book is recommending between £1034 and £1550 ?

foxyuk

There is no way any insurance company would pay out retail figure on any car and certainly not an x registration car with over 90k miles on the clock
Yes I do think it is a good offer, insurance companies use glasses, cap and tend to go in the middle .

Well I've looked on autotrader and u can get same model on a y plate with 45000 miles less for under £1000 and there's a few similar on there. So the valuation is correct !! I knew that before even looking

It's the insureds responsibility to prove they cannot replace like for like with the valuation,

dacouch

foxyuk wrote: »

There is no way any insurance company would pay out retail figure on any car and certainly not an x registration car with over 90k miles on the clock
Yes I do think it is a good offer, insurance companies use glasses, cap and tend to go in the middle .

Well I've looked on autotrader and u can get same model on a y plate with 45000 miles less for under £1000 and there's a few similar on there. So the valuation is correct !! I knew that before even looking

It's the insureds responsibility to prove they cannot replace like for like with the valuation,

"In most cases, we assess the market value as the retail price which the policyholder would have had to pay for a comparable vehicle at a reputable dealer, immediately before the date of the damage/theft."

There are also Clio Grandes advertised for £1395 for the same mileage.

Fortunately for the OP, the Ombudsman does not take much notice of Autotrader adverts "We do not usually find advertisements for similar vehicles very persuasive"

He takes notice of Glasses, Parkers and CAP.

The only thing your post has right is that the Ombudsman would use an average of the prices from Glasses, Parkers and CAP if they disagree on the price.

If you worked in Motor Claims you must be aware of how the Ombudsman forces Insurers to handle vehicle valuations

foxyuk

At the end of the day neither u or I know the pre accident condition And the op has not clarified ie number of prev owners, condition, history , mot length.

Having been a claims handler for 5 years with royal sun alliance I never saw an insured getting retail value on write off ,,,mind u left a few years ago

dacouch

foxyuk wrote: »

At the end of the day neither u or I know the pre accident condition And the op has not clarified ie number of prev owners, condition, history , mot length.

Having been a claims handler for 5 years with royal sun alliance I never saw an insured getting retail value on write off ,,,mind u left a few years ago

That's RSA for you!

As you correctly mentioned we do not know the history of the car, so you stating it's a good offer is somewhat premature

Have a read of this which is how you should have settled claims.

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

NurseMoneySaver1122

Thank you both for your replies.

Dacouche, I actually read that FOS page a few days ago, and was thinking of that reading each of your posts. I completely agree; if the FOS say it, then surest rely that's final.

Would it maybe be worth me paying for a valuation with Parker's and CAP (no idea if drivers can have access to the latter?). Then I could find out the average myself, before agreeing/disagreeing with engineer.

Also, what do I actually do in the event I disagree with the engineers valuation? Obviously I'd present my findings from Glass's etc and ask if he's prepared to reconsider. But if he still says no, is that final or can I go to the FOS for them to look into it?

Thanks again to everyone who's taken the time to help

NurseMoneySaver1122

Foxyuk, in response to your earlier post, the engineer has already told me I can retain it as salvage at 9%, so that is still an option thankfully.

Also, no I didn't claim direct via the third party's insurance, I claimed via my own. But kept NCD etc as it was non-fault. Why did you ask? Just wondering if that was a bad idea?

NurseMoneySaver1122

foxyuk wrote: »

At the end of the day neither u or I know the pre accident condition And the op has not clarified ie number of prev owners, condition, history , mot length.

Having been a claims handler for 5 years with royal sun alliance I never saw an insured getting retail value on write off ,,,mind u left a few years ago

To clarify details:

- MOT until Feb 2012
- Tax until Jan 2012
- 2 previous owners (my brother being the last owner)
- Not a full service history
- Condition on a below average, average & good scale, I'd say "Average".

Although condition poses another question to me. Isn't it really debatable? Is there a guide anywhere that could help me see if I'm being fair stating "Average" condition?