My car has previous crash damage

AdrianC

teabelly wrote: »

Cat D has strict limits and has to be light damage only.

Not quite. CatD is damage that will cost less than the pre-accident value of the vehicle, but which the insurer has chosen to write-off anyway. Why? Their call. Maybe their Ts & Cs say "more than 65%", maybe the cost of hire-car or storage or whatever.

OP - when you say that you "done my research" and that pointed to the doors being damaged, who and where told you that? Any pre-repair photos? What inspection did you get carried out?

jimjames

koffee85 wrote: »

I searched the MOT garage and all seems above board. I am upset that i lost my money but im more furious that they sold me a car that isnt even road worthy.
These people cannot get away with this. Its not fair to us consumers, who trusted them.

If it legitimately passed an MOT then it was roadworthy at the time of the inspection in the eyes of the tester. Non critical damage hidden behind a bumper doesn't automatically make it unroadworthy. It sounds like it was ok until you crashed it - or at least was MOT grade.

AdrianC

jimjames wrote: »

If it legitimately passed an MOT then it was roadworthy at the time of the inspection in the eyes of the tester. Non critical damage hidden behind a bumper doesn't automatically make it unroadworthy.

Even if it was critical, and did render it unroadworthy - then, as has already been pointed out - the tester can't test what he can't see without dismantling.

Mark_Mark

Netwizard wrote: »

I would be questioning the garage that carried out the MOT on how a car can pass with a corroded and broken chassis!

I would be double checking the facts first, the Civic doesn't have a chassis. It's a uni body construction.

jimjames

koffee85 wrote: »

Thank you.

Yes it had a MOT, and on the outside all looked fine. All the damage was behind the bumper so you couldnt see it.

The CAT D was issued in 2008 and since has had 2 owners the damage that is on the vehicle now is 6 or 7 months old.

I'm confused.

So it was written off in 2008 and has had 6 annual MOTs since then which have all passed with no advisories?

There is new unrelated damage that is 6/7 months old which is before you bought the car but after the write off? How do you know that the damage happened then or is there something else you've not explained?

john_white

Has every owner crashed this car?


It's likely that it was a CAT D in 2008, then crashed again and repaired cheaply, then crashed again back end of 2013, then you crashed it recently?

Mark_Mark

john_white wrote: »

Has every owner crashed this car?


It's likely that it was a CAT D in 2008, then crashed again and repaired cheaply, then crashed again back end of 2013, then you crashed it recently?

Now we know why they all got rid of it.

koffee85

Mark_Mark wrote: »

I would be double checking the facts first, the Civic doesn't have a chassis. It's a uni body construction.

The independent garage said it was the chassis, thank you i will ask them again.

koffee85

jimjames wrote: »

I'm confused.

So it was written off in 2008 and has had 6 annual MOTs since then which have all passed with no advisories?

There is new unrelated damage that is 6/7 months old which is before you bought the car but after the write off? How do you know that the damage happened then or is there something else you've not explained?

I had a bump in it a few weeks ago and the independent garage has said they are unable to fix the damage that i have done until the pre-exsisting damage is fixed. They said the damage was approx 6 to 7 months old.

koffee85

Mark_Mark wrote: »

Now we know why they all got rid of it.

I think your right, maybe WO in 2008 and then has been fine since till last year. Last owner had an accident and sold it on. or fixed it cheaply and sold to me.