No fault accident now car is a total loss

AdrianC

arcon5 wrote: »

Are you sure it's just a smashed light though and not some bent body work behind it and stuff? As if this was the case surely it would be a cat D rather than a cat C.

The difference between Cat D and Cat C is _purely_ one of repair cost vs pre-accident value. Repair cost less than PAV - Cat D. Repair cost more - Cat C. Repair cost, for insurance purposes, includes all new parts at manufacturer's list price. Clearly, buying a used light off eBay or the local breaker is going to be a LOT cheaper. Likewise ignoring a lightly crinkled panel rather than replacing it with new and paying for the paint costs.

Personally i'd MOT it just to have its checked impartially

The ONLY thing that the MOT would check that'd be remotely relevant, by the sound of it, is whether the lights work and the headlamp's correctly aligned. The OP can do that themselves in two minutes - drive square-on up to a wall, and make sure that both dip beams are level and the affected side isn't skewed off to one side. Job jobbed.

The wording on the MOT certificate itself explicitly breaks the link between an MOT and "roadworthiness".

If the car's written off again, then the payout next time will be much reduced, _because_ it's been a Cat C.

If t'were me, no brainer - take the car, pay the salvage value, kick it straight.

prowla

Wow - I'm surprised that being a write-off doesn't automatically invalidate the MOT.

If it's a Cat C, then it will need a thorough check; insurers can write off because it costs more to repair than the value of the car, but a Cat C raises questions about the roadworthiness of the car.

That said, a Cat C can be made fully roadworthy; I have a Cat C repaired car which I bought on ebay, and I made sure that I had it checked out (my mechanic is an MOT examiner anyway). My insurers were perfectly happy to take it on.

prowla

Looking at the definitions of Cat D and Cat C, they are rather wooley...

Cat D says:

Repairable salvage. Minimal damage, probably not structural, but insurer does not want to repair, even though it might be economic to do so. Often stolen and recovered after claim has been paid. Or it maybe a vehicle where parts are difficult to obtain so a quick repair is unlikely. Does not need VIC inspection to return to road. Notification will appear in your vehicle history check

Whereas Cat C says:

Repairable salvage. Usually applies to vehicles with significant damage and where the cost of repairs exceeds the book value. It can be sold for repair but must have VIC(Vehicle Identity Check) inspection before returning to the road. V5 documents are returned to DVLA and recorded as category C vehicles. You can re-apply for registration on the original identity once the VIC inspection has been done. VIC inspection and re-registration removes the Category C classification, but evidence it was at one time Category C remains on the vehicle's record at the DVLA and so will appear on a vehicle data check.

Interestingly, the Cat D says "probably not structural", but C doesn't mention structural at all...

dacouch

arcon5 wrote: »

I've never come across an insurer that's even asked if a vehicles ever been declared a write off...

A (very) small amount include in their assumptions that the car has not previously been written off

Aretnap

prowla wrote: »

Wow - I'm surprised that being a write-off doesn't automatically invalidate the MOT.

Why would it, amy more than any accidental damage would invalidate an MOT? The decision to write off a car is based on economics, it's not (directly) a measure of the amount of damage. An old car with negligible market value might be written off because of a few dents or a cracked bumper. A newer/more valuable car could suffer identical damage and not be written off. So why would one need a new MOT and not the other?

Plus there's the fact that unlike MOT tests, write off categories aren't enshrined in any law - they're just the product of an agreement between insurers and salvage operators about how damaged cars should be dealt with.

vaio

prowla wrote: »

Looking at the definitions of Cat D and Cat C, they are rather wooley...

Cat D says:

Repairable salvage. Minimal damage, probably not structural, but insurer does not want to repair, even though it might be economic to do so. Often stolen and recovered after claim has been paid. Or it maybe a vehicle where parts are difficult to obtain so a quick repair is unlikely. Does not need VIC inspection to return to road. Notification will appear in your vehicle history check

Whereas Cat C says:

Repairable salvage. Usually applies to vehicles with significant damage and where the cost of repairs exceeds the book value. It can be sold for repair but must have VIC(Vehicle Identity Check) inspection before returning to the road. V5 documents are returned to DVLA and recorded as category C vehicles. You can re-apply for registration on the original identity once the VIC inspection has been done. VIC inspection and re-registration removes the Category C classification, but evidence it was at one time Category C remains on the vehicle's record at the DVLA and so will appear on a vehicle data check.

Interestingly, the Cat D says "probably not structural", but C doesn't mention structural at all...

Not just woolly, pretty much the whole of the cat C "definition" is nonsense

redux

Aretnap wrote: »

Why would it, amy more than any accidental damage would invalidate an MOT? The decision to write off a car is based on economics, it's not (directly) a measure of the amount of damage. An old car with negligible market value might be written off because of a few dents or a cracked bumper. A newer/more valuable car could suffer identical damage and not be written off. So why would one need a new MOT and not the other?

Plus there's the fact that unlike MOT tests, write off categories aren't enshrined in any law - they're just the product of an agreement between insurers and salvage operators about how damaged cars should be dealt with.

Nevertheless, some insurers (including mine) do not wish to insure a car that has been previously written off.

It may or may not be unfair, but that is their decision. Argue with them if you wish, rather than anyone who happens to say so.

When my car was potentially going to be written off, I discussed buying the salvage back, and that's when I learned this.

I pointed out it seemed unreasonable as I would thus have 9 months remaining premium I could not use. They could put it on hold but that wouldn't ultimately be much use if I meanwhile insured the same car elsewhere and kept it for a couple of years or more.

In the end they agreed to pay me an amount in lieu of the repair, instead of writing it off.

prowla

Aretnap wrote: »

Why would it, amy more than any accidental damage would invalidate an MOT? The decision to write off a car is based on economics, it's not (directly) a measure of the amount of damage. An old car with negligible market value might be written off because of a few dents or a cracked bumper. A newer/more valuable car could suffer identical damage and not be written off. So why would one need a new MOT and not the other?

Plus there's the fact that unlike MOT tests, write off categories aren't enshrined in any law - they're just the product of an agreement between insurers and salvage operators about how damaged cars should be dealt with.

Well, a Cat C says significant damage, which implies something (ahem) significant. it's pretty unlikely that a cracked bumper of a couple of dents (which could be filled cheaply) would comprise a Cat C write off.

In the case of accident damage, flooding, or other items, then I don't think it is unreasonable to require an MOT to re-register it as part of the process of approving it to go back on the road.

colino

Don't use c or d as guide about cost of repair or the violence of impact. I've seen Scoobys as cat d when they have been bent round lampposts and a Citroen Estate classed as a c, just because it was nearly new and the insurer couldn't guarantee supply of parts so paid out instead of having the owner in a hire car for months on end.
Nowadays there is no logic applied.

zappahey

arcon5 wrote: »

I've never come across an insurer that's even asked if a vehicles ever been declared a write off...

Swiftcover explicitly state that they don't cover Cat C & D vehicles.