No fault accident now car is a total loss

vaio

zappahey wrote: »

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

and there is another equally low rent insurer that says the same however the rest of the market don't care.

It can get messy because Cat D is not noted on log book so it's entirely possible to buy one without knowing, couple that with picking one of the insurers that don't cover Cat C and it's likely a trip to the FOS is on the cards to sort it out if a claim is made

vaio

prowla wrote: »

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.

Nah, as the definition you've got is nonsense then anything that follows from that is also nonsense.

As others have posted, whether a car gets written off as C or D is based on economics rather than severity of damage

AdrianC

prowla wrote: »

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.

£500 pre-accident value.
Insurers don't repair cracked bumpers - they replace them, with new ones. £400 list price. £300 paint & fitting. £700 > £500 = Cat C.

Same damage, same car, but £900 pre-accident value.
£700 parts & fitting <£900, but with a delay in getting a bumper skin and a £250/wk hire car bill, Cat D and cut your losses.

Same damage, same car, but £1500 pre-accident value.
Repair. No write-off at all.

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.

Explain to me the point in requiring a new MOT in one or two of those collisions?

Oh, and a flood-damage is likely to be a Cat B or even A, so won't ever be back on the road.

EcoR1

AdrianC wrote: »

Oh, and a flood-damage is likely to be a Cat B or even A, so won't ever be back on the road.

Except there are Cat B cars on the road.

AdrianC

EcoR1 wrote: »

Except there are Cat B cars on the road.

Yes, there are some. But the ABI agreements say that Cat B is for disposal to licensed breakers only and Thou Shalt Not Return To Road <thunderclap>.

And, of course, there's umpteen cars that are as badly/worse damaged but didn't get recorded or the assessor was in a good mood or...

anotheruser

I wouldn't worry about a light filter being broken...
There are cars on the road I pass every day with much worse problems that have a valid MOT, and are therefore considered road worthy.

Surely that is what an MOT test is for?

Which is why I don't agree with the way they are in forced. Many people are driving un-roadworthy cars in the eyes of an MOT test, yet because they hold a sheet of paper saying it passed X months ago, then it is fine to drive...

prowla

vaio wrote: »

Nah, as the definition you've got is nonsense then anything that follows from that is also nonsense.

As others have posted, whether a car gets written off as C or D is based on economics rather than severity of damage

OK - I got it via a web search; do you have a better one?

prowla

AdrianC wrote: »

£500 pre-accident value.
Insurers don't repair cracked bumpers - they replace them, with new ones. £400 list price. £300 paint & fitting. £700 > £500 = Cat C.

Same damage, same car, but £900 pre-accident value.
£700 parts & fitting <£900, but with a delay in getting a bumper skin and a £250/wk hire car bill, Cat D and cut your losses.

Same damage, same car, but £1500 pre-accident value.
Repair. No write-off at all.

Seems like that's the definition of a Cat D.

AdrianC wrote: »

Explain to me the point in requiring a new MOT in one or two of those collisions?

Well, some of the items listed in the MOT are:

• Headlamps
• Headlamp aim
• Steering control
• Steering system
• Power steering
• Suspension - general
• Tyres
• Seatbelts
• Vehicle Structure, Body and General Items
• Seats and Doors
• Vehicle Structure, Body and General Items
• Seats and Doors

Are you saying that an accident causing a write-off could not have affected any of them?

AdrianC wrote: »

Oh, and a flood-damage is likely to be a Cat B or even A, so won't ever be back on the road.

Well, I suppose it depends on the flood and the category assigned to the write-off.

vaio

prowla wrote: »

OK - I got it via a web search; do you have a better one?

how about the one produced and supported by the Association of British Insurers (ABI), Lloyd’s Market Association (LMA), British Vehicle Salvage Federation (BVSF), British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA), Motor Vehicles Dismantlers Association (MVDA), the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) / Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland (ACPOS), Trading Standards Institute, the Home Office (HO), the Department for Transport (DfT), the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland (DVLNI)1 and the Vehicle Operator and Services Agency (VOSA)?

it says.......

Cat REPAIRABLE total loss vehicles where repair costs including VAT do not exceed the vehicle’s PAV.

Cat C: REPAIRABLE total loss vehicles where repair costs including VAT exceed the vehicle’s pre-accident value (PAV).

As previously posted it's pure economics, nothing directly to do severity of damage.

arcon5

anotheruser wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about a light filter being broken...
There are cars on the road I pass every day with much worse problems that have a valid MOT, and are therefore considered road worthy.

Surely that is what an MOT test is for?

Which is why I don't agree with the way they are in forced. Many people are driving un-roadworthy cars in the eyes of an MOT test, yet because they hold a sheet of paper saying it passed X months ago, then it is fine to drive...

Well how else to you propose an MOT type system is enforced? It wouldn't be viable to take one before every journey. Plus a car can come unroadworthy very quickly sometimes leaving it inevitable to drive an 'unroadworthy' car.