Rear-end shunt.. not our fault..now what?

Aretnap

jmhgibson123 wrote: »

i wish car insurance was like home ins..new for old!

I'd have a great money making scheme if that was the case. Buy beaten up 15 year old Mercedes for £500. Insure it. Drive it into a tree. Collect a brand new Merc. Sorted!

Even if it was restricted to the price you actually paid for the car, having bought my car second hand five years ago I'd be far better off driving it into a tree than I would be trying to nurse it through another MOT and then scrapping it when it fails.

Of course, that's more or less the reason why car insurers don't typically offer new for old policies. Home insurers can afford to do it because household goods tend not to depreciate as dramatically as cars do, so the cost of providing new for old cover is not as high, and the temptation to stage an accident is lower. Even so, they do still have problems with people who chuck paint over their old sofa because they fancy a new one.

AdrianC

topdaddy wrote: »

So if the car is driveaboe whats the issue in looking for a new one? Not helping your self OP.

The problem is the timing - the OP's car may be drivable, but it only had two weeks of MOT remaining, and the damage means it isn't going to pass. Whether that means it is also not roadworthy is another question...

topdaddy_2

AdrianC wrote: »

The problem is the timing - the OP's car may be drivable, but it only had two weeks of MOT remaining, and the damage means it isn't going to pass. Whether that means it is also not roadworthy is another question...

Id assume driveabke would mean road worthy as assessed by the insurance company?

AdrianC

topdaddy wrote: »

Id assume driveabke would mean road worthy as assessed by the insurance company?

Since the OP's tantrum has extended as far as removing all their original posts, I don't know if it's been assessed. It seems unlikely, since - given the age, low value and damage - it would probably just have been taken straight to salvage.

steampunkmimi

AdrianC. There was no tantrum. We simply grew weary of people not bothering to read and respond to posts made, or simply being vile, so removed the posts.

For what it's worth, the vehicle had been assessed just 3 weeks ago, when other work was done. It would have passed an MOT before the other driver ran into it. Interesting that you'd assume otherwise.

The vehicle had held its value, and was well maintained. I won't be posting on this again, because it's obvious that some of you just don't bother to read. We had already done everything suggested.

The replies to this thread have unfortunately demonstrated the rule, "Be aware that *anyone* may reply". Yes, and they did. Many of them apparently could not read. Some could, and they've already been thanked.


That's it. MOve along.. nothing more to see here. (although some eejit will no doubt think of a "witty" response...).

Inch_High_2

steampunkmimi wrote: »

AdrianC. There was no tantrum. We simply grew weary of people not bothering to read and respond to posts made, or simply being vile, so removed the posts.

For what it's worth, the vehicle had been assessed just 3 weeks ago, when other work was done. It would have passed an MOT before the other driver ran into it. Interesting that you'd assume otherwise.

The vehicle had held its value, and was well maintained. I won't be posting on this again, because it's obvious that some of you just don't bother to read. We had already done everything suggested.

The replies to this thread have unfortunately demonstrated the rule, "Be aware that *anyone* may reply". Yes, and they did. Many of them apparently could not read. Some could, and they've already been thanked.


That's it. MOve along.. nothing more to see here. (although some eejit will no doubt think of a "witty" response...).

We can read well enough to know you keep posting that you will no longer respond on this thread. But you do.

AdrianC

steampunkmimi wrote: »

For what it's worth, the vehicle had been assessed just 3 weeks ago, when other work was done. It would have passed an MOT before the other driver ran into it. Interesting that you'd assume otherwise.

The vehicle had held its value, and was well maintained. I won't be posting on this again, because it's obvious that some of you just don't bother to read.

Speaking of which, perhaps you'd care to make just one last post - to point out where I made such an assumption?

Iceweasel

And we still don't know even what make or model of car it is/was.

This has been a classic thread.

A great example of how NOT to get advice.

Thanks to all who contributed.

Foxy-Stoat_3

steampunkmimi wrote: »

AdrianC. There was no tantrum. We simply grew weary of people not bothering to read and respond to posts made, or simply being vile, so removed the posts.

For what it's worth, the vehicle had been assessed just 3 weeks ago, when other work was done. It would have passed an MOT before the other driver ran into it. Interesting that you'd assume otherwise.

The vehicle had held its value, and was well maintained. I won't be posting on this again, because it's obvious that some of you just don't bother to read. We had already done everything suggested.

The replies to this thread have unfortunately demonstrated the rule, "Be aware that *anyone* may reply". Yes, and they did. Many of them apparently could not read. Some could, and they've already been thanked.


That's it. MOve along.. nothing more to see here. (although some eejit will no doubt think of a "witty" response...).

STILL not telling us what car it was then?

You can click the "unsubscribe" link in your notification email and everything will be well with the World.

Good luck