I crashed my car for the first time. Just checking I've done everything right so far

boggy1

Aretnap wrote: »

For info on how the value of the car is (or should be) assessed see here

Thanks for that!

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Bought about a year ago. Worth checking if it was more or less, and if your insurer replaces it with a new car within the first year. edit - great minds think alike.

Unfortunately it's about 14 months old, so past any year guarantee. I'll call the dealer in the morning though.

nobbysn*ts

AdrianC wrote: »

Agreed. As Gwylim says, the TWIs are clearly visible, with a shadow from the tread next to them....

There is also tread clearly visible on the inside of the tyre. If you look at the picture just below the area masked by the arch liner, the horizontal grooves are clearly visible. Possibly the tread below there has been masked in some way, or even damaged by the accident, but there's still enough in the picture to show it was a legal tyre.

Aretnap

From memory Admiral are one of the few insurers who won't replace a <12 month old car with a new one anyway. One of the many reasons why they're so cheap.

UsernameAlreadyExists

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

There is also tread clearly visible on the inside of the tyre. If you look at the picture just below the area masked by the arch liner, the horizontal grooves are clearly visible. Possibly the tread below there has been masked in some way, or even damaged by the accident, but there's still enough in the picture to show it was a legal tyre.

Eye Test?

nobbysn*ts

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

Eye Test?

Yes. You need one. Zoom in if you have to I guess. Come back when it becomes clear, but the op is fine. Let me know if I actually need to put a pointer in your picture, Well, 4 I suppose, because there are at least 4 clear grooves on the inside of that tyre.

UsernameAlreadyExists

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Yes. You need one. Zoom in if you have to I guess. Come back when it becomes clear, but the op is fine. Let me know if I actually need to put a pointer in your picture, Well, 4 I suppose, because there are at least 4 clear grooves on the inside of that tyre.

1.6mm over 75%?

atrixblue.-MFR-.

AdrianC wrote: »

Agreed. As Gwylim says, the TWIs are clearly visible, with a shadow from the tread next to them.



Likewise. What age was the Passat? That crinkle in the rear wing says "EXPENSIVE".

I'm quite surprised at the ambulance and the head-print in the Hyundai passenger side windscreen. Passenger not belted in?

its new model Passat so its probably less than 2 year old.


The crinkle is cosmetic, its the inner frame work that would have me concerned, I can see that the top of the quarter panel with the boot has dropped and the rear door jam gap is almost non existent to me this says its more than a rear floor boot pan and rear boot area frame work damage.

nobbysn*ts

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

1.6mm over 75%?

So, you really can't see the tread that's clearly visible, and well beyond 1.6mm across the entire tyre? Enough said.

boggy1

Actually I've just realised something. The car went for a full service a month ago. The garage would have picked up any bad tread on the tyres then! So they're definitely okay.

..and if not I can probably sue the garage who did the service.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

jeeze the tire is fine, don't know what graphics and resolution you guys use but I can see its fine after looking at it properly.