Car written off undervalued offer advice please

snowball2

BJV wrote: »

TBH car insurance is not my field so I stand to be corrected. When I said your insurance it was reference to the insurance company the OP was claiming from.


Ref - wavier the rights to refer the matter have to say never knew that. Surely the Op has the right to refer the issue no matter who they are claiming from. ? The insurance company they are claiming from must be regulated in some form so wouldn't this mean that they are covered?


If what you say is true that is terrible for consumers everywhere.


Again I stress I am not a car insurance expert but I bet like a lot of people I thought that no matter who the claim was settled by I would always have the right to refer.


Very naughty!

Very Naughty, Ive phoned the Ombudsman advice line and they have confirmed this is true and that I would have to get my own insurance to to deal with the claim and then if they don't offer me enough I can then complain.

sh0597

I'd push for an extra £100-200.


I don't know what the standard procedure for assessing the impact of damage on market value is. How much do you think the repair would have cost you?

InsideInsurance

BJV wrote: »

TBH car insurance is not my field so I stand to be corrected. When I said your insurance it was reference to the insurance company the OP was claiming from.


Ref - wavier the rights to refer the matter have to say never knew that. Surely the Op has the right to refer the issue no matter who they are claiming from. ? The insurance company they are claiming from must be regulated in some form so wouldn't this mean that they are covered?


If what you say is true that is terrible for consumers everywhere.


Again I stress I am not a car insurance expert but I bet like a lot of people I thought that no matter who the claim was settled by I would always have the right to refer.


Very naughty!

Due to the fact you have different rights etc depending on if you are claiming from your insurance or the third party insurer (TPI) its important to distinguish between the two.

All insurers in the UK clearly are regulated, of cause in some cases the insurer may not be from the UK, but that is fairly irrelevant as the PRA is about ensuring the insurer is solvent and the FCA is about ensuring the customers are treated fairly however the OP is not the customer of the TPI and so their regulation is broadly irrelevant other than you should have comfort that they are going to be solvent.

The OP has a common law claim against the TP, the TP has transferred that obligation across to their insurer via their contract of insurance. The OP only gains any direct rights against the TPI once they have obtained judgement against their client and that element comes through the Road Traffic Act.

The remit of the FCA and FOS does not extend to third party claimants. This would be almost impossible for them to do because these claims are typically governed by the law in the place of the incident. The FOS give bad enough advice about English law which they deal with every day. Imagine how much knowledge their call centre would have if a TP in Hungry called to make a complaint about an incident that happened there whilst a UK insured person was on holiday?


Of course all people have the right to go to court, though in this sort of case you are suing the TP not the TPI, the TPI is just responding on behalf of their insured. Just as a customer of an insurer you have an alternative route which is the FOS

InsideInsurance

snowball2 wrote: »

The glass price on the free search was £1985-2325 but on the phone the assessor said that Glass values it as £1795, the prices I was quoting were dealer prices, not the actual value and that he had reduced it down to £1500 for the bumper damage. He said he was going to pass his report on to his superior with the photo's/report and he would get back to me with the outcome tomorrow.

We will have to wait and see what tomorrow brings now

The free search is the basic price, you then have all the adjuster tables which can move the price up or down which will give the basic valuation minus any moderate or above damage.

BeenThroughItAll

snowball2 wrote: »

...and two weeks ago I was hit in the rear and they have written it off due to the damage which I had expected.

snowball2 wrote: »

it need a new front bumper as its split underneath and grill (the bonnet latch got stuck so we have to pull it off)...

...arm that attaches to the bumper & suspension has broken, so not a buy back option.

Something doesn't add up there. Claiming off the TP for being hit, but the damage is all at the front?

societys_child

Something doesn't add up there

The car has been written off due to the damage caused to the rear.

However the TPI is reducing the value and what they are prepared to pay, due to the pre existing damage to the front.

lazer

If there is a similar car without damage available 85 mile away for £1595, then IMO you are getting a good offer at £1500. And in time one similar could become available in your area, so the value is not unrealistic, it is just the availability is low.


I would push for extra travel costs to collect too.

BeenThroughItAll

societys_child wrote: »

The car has been written off due to the damage caused to the rear.

However the TPI is reducing the value and what they are prepared to pay, due to the pre existing damage to the front.

I'm not sure how that can be the case - OP said they hit a kerb in a car park, but how that has damaged the bonnet latch, suspension, plus bumper without them having to take the car off the road for repairs, I am not clear.

fivetide

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

I'm not sure how that can be the case - OP said they hit a kerb in a car park, but how that has damaged the bonnet latch, suspension, plus bumper without them having to take the car off the road for repairs, I am not clear.

Try reading the thread. Ironically, 'going through it all' will provide the wisdom you seek.


society's child was spot on though. The key word you were looking for in their response was existing

InsideInsurance

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

I'm not sure how that can be the case - OP said they hit a kerb in a car park, but how that has damaged the bonnet latch, suspension, plus bumper without them having to take the car off the road for repairs, I am not clear.

You appear to be mixing up the pre-existing damage and the accident they are now claiming for. Front bumper, grill, latch is the pre-existing - though not sure just how high a kerb has to be to damage the bonnet latch!!. The suspension, rear bumper etc is the AD damage the OP is now claiming for.