BMW 318I se CAT C

Herzlos

bigjl wrote: »

57 plate BMW 318 is worth around £5/6k as it's the best part of 8yrs old.

A repair bill of over £2k would see the Insurer considering not repairing it.

A mates daughter has a 2011 116i and was hit from behind, the garage told him the repairs where over £1000.

That would be a cat D though, where the damage was less than the value but the insurance decided to write it off anyway.

This was cat C, implying the cost was more than the value, so we're looking at a £5/6k repair bill + hire car* for however long it was off the road. That means it was either major (lots of damage) or unusual (long wait for parts)

If it's been SORN'd since 2009 that's even worse, as it would have been worth a lot more at 2 years old (£15k?) and has been sitting unused for years.

Unless you're getting this car for free, walk away. It's not a great car even without the write off or sitting in a field for years.

*Assuming hire car costs are included in the cost.

xHannahx

Herzlos wrote: »

That would be a cat D though, where the damage was less than the value but the insurance decided to write it off anyway.

This was cat C, implying the cost was more than the value, so we're looking at a £5/6k repair bill + hire car* for however long it was off the road. That means it was either major (lots of damage) or unusual (long wait for parts)

If it's been SORN'd since 2009 that's even worse, as it would have been worth a lot more at 2 years old (£15k?) and has been sitting unused for years.

Unless you're getting this car for free, walk away. It's not a great car even without the write off or sitting in a field for years.

*Assuming hire car costs are included in the cost.

Having just read the thread again I missed the bit that it had been Sorn since 2009, only written off it 2012, I'd be almost certain now it's likely to be flood/water damage or vandalism.
If it was being driven whilst SORN any insurance would have been invalidated, so accident damage seems unlikely.

Herzlos

Or crashed in 2009, left on the drive and reported in 2012 for some reason?

It certainly seems odd, and it's not a rare car.

ChumLee

xHannahx wrote: »

Having just read the thread again I missed the bit that it had been Sorn since 2009, only written off it 2012, I'd be almost certain now it's likely to be flood/water damage or vandalism.
If it was being driven whilst SORN any insurance would have been invalidated, so accident damage seems unlikely.

Would it? If it were hit by a third party they'd still be liable regardless of its sorn status.

xHannahx

ChumLee wrote: »

Would it? If it were hit by a third party they'd still be liable regardless of its sorn status.

Minimum third party cover only would apply. They would not accept a claim for damage to the SORN vehicle, and so it would be unrecorded damage.

ChumLee

xHannahx wrote: »

Minimum third party cover only would apply. They would not accept a claim for damage to the SORN vehicle, and so it would be unrecorded damage.

Yes, and if they were the innocent party?

bigjl

Herzlos wrote: »

That would be a cat D though, where the damage was less than the value but the insurance decided to write it off anyway.

This was cat C, implying the cost was more than the value, so we're looking at a £5/6k repair bill + hire car* for however long it was off the road. That means it was either major (lots of damage) or unusual (long wait for parts)

If it's been SORN'd since 2009 that's even worse, as it would have been worth a lot more at 2 years old (£15k?) and has been sitting unused for years.

Unless you're getting this car for free, walk away. It's not a great car even without the write off or sitting in a field for years.

*Assuming hire car costs are included in the cost.

You have missed the point of that post or more likely I didn't explain it correctly.
A tiny mark to a read bumper on a BMW1 Series which resulted in only the bumper cover being changed was £1000.

Car C does not mean the cost to repair was more than the value of the car but using brand new parts to repair it and expensive labour rates makes it more than or near the cars worth.

Using a used bumper alone can save £700, consider the cost of a BMW headlight which can easily be the thick end of £1000 on some vehicles.

A used bumper, bonnet, grille, lights and radiator could mean the car that is Cat C could be repaired for 1/4 of the Insurance estimate.

As far as a VIC goes I thought they were trying to stop stolen parts being used to repair a vehicle? As well as spot ringers.

Though in honesty most ringers are Cat D for that reason, to think otherwise you are naive or an optimist.

Criminals have moved on to cloning vehicles these days anyway.

And going by the truck loads of damaged vehicles on transporters round Thurrock and Purfleet every night I suspect most damaged and repairable vehicles are sent to Eastern Europe, it isn't unusual to see RHD vehicles round East London and Essex with Eastern European plates, usually Lithuanian and Polish so far but I am sure others will follow due to the low labour rates in EE and the fact it is difficult to trace EE vehicles regarding driving offences and parking offences.

Herzlos

No I get that, but my point is that it must have been a lot more than just a cracked bumper, the value would have been about £5-6k, so the repair quote must have come to at least £5k. That's either a lot of work or a lot of damage. Maybe something happend that resulted in a lot of cosmetic panel damage, that'd have been enough to write it off. But if that had happened, why did the guy repairing it say it only needed a new bumper? That's clearly a lie, so what else isn't correct?

Then there's the additional fact that it was written off in 2012, so it's been off the road for 6 years now (3 before and 3 after accident). That means it'll need new tyres, brakes, oil, filters, belts and a fuel drain, unless that's all been as part of the restoration (with paperwork).

Then there's any potential weather damage caused by it no doubt sitting in a field for 3 years missing it's front end. Anything rubber on it it likely to be excessively worn.

This really doesn't sound like a car you'd want anything to do with, unless it was almost free and used in a banger rally.

Minrich

bigjl wrote: »

You have missed the point of that post or more likely I didn't explain it correctly.
A tiny mark to a read bumper on a BMW1 Series which resulted in only the bumper cover being changed was £1000.

Car C does not mean the cost to repair was more than the value of the car but using brand new parts to repair it and expensive labour rates makes it more than or near the cars worth.

Using a used bumper alone can save £700, consider the cost of a BMW headlight which can easily be the thick end of £1000 on some vehicles.

A used bumper, bonnet, grille, lights and radiator could mean the car that is Cat C could be repaired for 1/4 of the Insurance estimate.

As far as a VIC goes I thought they were trying to stop stolen parts being used to repair a vehicle? As well as spot ringers.

Though in honesty most ringers are Cat D for that reason, to think otherwise you are naive or an optimist.

Criminals have moved on to cloning vehicles these days anyway.

And going by the truck loads of damaged vehicles on transporters round Thurrock and Purfleet every night I suspect most damaged and repairable vehicles are sent to Eastern Europe, it isn't unusual to see RHD vehicles round East London and Essex with Eastern European plates, usually Lithuanian and Polish so far but I am sure others will follow due to the low labour rates in EE and the fact it is difficult to trace EE vehicles regarding driving offences and parking offences.

Ringing is Cloning !

forgotmyname

Minrich wrote: »

Ringing is Cloning !

Not quite.

Ringing is when you obtain/steal a car and put the numbers from another car (possibly written off) onto it.

Cloning is when you put the details of a car onto another one so in effect 2 identical cars running around.