Council unlawfully scrapped my sister's car

Brooker_Dave

Quentin wrote: »

This is not covered by insurance!

Why not, her car was stolen and destroyed, albeit due to negligence, she needs to bang a claim in for value of car and contents, and if insurance won't cough, sue them.

Insurance can tap up the council for what they have to pay up.

OP's sister seems to have been left to sort this out herself, despite having paid for insurance.

beamerguy

betterthanyours wrote: »

She had a fully comprehensive policy but the insurance have already stated they will not cover her because it was not a motoring claim. This is a civil matter.

As you said many posts before

ManxRed

We've already had a lengthy debate earlier in this thread as to why the car WASN'T stolen. The word 'negligence' in your same sentence is a clue as to why.

Quentin

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Why not, her car was stolen.....

No it wasn't.

And the council already agreed to reimburse the market value.

betterthanyours

I suppose whether or not it was stolen is down to interpretation. Just because this is a government body or an organisation, they are free to claim a mistake.

If someone would have personally stolen the vehicle and crushed it to receive 30£ cash, what's the difference? The person arrested surely would claim it was a "mistake"?

The vehicle was taken unlawfully. I would personally suggest theft but apparently that's not the general concensus

betterthanyours

Quentin wrote: »

No it wasn't.

And the council already agreed to reimburse the market value.

The "market" value offered, we can't obtain a vehicle that is of similar condition. Basically, my sister's car was purchased from a dealer so mileage was verifiable. It also recently had a cambelt kit change, full service etc. It was also mechanically (FSH) and cosmetically verifiable in good condition ie no rust and no problems with vehicle. For the amount offered, we've not been able to find one without rust or with FSH. The links I've provided to them on autotrader and pistonheads show that the average we are looking at is roughly 1400-1600£. Almost, if not double what they are offering.

Their terminology in their last reply/offer has changed though. From "full and final settlement" to "interim payment"

Quentin

Then get the interim payment and keep on at them to cover all her costs.

Not accepting an interim payment is pointless

beamerguy

betterthanyours wrote: »

The "market" value offered, we can't obtain a vehicle that is of similar condition. Basically, my sister's car was purchased from a dealer so mileage was verifiable. It also recently had a cambelt kit change, full service etc. It was also mechanically (FSH) and cosmetically verifiable in good condition ie no rust and no problems with vehicle. For the amount offered, we've not been able to find one without rust or with FSH. The links I've provided to them on autotrader and pistonheads show that the average we are looking at is roughly 1400-1600£. Almost, if not double what they are offering.

Their terminology in their last reply/offer has changed though. From "full and final settlement" to "interim payment"

I saw in a much earlier post in the thread what they offered, so what is the interim payment ?

Quentin

Auto trader asking prices are not market value.

They include extra for negotiations!

betterthanyours

The payment offered is £870. Apparently autotrader constitutes to market value. I've argued that actually Glass's is market value and the vehicle is returning at top end of 2k on Glass. Their response was that the Glass's valuation does not take into account mileage. My response was, I did not want to purchase a Glass' subscription and in return have to justify why I felt that was needed and that if they wanted to purchase one and include mileage, they should be my guest. But it still would not resolve the fact that we cannot find an acceptable vehicle of verifiable condition for that price.

They used autotrader's valuation tool
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-valuation