Rear shunt this morning, write-off but driveable

thevinternet

loskie wrote: »

One final thing is it had no effect on my premium as all losses were recovered from the other party.

Yes! Thanks Loskie. I would be keen to avoid this if possible as it will no doubt be the biggest cost involved for me. This is interesting, as other people are telling me that my premiums will go up whether I go ahead with any insurance claim or not. So it seems that my best chance to avoid this might be to go through them instead.

"You should have the option to buy it from them for 9% of the write off value(haggle on that)" - she is insured by Halifax apparently, anyone had any experience with them please?

thevinternet

PS - my car is called Yoda.

The bitter irony of being told my car was a write-off on May the 4th did not escape me.

AdrianC

thevinternet wrote: »

I drive a very old and loved 2001 Skoda.

Market value, somewhere around three shiny buttons.

the bumper has a long thin crack on it, and the bumper bodywork has moved away from the wheel arch by about 1cm.

Do you mean the bumper itself?

If so, it just needs a bumper. Won't be hard to find one in the right colour, and cheap to fit. Although, having said that, it does depend on whether the metal behind is bent or not.

Again, having said that, does it much matter?

my insurance company (Aviva) told me that it is an economic write-off).

Yep. The cost of a new bumper skin, plus painting, plus fitting, plus the risk of behind-the-bumper damage is greater than the value of the car.

1. What are my options? I am aware that the money I will be offered for the car will be pitiful.

It will be the value of the car.

If they offer me £700, I won't be able to go out and buy a car that will be as good.

You will easily be able to go and buy a 15yo Skoda for that money. I think you might be being optimistic, though, with that valuation...

2. Is there any way that I can keep the car as a CAT D

It's more likely to be a Cat C - damage in excess of value - than Cat D - damage below value, but written off anyway - but, yes, almost certainly. However, since your claim is with your insurer rather than hers (who you have no contract with) it depends entirely on your insurer's internal policies. You would be paid the market value of the car, less a salvage value. On a car like yours, whether it's "clean", Cat D or Cat C will make virtually zero difference to future value.

3. The girl who went into me is on the phone wanting to sort it out privately

Take that option.

however, now that I have started a claim, am I right in thinking that even if I cancel it, my car will be registered as a CAT D

No. Because they won't have settled a claim by writing it off.

and both her and my premiums will go up? I can't imagine that Aviva will just delete that info if I cancel my claim!

It won't affect the fact that you have both been involved in a collision, no.

4. Is it true that my premiums WILL go up, even though I am not the party at fault?

It's very possible, because you are seen to be an actuarially higher risk.

thevinternet

AdrianC wrote: »

Market value, somewhere around three shiny buttons.

It won't affect the fact that you have both been involved in a collision, no.


It's very possible, because you are seen to be an actuarially higher risk.

Three buttons!! :T Ha ha - yes, I'm sure that's about right! I still want to keep it if possible though, so thank you for your useful advice.

I realise that the insurance companies state I am now statistically at greater risk of being in another collision, hence the jump in premiums, but does anyone else wonder if they've just cooked these figures to make them seem that way so that they can justify sticking people's premiums up? Bearing in mind that I was not the party at fault here?
I know that the results of stats are very dependent on how you cut them!

I'm trying not to bleat , but it doesn't seem very fair to me! Ah well, you live and learn.

AdrianC

thevinternet wrote: »

I realise that the insurance companies state I am now statistically at greater risk of being in another collision, hence the jump in premiums, but does anyone else wonder if they've just cooked these figures to make them seem that way so that they can justify sticking people's premiums up? Bearing in mind that I was not the party at fault here?
I know that the results of stats are very dependent on how you cut them!

Remember - car insurance is a competitive market.

If one insurer saw that there was no increase in risk, they would set their own premiums to ignore that factor, and they would get a substantial slice of business from those who other insurers increase the premiums for. And that business would still be profitable for them - at least, until others decided they were losing share, so similarly started to ignore that factor.

TeamPlum

Just to add in, insurers are very reticent to insure Cat C/D vehicles, before you go down that route.

thevinternet

TeamPlum wrote: »

Just to add in, insurers are very reticent to insure Cat C/D vehicles, before you go down that route.

Thanks for this. Do you know if it is all of them? I'd heard it was just 2 or 3 of the big companies.

It seems that there are many differences of opinion on matters of car insurance! It is a bit confusing when you are new to it all!

[Deleted User]

Anyway, now that the back of your neck is "aching a bit " its time to trot down to A and E or your doctor and start the process to reclaim some money and make a profit at the same time on your bad luck of being rear ended. You will be able to claim at the lowest level for whiplash injury I would think, which should be worth a couple of grand and the other three passengers you can dredge up can also claim. This is how some people make a living and why my premiums are always going up .

AdrianC

Because insurance fraud is always a good thing, and helps everybody's premiums remain static. !!!!!!.

TeamPlum

AdrianC wrote: »

Because insurance fraud is always a good thing, and helps everybody's premiums remain static. !!!!!!.

Might be wrong, but I think he was joking.