Car write off insurance offer low

dacouch

There can be some exceptions to the Insurers / the Ombudsman just going by the book values if the car is unusual.

As others have asked what type of car do you have?

maddogb

facade wrote: »

just that the idea that an insurance payout is obliged to put you back behind the wheel of an identical car is wrong.

Really is it? That's where you and I disagree.
Funny thing is insurers and their policies don't tell you that, I would state that the majority of consumers without direct experience of this situation are also under the impression that if the insurers opt to make a payout the amount should be enough to replace your car without any inconvenience.
The fact that the insurers fail to notify you that the payout may be insufficient to do this should be classed as a breech of duty.

facade

maddogb wrote: »

Really is it? That's where you and I disagree.

I don't disagree with you, I'm just a realist.

Imagine you've had your 1967 mini from new. You polished it every day.
You had it rebuilt a couple of times.
You have spent over £40,000 on it since 1967.
It gets written off.
They give you what a 1967 mini is worth today, so your asset has been converted to cash and financially you are in the same position as you were before it was written off.

They don't find you a 1967 mini in the same condition as your old one, and they don't care if you spent £40 or £400,000 on it.

AdrianC

facade wrote: »

I don't disagree with you, I'm just a realist.

Imagine you've had your 1967 mini from new. You polished it every day.
You had it rebuilt a couple of times.
You have spent over £40,000 on it since 1967.
It gets written off.
They give you what a 1967 mini is worth today, so your asset has been converted to cash and financially you are in the same position as you were before it was written off.

They don't find you a 1967 mini in the same condition as your old one, and they don't care if you spent £40 or £400,000 on it.

Which is, of course, the entire basis on which the policy you bought is based. Market value. It says so in the terms and conditions which you would have been able to read before buying the policy, and certainly within the 14day cancellation period.

But you'd be an idiot not to have something like an old Mini on a classic policy with agreed value.

Tammykitty

maddogb wrote: »

Really is it? That's where you and I disagree.
Funny thing is insurers and their policies don't tell you that, I would state that the majority of consumers without direct experience of this situation are also under the impression that if the insurers opt to make a payout the amount should be enough to replace your car without any inconvenience.
The fact that the insurers fail to notify you that the payout may be insufficient to do this should be classed as a breech of duty.

I agree with you. An insurance payout should pay you enough the replace your car, as that is the true market value of your car, not what some list says.


In the terms and conditions on insurance it won't say how they calculate market value, it will just say that they will pay market value.


My insurance paid me on the basis of what was available locally when my car was a write off, so even though they are dearer this year for my insurance than some of the competitors, I am sticking with them. (PS this was more than "list" market value)

AdrianC

Tammykitty wrote: »

In the terms and conditions on insurance it won't say how they calculate market value, it will just say that they will pay market value.

Because it's an industry standard.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html

Tammykitty

AdrianC wrote: »

Because it's an industry standard.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html

That's not an industry standard, its the minimum value the financial ombudsman will agree is fair. A good insurance company will pay true market value.


Market Value is how much you could sell your car for before the accident, and therefore how much you can buy a similar car for.

AdrianC

Tammykitty wrote: »

That's not an industry standard, its the minimum value the financial ombudsman will agree is fair. A good insurance company will pay true market value.

Market Value is how much you could sell your car for before the accident, and therefore how much you can buy a similar car for.

Did you actually bother to read the page?

Most of the complaints we see involve disagreements about the “market” value of the vehicle. This generally means the price it would have sold for at a reputable dealership just before it was damaged or stolen...

...We don’t usually find adverts helpful to judge a vehicle’s value, because the selling price usually turns out to be lower.

Tammykitty

AdrianC wrote: »

Did you actually bother to read the page?

Yes, but I didn't say selling price, I accept that it should be adjusted from advertised price to a realistic sale price.


But if the list price of a car is £2000 but there are 100's of that make and model for sale locally at £4,000, then the market price of the car is definitely more than £2,000 regardless of what a list says.


I look forward to hearing the outcome of the court case, as the ombudsman do not make the law, and they are also minimum standards - not industry standards. In fact in my experience most insurance companies will increase offers based on adverts.

AdrianC

Tammykitty wrote: »

But if the list price of a car is £2000 but there are 100's of that make and model for sale locally at £4,000, then the market price of the car is definitely more than £2,000 regardless of what a list says.

"Locally" is irrelevant. For a £2k difference, it would be unreasonable not to travel.