Car written off by a drunk driver

Manxman_in_exile

My wife and I have each had cars written off in accidents caused by other drivers. On each occasion we consulted commercially available guides (eg Parkers and Glass's I think?) to estimate what the cars were worth. For the first car our insurers actually offered us more than we thought it was worth. We weren't quite so lucky second time but we still accepted the offer as it was within the range of values we had already estimated.


Two things strike me. First, I think people have unrealistically high expectations about the value of their cars. Second, I suspect that with car insurance (like everything else in life) you get what you pay for. The insurers on our first write off were not cheap, but they were absolutely first class in dealing with us and the whole process was totally pain free and hassle free. They sorted out everything for us. The second (cheaper) insurers were not so helpful. In fact they were such a PITA that I was forced(!) to join this forum for advice. And learned a lot about car insurance that I didn't know before. Thank you all

Aretnap

Car_54 wrote: »

That's not what the Financial Ombudsman Service says.

"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."

That seems pretty clear that it's the "retail" price that should be paid.

They also say: "In general, we don’t think adverts and listings are a reliable guide to a vehicle’s price."

Lots more info at http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html

This is correct. There's a better version of the Ombudsman's guidelines archived here (hat-tip to Dacouch) - the latest version has most of the useful bits removed in an attempt to make it more "user friendly".

https://web.archive.org/web/20140709160656/http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html

Key points:
(1) You're entitled to the price the car would have fetched at a reputable dealer just before the accident. Presumably when you're talking about a 10 year old car a "reputable dealer" doesn't necessarily mean "main dealer" - but it still means a dealer price, not a trade in price or a private sale price.

(2) Adverts are not generally good evidence of value - the fact that someone advertises a car for £4500 doesn't mean that it will actually sell for £4500. The trade guides carry more weight because they are based on actual selling prices.

(3) When you say Admiral are only giving trade value do you mean they're only giving you the trade in price or the auction price (which is a definite no-no), or do you mean they said they were using the trade guides and you took that to mean trade price? If it's the latter then you misunderstood. The trade guides list separate dealer prices, auction prices, private sale prices etc - so Admiral are doing the right thing by using them, though it's still possible that they might not have used them in line with the Ombudsman's guidelines.

(4) The fact that he was drunk makes no difference to the value - you're entitled to a fair value for your car regardless of blame.

(5) Check whether the price your insurer is offering takes into
account your excess (which you can reclaim from the third party), or any outstanding instalments if you're paying your premium monthly (which you can transfer to your new car).

(6) You can try to claim direct from the third party's insurer if you like, but there's no guarantee that they'll offer you a better value, and if you're dealing direct with them you don't have the option of complaining to the ombudsman if you don't like the valuation - you would have to take them to court instead.

maddogb

from experience I can tell you the ombudsman will look at if the insurer has followed their recommended practice, this is as follows.
Check the 3* trade guides "retail value" if one is out of line with the others it can be ignored, then not pay the "minimum"


if this practice is followed the ombudsman will do nothing.


PS. There is a lot of poopy advice in this thread about what insurers should and shouldn't do, but essentially there may be a loophole in this procedure if you are really interested.

Keep_pedalling

Hintza wrote: »

It is not your insurer who will be paying out. I don't even understand why your insurer is involved at this point.

I suppose that depends on the circumstances and the insurance company involved. My daughter was hit from behind while stationary last week, and needing the car recovered and a hire car sorted pronto so she could do her job.

Her insurer (Direct line) got her car recovered immediately, and had a hire car sorted the next day. Her car is not written off, is being repaired and DL will recover all costs, including her excess, from white van man's insurance company. I am sure there would have been a lot more hassle going through the other drivers insurance company.

As far as I am concerned one of the things I want from my insurer is to sort everything out with the minimum of fuss whether the accident was my fault or not.