Car Insurance/Ombusman theft - Valuation

tajinder400

Posted this originaly in insurance, and was told it may be better for me to post this here!



Hi Guys,

I have been having some issues with my car insurance, and now the financial ombudsman about a car insurance claim for a theft. To give some background to this, I had originally bought the car for £20,000, and it was stolen within two months of ownership. I was offered a value of £13,700, and in the end took this to the ombudsman.

The car in question is a 2006 B7 Audi RS4 Saloon Quattro at around 84k miles, with a copious amount of optional extras. I’m consistently being quoted that the optional extras do not matter due to the age of the car. This being said when checking against Parkers, CAP and the Glass guides. Normally I’d understand that this would make sense for a normal car, but due to the sort of car this is, I don’t believe it applies.

I have quoted various autotrader, and pistonhead links to get the point across, and the ombudsman has pointed out that this isn’t as reliable as the guides, due to the vehicles potentially not selling for listing price. Which again, I do very much understand being the case. When searching for the same car with similar specification on autotrader, they are going for much more than £20,000. I do see where they could have potentially got the

My issue is I don’t think I’m getting the point correctly across, that this cars factory optional extras have a great impact on the value of this car, and they don’t deserve to be disregarded. Some of the extras off the top of my head being the black optics pack, recaro bucket seats, and ceramic brakes (there are much more). If anything, the car in parts would be worth more than the value I was offered by insurance.

I have yet to ask the ombudsman what online listings he has seen of the car, but I’d like to understand what would be the best way for me to approach this going forward before I do that.

Here is a quote from the email received from the ombudsman which hopefully will give some insight:

“It’s worth pointing out too that the guides can take factory optional extras into account in providing a valuation. However, the guides don’t think the optional extras add extra value to your vehicle. I can’t say I find that particularly unusual for a car which is 13 years old.

I have also considered the evidence you’ve submitted showing adverts for similar vehicles with higher prices; but I’m afraid I’m not persuaded that these represent stronger evidence than the guide prices. I must bear in mind that adverts are not selling prices, and many factors can significantly affect the price of a vehicle. In most basic terms, vehicles will often be advertised for higher than they are sold; or may not be sold at that price at all.

Not all of the adverts you provided are still online, but I’ve searched myself too and seen similar vehicles for not significantly more than Admiral’s valuation. I’m happy to provide these separately if you would like.

To go against the guide prices I would need to be satisfied that they were significantly out of line with the market. And I don’t think there’s enough evidence to suggest that they are.”

I’m willing to post more information about the specification of the car, but I believed it was best to come here for some general advice on how to deal with this. I potentially may be able to find all the parts individually online along with adverts similar to my car, to get the point across. But it doesn’t seem like there are even cars out there with all the same specification as mine. Nor do they believe it matters at all, even though I really don’t believe this to be the case.

When it comes down to it, I don’t think they’d reasonably be able to find me a car with the same specification for that price. To be totally honest if they could do that, I would gladly accept it, if it actually did match that specification.

I appreciate any help I can have with this! Thanks!


Edit: Has anyone had any chance with turning this sort of situation around? It doesn't have to be specifically this one. But how to deal with the ombudsman correctly to get my point across?

Begsey

If I'd felt the factory optional extras should impact so much on the value, I'd have taken out a policy that covered the factory optional extras. Perhaps a guaranteed value policy.

tajinder400

That does make perfect sense, thank you. In hindsight I should have done that 100%. Will just need to work out what to do with this current situation for now though I guess

AdrianC

tajinder400 wrote: »

The car in question is a 2006 B7 Audi RS4 Saloon Quattro at around 84k miles, with a copious amount of optional extras.

Did you declare the options when you took the policy out?

My issue is I don’t think I’m getting the point correctly across, that this cars factory optional extras have a great impact on the value of this car, and they don’t deserve to be disregarded.
...
Here is a quote from the email received from the ombudsman which hopefully will give some insight:

“It’s worth pointing out too that the guides can take factory optional extras into account in providing a valuation. However, the guides don’t think the optional extras add extra value to your vehicle. I can’t say I find that particularly unusual for a car which is 13 years old.

I have also considered the evidence you’ve submitted showing adverts for similar vehicles with higher prices; but I’m afraid I’m not persuaded that these represent stronger evidence than the guide prices. I must bear in mind that adverts are not selling prices, and many factors can significantly affect the price of a vehicle. In most basic terms, vehicles will often be advertised for higher than they are sold; or may not be sold at that price at all.

Not all of the adverts you provided are still online, but I’ve searched myself too and seen similar vehicles for not significantly more than Admiral’s valuation. I’m happy to provide these separately if you would like.

To go against the guide prices I would need to be satisfied that they were significantly out of line with the market. And I don’t think there’s enough evidence to suggest that they are.”

So there y'go. The ombudsman isn't "disregarding" the effect of the options on the value - they just don't agree with you about it.

When it comes down to it, I don’t think they’d reasonably be able to find me a car with the same specification for that price.

The insurer are under no obligation to source a replacement. A replacement to the precise spec may not even exist.

Their obligation is to pay you the market value, immediately before the impact or theft. There's an established procedure to deal with any disagreements over that, and you're taking it. But the ombudsman takes an independent stance, considering the evidence. If they don't think there's persuasive evidence that supports your viewpoint, then they don't have to agree with you...

Ultimately, if you think you have a car that's specialist enough to be outside the scope of a normal policy, then you really should consider a specialist policy - ideally one that offers agreed value, then you get this out of the way in advance.

Penelopa.Pitstop

A few years ago there were stories in papers about theft of RS4 seats and how expensive they are and that cars were written of because of it. Would it help to prove the point of expensive options? Are these the seats that were in your car?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/10703514/The-Audi-seats-being-stolen-to-order.html

Also, one of the owner started thread about it on PH: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=86&t=1302658

AdrianC

Small problem - those are the seats which are in most of the cars for sale for around the insurance pay-out value.

It's the ceramic brakes that seem to be the rare option - but whether they actually add substantially to the value is another question, given their questionable suitability for road use and very high consumables costs.

jimbo6977

Penelopa.Pitstop wrote: »

A few years ago there were stories in papers about theft of RS4 seats and how expensive they are and that cars were written of because of it. Would it help to prove the point of expensive options? Are these the seats that were in your car?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/10703514/The-Audi-seats-being-stolen-to-order.html

Also, one of the owner started thread about it on PH: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=86&t=1302658

Golf Gti seats caused the same problem years ago. As did front bumpers of all things on Mk 1 Eunos imports.


Anyway back to the original question. It's a tricky position for all involved when specced-up cars get written off. Firstly I'm sorry that your car was stolen. I can imagine you put some considerable effort into finding the precise model that was right for you. On the other hand, having worked in motor claims, I can well imagine the expression on the claim handler's face when this one popped up on his screen.

As previous comments have said, there might not even be a precise equivalent for sale anywhere, and even if you could find one/some, that sole (or those very few) example(s) wouldn't constitute a "market" on which you could base a valuation. The trade guides are based on real-world price information from all over the UK, and their research generally finds that almost all options in almost all circumstances lose almost all of their value very quickly in the 2nd hand market - much more quickly percentage-wise than the car itself.

In my experience the FOS was (normally with good reason) much more demanding of insurers than consumers when requiring evidence to back up their case, so for them to be satisfied suggests things are in order. Can I just check that the decision you have is from an Ombusman and not an FOS case-handler?

Scrapit

When car buying I was frequently told that extras add desirability rather than value. Looks like they are taking that view too.