Garage involved in car crash.

Jumblebumble

uk1 wrote: »

You are confused.

Cars being "written off" is done by insurers who have a financial interest in the cars they insure and are obligated to mitigate losses to a minimum. Garages do not decide on behalf of car owners when a car is to be written off.

. If they refuse then the owner can pursue them for the value of the car.

I am not confused at all but I do understand how write offs are generally dealt with by insurance companies
You are suggesting with your statement "They are obligated to return the car repaired" that if the car was worth £4500 and the repair costs are £6000 then the insurers would be obliged to layout £6000 and repair the car which is absurd
( they will generally write off if the cost of repairs exceeds 60% of the market value)

I have already said that the alternative is for the insurers to pay the OP £4500 assuming the market value is the same so I cannot see why the OP would need in this scenario to be pursuing anyone

fiisch

Principle of indemnity is key here - the mother needs to be reinstated to the same position financially as immediately prior to the crash.

Therefore: Insurance pays out market value for car with replacement engine (£4.5k), but your mum still owes garage for the work.

uk1

Jumblebumble wrote: »

I am not confused at all but I do understand how write offs are generally dealt with by insurance companies
You are suggesting with your statement "They are obligated to return the car repaired" that if the car was worth £4500 and the repair costs are £6000 then the insurers would be obliged to layout £6000 and repair the car which is absurd
( they will generally write off if the cost of repairs exceeds 60% of the market value)

I have already said that the alternative is for the insurers to pay the OP £4500 assuming the market value is the same so I cannot see why the OP would need in this scenario to be pursuing anyone

You remain confused, because you seem to be seeing this solely through the eyes of an insurer rather than the reasonable legal rights the OP's mother has. This does not have to be an insurance issue if the OP's mother feels disdavantaged by that approach.

The OP’s mother is not obligated to claim off of her own insurance or accept an imposed write-off value from the garage’s insurers or the third parties insurers if the amounts offered are unacceptable.

Her contract is with the garage. She can insist that the vehicle is repaired and the £2k she must then pay for the engine. The op is only obligated to accept a write-off value from her own insurers if that is where she goes as she has a contract she has chosen with "reasonable" limited restrictions and clauses with her insurers.

She is entitled to have her car back if she chooses and if there is a shortfall in the costs for doing so that is a problem for the garage and not her.

If the garage is uncooperative and refuses but she still wants her car back she could if she wishes pays the garage the £2k "under protest" and have the car transported to another garage to have all the repairs done and attempt to recover thoise costs from the garage.

She is entitled to have her car back and no one can remove that right from her except her own insurers if she takes that route. This solution would place her in exactly the situation she was before the car was wrecked without any profit for her which I suggest a court would support unless she had unfairly turned down a genuinely realistic offer that was genuinely sufficient to provide a very similar car with a brand new engine.

Jumblebumble

uk1 wrote: »

You remain confused, because you seem to be seeing this solely through the eyes of an insurer rather than the reasonable legal rights the OP's mother has. This does not have to be an insurance issue if the OP's mother feels disdavantaged by that approach.

The OP’s mother is not obligated to claim off of her own insurance or accept an imposed write-off value from the garage’s insurers or the third parties insurers if the amounts offered are unacceptable.

Her contract is with the garage. She can insist that the vehicle is repaired and the £2k she must then pay for the engine. The op is only obligated to accept a write-off value from her own insurers if that is where she goes as she has a contract she has chosen with "reasonable" limited restrictions and clauses with her insurers.

She is entitled to have her car back if she chooses and if there is a shortfall in the costs for doing so that is a problem for the garage and not her.

If the garage is uncooperative and refuses but she still wants her car back she could if she wishes pays the garage the £2k "under protest" and have the car transported to another garage to have all the repairs done and attempt to recover thoise costs from the garage.

She is entitled to have her car back and no one can remove that right from her except her own insurers if she takes that route. This solution would place her in exactly the situation she was before the car was wrecked without any profit for her which I suggest a court would support unless she had unfairly turned down a genuinely realistic offer that was genuinely sufficient to provide a very similar car with a brand new engine.

I would hazard a guess that the engine that the garage has fitted for £2000 is no way Brand New so I struggle to understand why a judge would value it as such
I think the OP meant to say "New to My mum " and if you deduct the fitting cost and ancillaries and VAT etc it is more likely to be a second hand one from a scrapyard which I think will add not a penny to the value of the car over that of a car of similar age
My guess is that a brand new engine would cost £7000

uk1

Jumblebumble wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that the engine that the garage has fitted for £2000 is no way Brand New so I struggle to understand why a judge would value it as such
I think the OP meant to say "New to My mum " and if you deduct the fitting cost and ancillaries and VAT etc it is more likely to be a second hand one from a scrapyard which I think will add not a penny to the value of the car over that of a car of similar age
My guess is that a brand new engine would cost £7000

Hazard as many guesses about what was bought as you wish but the principle remains unchganged.

The OP's mother is entitled to have her car returned to her in it's original condition with whatever engine she reasonably believed she paid for. The judge would value the car at whatever it's value was and also consider an award for "inconvenience vexation and aggravation" etc if such a claim is made by the OP's mother.

Jumblebumble

uk1 wrote: »

Hazard as many guesses about what was bought as you wish but the principle remains unchganged.

The OP's mother is entitled to have her car returned to her in it's original condition with whatever engine she reasonably believed she paid for. The judge would value the car at whatever it's value was and also consider an award for "inconvenience vexation and aggravation" etc if such a claim is made by the OP's mother.

No problem

We will just have to see what happens if the OP ever returns to tell us how it went.

OnanTheBarbarian

uk1 wrote: »

Hazard as many guesses about what was bought as you wish but the principle remains unchganged.

The OP's mother is entitled to have her car returned to her in it's original condition with whatever engine she reasonably believed she paid for. The judge would value the car at whatever it's value was and also consider an award for "inconvenience vexation and aggravation" etc if such a claim is made by the OP's mother.

Not havig a dig here or anything of the sort, but what are your credentials when it comes to your advice/ input to this thread?