Amazon Delivery Driver has written off my car!!

Manxman_in_exile

Back in 2014 our 53 plate Toyota Avensis was written off with 100k on the clock.  We researched prices and we were offered around £1700 which was within our range of acceptable values.  (Think we squeezed another £200 out of them).

The problem is most people drastically over-value their cars.  The question for the OP is how much would they realistically have paid to buy their car immediately before the accident.

£1500 for an 11 year old 100k runaround does not sound unreasonable to me.

OP - you can always put it to the insurer that the new gearbox increased its value above the norm...

KatrinaWaves

Mickey666 said:

This sort of thing is pretty outrageous really.

If someone causes £x amount of damage to something then surely they should have to pay for the damage caused in order to put the owner back in the same position they were before the damage was inflicted?  THAT would be proper insurance, not be forced into arguments about the value of the original item - why is that even relevant?  It's the damage that is relevant and the cost to repair it is what should be paid.  I know that's not how it all works, I'm just amazed that people side with insurance companies so easily!

As for the new gearbox, that must surely raise the car's valuation?  The car may have travelled 100k miles but the gearbox hasn't, so surely the price the OP paid for the new gearbox should be part of the valuation?  Or, insist that the insurers find an identical replacement vehicle with a new gearbox!

. You cannot 'put them back in the literal same position' as that car is now gone. Its written off. Goodbye. So how do they put them back in that position? By giving them the monetary equivalent of that car. Car insurance isnt new for old and you cannot insist your insurance scours the globe for the same car with the same repairs done, thats insane. How much do you think premiums would be if it also included the costs to find an exact replacement for you car, with the exact same new parts!?

They are offering the 'cost to repair'. The OP needs to have an equivalent car back, and they have been given £1500 to find that equivalent car.

The new gearbox did not increase the value to above its worth, it simply brought it back into working order. The value of the car with a nackered gearbox is probably a few hundred. A car with a working gearbox is worth £1500, what the OP has been offered. 

neilmcl

Mickey666 said:

This sort of thing is pretty outrageous really.

If someone causes £x amount of damage to something then surely they should have to pay for the damage caused in order to put the owner back in the same position they were before the damage was inflicted?  THAT would be proper insurance, not be forced into arguments about the value of the original item - why is that even relevant?  It's the damage that is relevant and the cost to repair it is what should be paid.  I know that's not how it all works, I'm just amazed that people side with insurance companies so easily!

As for the new gearbox, that must surely raise the car's valuation?  The car may have travelled 100k miles but the gearbox hasn't, so surely the price the OP paid for the new gearbox should be part of the valuation?  Or, insist that the insurers find an identical replacement vehicle with a new gearbox!

If that's what the OP wants then there's always the legal route to take.

Undervalued

The fact that this is Amazon is irrelevant. That gives the OP no more (or less) rights than he would have had with any other driver or owner.

Sadly it is a well know problem with any elderly vehicle that is worth "a lot" to its owner. In hard legal terms it is worth what the market says it is and not a penny more.

You might be able to agree a settlement with the insurers where you keep the car and then make you own repair arrangements. You may well be able to get it fixed far cheaper than an insurance job, particularly if you are nnot too bothered about the cosmetic appearance. 

born_again

thehog said:

Hello all,
I hope that I have posted this in the correct section, apologies if not but I thought Consumer Rights best fitted the description of my query.
Yesterday morning an Amazon Delivery driver in an Amazon Prime van hit my car doing considerable damage. They didn’t leave a note. I know it was them because one of my neighbours saw it happen.
I immediately called Amazon and a form was filled in by a lovely helpful lady who said someone should come back to me within 48 hours. I then contacted my insurers to report an incident that wasn’t my fault. They were great, and had the car collected and sorted me with a courtesy car in accordance with my policy.
Today a loss adjuster called me and advised that on inspection of my car the damage is such that they are writing the car off. I have updated Amazon.
I am at my wit’s end as I cannot afford a new car and any amount the insurers might give me is likely to be minimal. The car is of little value to the insurers but before the Amazon driver ploughed into it, it was fine for the everyday journeys I need to make.
If this hadn’t occurred I’d still have a useable car in good condition. Do I have any rights against Amazon for compensation or do I just have to suck it up?
Thanks for any replies.

So you have reported it to the police for failing to stop after a accident?

You are going to have to find some values for a car like yours. To use as a bargaining point with the insurers.

You could of course price up the repairs yourself and see if NOT claiming from your insurer would be better. But that is going to depend on what Amazon would be prepared to do? 
Or look to buy the car back from insurer and repair it.

Mickey666

KatrinaWaves said:

Mickey666 said:

This sort of thing is pretty outrageous really.

If someone causes £x amount of damage to something then surely they should have to pay for the damage caused in order to put the owner back in the same position they were before the damage was inflicted?  THAT would be proper insurance, not be forced into arguments about the value of the original item - why is that even relevant?  It's the damage that is relevant and the cost to repair it is what should be paid.  I know that's not how it all works, I'm just amazed that people side with insurance companies so easily!

As for the new gearbox, that must surely raise the car's valuation?  The car may have travelled 100k miles but the gearbox hasn't, so surely the price the OP paid for the new gearbox should be part of the valuation?  Or, insist that the insurers find an identical replacement vehicle with a new gearbox!

. You cannot 'put them back in the literal same position' as that car is now gone. Its written off. Goodbye. So how do they put them back in that position? By giving them the monetary equivalent of that car. Car insurance isnt new for old and you cannot insist your insurance scours the globe for the same car with the same repairs done, thats insane. How much do you think premiums would be if it also included the costs to find an exact replacement for you car, with the exact same new parts!?

They are offering the 'cost to repair'. The OP needs to have an equivalent car back, and they have been given £1500 to find that equivalent car.

The new gearbox did not increase the value to above its worth, it simply brought it back into working order. The value of the car with a nackered gearbox is probably a few hundred. A car with a working gearbox is worth £1500, what the OP has been offered. 

Not true.  The car has not ‘gone’ anywhere it has just been damaged.  The OP has said nothing about being unrepairable only that the repairs would cost more than the car is worth, which I’m suggesting is irrelevant.  As long as the car is repairable then of course the owner can be put back into the same position as they were before the damage was inflicted.
By your reasoning, it’s ok to inflict thousands of pounds worth of damage to an old car but only have to pay a pittance in compensation.  Seems unjust to me, even though I’m fully aware that’s how these scams things work.

And of course a new gearbox would increase the value of an old car.  Compare two identical old cars, one with a 100k miles on the gearbox and one with a new gearbox.  Are you seriously suggestion they are both worth the same amount?

Aretnap

thehog said:

The problem is I am worse off because the £1,500 from the insurers is not going to be enough to buy another car. My car is 11 years old and has done 105,000 miles.

You don't say what make/model it is, but on Auto-Trader there are any number of 11 year old runabouts with ~100K miles on them selling for £1500 or less. So of course it's enough to buy another car. Whether it's enough to buy another car of the same age, make and model is another question - if not then that's a point that you can argue.

thehog said:

I had the gearbox rebuilt in January which wasn’t cheap and otherwise it passed its MOT without issue.

I'm afraid you won't get much, if any, credit for the new gearbox. Any 11 year old car will have had a fair amount spent on maintaining it over the years and will have some new or nearly new parts, so this is already assumed in the valuation. Certainly it must be frustrating to have it written off soon after you've spent a load of money on the gearbox, but if you went out and bought another 11 year old car there's nothing to say that one wouldn't have a new gearbox too, so it's not obvious that you've actually lost out. And if it didn't have a new gearbox it may be that it would have a new clutch, whereas unknown to you your clutch only had a few months left in it, so what you lose with one hand you can end up gaining with the other.

Similarly the fact that it passed its last MOT marks it out as... exactly the same as every other car on the road. Or at least, every other car that should be on the road.

In theory if you can show that it was in significantly better than average mechanical condition for a car of its age and mileage then  that's something that should be taken into account in the valuation. However you would need more evidence of its good condition than an MOT certificate and the fact that you liked the car and it had never given you much trouble (apart from the gearbox). An engineer's report might help. But even then you would have to be realistic about how much difference it can make on a car of that age. Any eleven year old car is getting to the age where it is one bad MOT away from the scrapheap, so the difference in value between "good" and "average" condition is not a lot.

As some have suggested if you are really attached to the car and if the damage is not too severe, one option is to buy it back from your insurers for scrap value and get it repaired yourself. Your insurers will be writing it off based the cost of a thorough repair - new parts, a respray to ensure a good colour match etc. If you use a backstreet garage and don't mind using second hand parts or putting up with the odd dent or an imperfect colour match, then it might be possible to repair it for less than the settlement value and have money left in your pocket the end. Obviously you would need to look into the repair costs before going down that route.

Spank

How much is your car worth (pre-accident)? 

mjm3346

"And of course a new gearbox would increase the value of an old car.  Compare two identical old cars, one with a 100k miles on the gearbox and one with a new gearbox.  Are you seriously suggestion they are both worth the same amount?"

Might not be the exact same amount but the difference would not be close to the actual cost of having had the gearbox done.

Aylesbury_Duck

Mickey666 said:

KatrinaWaves said:

Mickey666 said:

This sort of thing is pretty outrageous really.

If someone causes £x amount of damage to something then surely they should have to pay for the damage caused in order to put the owner back in the same position they were before the damage was inflicted?  THAT would be proper insurance, not be forced into arguments about the value of the original item - why is that even relevant?  It's the damage that is relevant and the cost to repair it is what should be paid.  I know that's not how it all works, I'm just amazed that people side with insurance companies so easily!

As for the new gearbox, that must surely raise the car's valuation?  The car may have travelled 100k miles but the gearbox hasn't, so surely the price the OP paid for the new gearbox should be part of the valuation?  Or, insist that the insurers find an identical replacement vehicle with a new gearbox!

. You cannot 'put them back in the literal same position' as that car is now gone. Its written off. Goodbye. So how do they put them back in that position? By giving them the monetary equivalent of that car. Car insurance isnt new for old and you cannot insist your insurance scours the globe for the same car with the same repairs done, thats insane. How much do you think premiums would be if it also included the costs to find an exact replacement for you car, with the exact same new parts!?

They are offering the 'cost to repair'. The OP needs to have an equivalent car back, and they have been given £1500 to find that equivalent car.

The new gearbox did not increase the value to above its worth, it simply brought it back into working order. The value of the car with a nackered gearbox is probably a few hundred. A car with a working gearbox is worth £1500, what the OP has been offered. 

Not true.  The car has not ‘gone’ anywhere it has just been damaged.  The OP has said nothing about being unrepairable only that the repairs would cost more than the car is worth, which I’m suggesting is irrelevant.  As long as the car is repairable then of course the owner can be put back into the same position as they were before the damage was inflicted.
By your reasoning, it’s ok to inflict thousands of pounds worth of damage to an old car but only have to pay a pittance in compensation.  Seems unjust to me, even though I’m fully aware that’s how these scams things work.

And of course a new gearbox would increase the value of an old car.  Compare two identical old cars, one with a 100k miles on the gearbox and one with a new gearbox.  Are you seriously suggestion they are both worth the same amount?

That's what OP agreed to when they took out their policy, though.  The policy premium will have factored in a reasonable limit on a damage claim, based on the value of the car.  If OP wanted a policy that would pay virtually any amount to fix damage on a car valued at £1500, they would have to arrange such a policy and pay a premium for it.  Alternatively, they'd have to hope the third party had such a policy to claim from.  Would you be prepared to pay for insurance that would pay out many thousands of pounds for new panels and parts on a third party banger you happened to drive into?

Where do you think the line should be drawn if you don't thing the current policy is  just?  If OP's car had been more heavily damaged, to the point it needed substantial work to the chassis or engine, amounting to perhaps £5k, or even £10k, would you think a just outcome would be for that repair to be paid for by an insurer?