Amazon Delivery Driver has written off my car!!

photome

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 isnt what was suggested
the new gearbox increased the value from almost worthless to maybe £1500

Mickey666

Aylesbury_Duck said:

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?

Thing is, I DO pay for insurance that will pay out thousands of pounds for new panels and parts on a car I might damage.  So does everyone.  It’s just that no one knows whether I’m going to hit an old banger or an Aston Martin.  Yes, I know it’s all based on statistics but it would be interesting to know how much extra it would actually put on premiums if the insurance was to repair actual damage caused instead of the savings made by write-offs.  My suspicion is that it wouldn’t be much more and it would certainly give far more security to those motorists who do drive ‘old bangers’ and are very likely to lose their car for even the most trivial damage caused by a careless third party.

Takmon

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?

Just have a look on Autotrader or similar at all the different cars on there and you will see that repairs to maintain a car does not increase the amount it sells for. 

Aretnap

Takmon said:

Just have a look on Autotrader or similar at all the different cars on there and you will see that repairs to maintain a car does not increase the amount it sells for. 

And indeed why would they? Why is a buyer going to pay extra for "eleven year old car with new gearbox" rather than "eleven year old car"? From the buyer's point of view the former has a gearbox which will outlast the car - but in all probability so does the latter. There are dozens of expensive things that could go wrong with an eleven year old car - how much extra are you going to pay because just one of them has been replaced? Not a lot I would suggest - certainly not as much as the cost of replacing the gearbox itself.

In any event as I hinted at myself, pretty much any eleven year old car is going to have had some parts replaced relatively recently. So the correct comparison is not "eleven year old car with new gearbox" versus "eleven year old car". It's "eleven year old car with new gearbox" versus "eleven year old car with new clutch" or "eleven year old car with new brake discs" or whatever. I'd suggest that difference in value between those cars is negligible.

wesleyad

Mickey666 said:

Thing is, I DO pay for insurance that will pay out thousands of pounds for new panels and parts on a car I might damage.  So does everyone.  It’s just that no one knows whether I’m going to hit an old banger or an Aston Martin.  Yes, I know it’s all based on statistics but it would be interesting to know how much extra it would actually put on premiums if the insurance was to repair actual damage caused instead of the savings made by write-offs.  My suspicion is that it wouldn’t be much more and it would certainly give far more security to those motorists who do drive ‘old bangers’ and are very likely to lose their car for even the most trivial damage caused by a careless third party.

It will be a sliding scale. Currently if repair costs more than replace, then they don't repair. Clearly as they start to go up and it costs them to repair, then the premiums start to rise. If you are suggesting that they must repair in ALL instances, then you are going to get crazy situations where they are trying to source bits for 20 year old cars that are effectively worth nothing ending up costing thousands. So it becomes a matter of where do they draw the line? 

Aylesbury_Duck

Mickey666 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

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?

Thing is, I DO pay for insurance that will pay out thousands of pounds for new panels and parts on a car I might damage.  So does everyone.  It’s just that no one knows whether I’m going to hit an old banger or an Aston Martin.  Yes, I know it’s all based on statistics but it would be interesting to know how much extra it would actually put on premiums if the insurance was to repair actual damage caused instead of the savings made by write-offs.  My suspicion is that it wouldn’t be much more and it would certainly give far more security to those motorists who do drive ‘old bangers’ and are very likely to lose their car for even the most trivial damage caused by a careless third party.

But that security already exists. The most trivial damage you describe need not take a car off the road.  I practice bangernomics and over the years have had two cars written off by other drivers.  One was a proper smash that would have written off even a new car but the other was a minor rear-end shunt that created an economic write-off.  I got something like £2300 as a settlement, from which they deducted scrap value of a few hundred quid and I think I ended up with the car back and £1900.  I got the structural and electrical damage repaired, lived with the cosmetic scratches and scuffs that were left, had to take it to a VOSA centre for a special MOT and that was that.  Although inconvenient, I ended up with over a thousand quid in my pocket and ran the car into the ground over the next three years so resale value was never going to be a concern.

Mickey666

wesleyad said:

Mickey666 said:

Thing is, I DO pay for insurance that will pay out thousands of pounds for new panels and parts on a car I might damage.  So does everyone.  It’s just that no one knows whether I’m going to hit an old banger or an Aston Martin.  Yes, I know it’s all based on statistics but it would be interesting to know how much extra it would actually put on premiums if the insurance was to repair actual damage caused instead of the savings made by write-offs.  My suspicion is that it wouldn’t be much more and it would certainly give far more security to those motorists who do drive ‘old bangers’ and are very likely to lose their car for even the most trivial damage caused by a careless third party.

It will be a sliding scale. Currently if repair costs more than replace, then they don't repair. Clearly as they start to go up and it costs them to repair, then the premiums start to rise. If you are suggesting that they must repair in ALL instances, then you are going to get crazy situations where they are trying to source bits for 20 year old cars that are effectively worth nothing ending up costing thousands. So it becomes a matter of where do they draw the line? 

I agree - I just think they should draw the line somewhere else than simply writing off a perfectly good vehicle.  How about, if the parts are still available then they should be used to repair damage?  Besides, if parts are not available then how can the cost of repairs be calculated to decide if the vehicle is a write-off in the first place?  It either can be repaired, in which case it should be, or It cannot, in which case the victim should be given the market value plus an amount for compensation, say £1000, for effectively being forced to part with their car against their will.

Spank

Because insurance companies are there to make as much money as possible and will pick the cheapest option to them.

If you want that to change you will have to start your own company.

lincroft1710

Spank said:

Because insurance companies are there to make as much money as possible and will pick the cheapest option to them.
.

Ooooooo you cynic you!



(but so truuue!!)

Aretnap

Spank said:

Because insurance companies are there to make as much money as possible and will pick the cheapest option to them.

If you want that to change you will have to start your own company.

It's not actually a question of dastardly insurance companies trying to maximise their profits. If you are claiming as a third party then your rights are determined by liability law - not by the terms of someone else's insurance contract. And it's a basic tenet of liability law that compensation for damage to property is measured in terms of the loss in damage that the property has suffered. By definition this cannot be more than the property's original value. (Where the repair cost is relevant, it's actually only because it's usually a reasonable measure of the property's loss of value).

If you think that principle is unfair then your beef is with several hundred years of liability law - not with insurance companies which are simply covering their customer's liabilities. And no insurance company is going to sell you liability cover which covers liabilities that you don't have. You couldn't buy insurance to cover other people's cars beyond your legal liability, even if you wanted to. You have no insurable interest in the cars of random people who you might drive into, other than your legal liabilities for them.