Car Written Off - Lousy Deal from LV

RedditchResident

born_again said:

@RedditchResident
So just what was the damage?
Given the perceived value of the car by the Ins co. And your love of the car, given how you have looked after it.
If the damage is just cosmetic (damaged panels) then buy it back, get it repaired and carry on as before.

Failing that have a look at peugeot CC's. I've had 2, 206CC &  207CC. Totally enjoyed both. Prices tend to be more realistic.
On Autotrader
£1695 gets you a 207CC 09 plate 94K 1.6 HDi FAP Sport 2dr Diesel

Roof mechanism folds into the boot.  Totaled.  Mine was driven into the car in front.  Non runner post the crash.

George_Michael

RedditchResident said:

 This forum has two categories of respondent, ordinary punters like me and a bunch of industry guys.  The industry guys don't want to answer on the facts.  Why did LV value the car at 700 below guide?  Their guides, not mine.  No answer.  Am I obliged to accept a car with no service history as replacement for a car with manufacturer service history?  No answer.  Am I obliged to accept a car with no warranty as replacement for a fully maintained car.  No answer.  The ordinary punters see my side of the story.   I rest my case neilmcl.  

Yes, it has two categories of respondents.
People who agree with you and people who have a different opinion and some of those may or may not work in the insurance industry and some of them could fall into either of the two groups.
It really begs the question, why did you bother posting on here when it's totally clear that you had already made your mind up and were not in the least bit interested in hearing points of view that differed to yours?

AdrianC

RedditchResident said:

So to be clear, you say I am obliged to accept a car with no service history as replacement for a car with a full service history.  Yes or no would be good.

I don't know how many times you need this explaining.

You are not "accepting" any car from anybody.

You are being paid the value of your written-off car. No more, no less.

What you do with that money once you've been paid it - six months ago, in this case - is not the insurer's problem. You could buy a bicycle or put it towards the deposit for a brand new Ferrari. Your choice entirely.

The only relevance of the service history to your written-off car is in whether it affected the market value of it.

neilmcl

RedditchResident said:

angrycrow said:

Op you say no one has justified why LVs valuation is correct. I believe you will find several people including myself have done so with reference to actual cars for sale. You appear to have chosen to ignore those posts because they do not align with your moral crusade against LV. 

Guides are just that guides, the clue is in the name. They can be subject to adjustment up and down if justified. 

Your car may have full service history but it also has 150000 on the clock and was 13 years old so approaching the end of its serviceable lifespan based on averages. A stainless steel exhaust adds nothing to the value as the car needs an exhaust to be legal.

Given the age and mileage of your car there is no entitlement to any warranty beyond the statutory entitlement provided by all car dealers. In fact there would never be an entitlement to the cost of a warranty full stop.

I am sorry you have unrealistic expectations for your car. I could offer some very useful and constructive advice on your uninsured losses but I doubt you would listen so I won't waste my time which like everyone on the forums is given freely to try and assist. 

So to be clear, you say I am obliged to accept a car with no service history as replacement for a car with a full service history.  Yes or no would be good.

The answer has already been given clearly by @Car_54

RedditchResident

I tried to get specific answers to specific questions but to no avail.  For example, am I obliged to accept a car with no service history as replacement for a car with a full service history.  I get any amount of abuse and messages like yours.  No answers though.

I have had some honest commentary.  What the insurance company does has nothing to do with anything related to car prices, guides or anything else.  They just want to see what they can get away with.  I don't suppose you liked that one either but its there and it didn't come from me.

RedditchResident

George_Michael said:

RedditchResident said:

 This forum has two categories of respondent, ordinary punters like me and a bunch of industry guys.  The industry guys don't want to answer on the facts.  Why did LV value the car at 700 below guide?  Their guides, not mine.  No answer.  Am I obliged to accept a car with no service history as replacement for a car with manufacturer service history?  No answer.  Am I obliged to accept a car with no warranty as replacement for a fully maintained car.  No answer.  The ordinary punters see my side of the story.   I rest my case neilmcl.  

Yes, it has two categories of respondents.
People who agree with you and people who have a different opinion and some of those may or may not work in the insurance industry and some of them could fall into either of the two groups.
It really begs the question, why did you bother posting on here when it's totally clear that you had already made your mind up and were not in the least bit interested in hearing points of view that differed to yours?

I tried to get specific answers to specific questions but to no avail.  For example, am I obliged to accept a car with no service history as replacement for a car with a full service history.  I get any amount of abuse and messages like yours.  No answers though.

I have had some honest commentary.  What the insurance company does has nothing to do with anything related to car prices, guides or anything else.  They just want to see what they can get away with.  I don't suppose you liked that one either but its there and it didn't come from me.

RedditchResident

AdrianC said:

RedditchResident said:

So to be clear, you say I am obliged to accept a car with no service history as replacement for a car with a full service history.  Yes or no would be good.

I don't know how many times you need this explaining.

You are not "accepting" any car from anybody.

You are being paid the value of your written-off car. No more, no less.

What you do with that money once you've been paid it - six months ago, in this case - is not the insurer's problem. You could buy a bicycle or put it towards the deposit for a brand new Ferrari. Your choice entirely.

The only relevance of the service history to your written-off car is in whether it affected the market value of it.

By agreement, I got stiffed with an amount of money that under valued my car and will not replace it.  A replacement cannot be sourced for that amount of money and would be difficult even with the amount in the guides used by LV. 

You are being paid the value of your written-off car. No more, no less.   Not according to LV and their guides.

boobyd

Do you accept their offer, yes or no, (you have) 
You should have said no and put forward why with examples at the time, you then in effect barter, but you not get back what you think you "need" to replace with what you want, you get the "Market value" parameters. Or you go through your insurance and do the same. 
Unfortunately it's that simple, even with full sh, Exhaust etc etc

Sandtree

RedditchResident said:

neilmcl said:

RedditchResident said:

Oh dear.  They cornered me into accepting 1800 with 'proof' that they had a perfect replacement and offers to extend the loaner long enough for me to get cleared funds and pick it up.  They rang before 8 in the morning.  You guys from the industry will know the tactics better than me.  Over the ensuing weeks I found out the hard way that the car couldn't be replaced for 1800 and so complained.  It was in the course of correspondence that I learned they actually had a valuation of 2500 from the guides.  

I think we are starting to go round in circles here.  I am answering the same questions repeatedly.  Its clear that I am also dealing with insurance industry representatives in the main.  

And there we have it. Always comes to this when a new poster doesn't doesn't get the answers they want to hear.

  This forum has two categories of respondent, ordinary punters like me and a bunch of industry guys.  The industry guys don't want to answer on the facts.  Why did LV value the car at 700 below guide?  Their guides, not mine.  No answer.  Am I obliged to accept a car with no service history as replacement for a car with manufacturer service history?  No answer.  Am I obliged to accept a car with no warranty as replacement for a fully maintained car.  No answer.  The ordinary punters see my side of the story.   I rest my case neilmcl.  

Its hard to follow a thread when there are 25 new posts each time you come back and see whats been answered by whom etc. I will declare myself in the "industry guys" camp but there are many more camps than just the two your propose:

The "guides" are motor industry guides of which insurers are one of their smaller customers. The guides are used by people in the motor trade to buy and sell cars, by finance companies to estimate residual values when doing PCP calculations etc and insurance for valuation of vehicles... I am sure there are many more but you are free to read the publicists websites about what services they provide.

As they are not "insurance industry" guides they are deemed independent, there is no universal desire for all their customers for the values to be intentionally under or over. Hence the Ombudsman expect insurers to base their valuation on these for most vehicles.

The guides tell you how to do the valuations, you get a base valuation using certain tables, you get adjustments based on certain other criteria from other tables and there are some elements which arent tabulated but give an approach, most notable of these is how to deal with particular damage to the vehicle which goes beyond the basic overall condition.

Why has LV reduce the settlement by £700 from the base value? No idea, you'd have to speak to them to get an explanation... could be high mileage, could be it was close to a next MOT or a host of other things.

You are not obliged to accept any car, indeed no one is offering you are car. The law of torts and the general principles of common law damages means the TP must put you back in the same financial position which is a private sale price of your car basically. It is totally up to you if you buy a doer upper, bet it all on red, put it towards a brand new car (as I did when I got rid of my EOS).

As already conceded, you had no warranty so the third party has no obligation to buy you a warranty. Tomorrow the hydraulics of the roof on your old car could have died and that would have been a four figure repair bill on a 13-14 year old car. I know as they hydraulics on my Eos did die. Personally I also wouldnt rate a VW servicing either, three times VW telephoned ME asking how to get into the boot if the roof mechanism has died with the roof in mid movement.

RedditchResident

Sandtree said:

RedditchResident said:

neilmcl said:

RedditchResident said:

Oh dear.  They cornered me into accepting 1800 with 'proof' that they had a perfect replacement and offers to extend the loaner long enough for me to get cleared funds and pick it up.  They rang before 8 in the morning.  You guys from the industry will know the tactics better than me.  Over the ensuing weeks I found out the hard way that the car couldn't be replaced for 1800 and so complained.  It was in the course of correspondence that I learned they actually had a valuation of 2500 from the guides.  

I think we are starting to go round in circles here.  I am answering the same questions repeatedly.  Its clear that I am also dealing with insurance industry representatives in the main.  

And there we have it. Always comes to this when a new poster doesn't doesn't get the answers they want to hear.

  This forum has two categories of respondent, ordinary punters like me and a bunch of industry guys.  The industry guys don't want to answer on the facts.  Why did LV value the car at 700 below guide?  Their guides, not mine.  No answer.  Am I obliged to accept a car with no service history as replacement for a car with manufacturer service history?  No answer.  Am I obliged to accept a car with no warranty as replacement for a fully maintained car.  No answer.  The ordinary punters see my side of the story.   I rest my case neilmcl.  

Its hard to follow a thread when there are 25 new posts each time you come back and see whats been answered by whom etc. I will declare myself in the "industry guys" camp but there are many more camps than just the two your propose:

The "guides" are motor industry guides of which insurers are one of their smaller customers. The guides are used by people in the motor trade to buy and sell cars, by finance companies to estimate residual values when doing PCP calculations etc and insurance for valuation of vehicles... I am sure there are many more but you are free to read the publicists websites about what services they provide.

As they are not "insurance industry" guides they are deemed independent, there is no universal desire for all their customers for the values to be intentionally under or over. Hence the Ombudsman expect insurers to base their valuation on these for most vehicles.

The guides tell you how to do the valuations, you get a base valuation using certain tables, you get adjustments based on certain other criteria from other tables and there are some elements which arent tabulated but give an approach, most notable of these is how to deal with particular damage to the vehicle which goes beyond the basic overall condition.

Why has LV reduce the settlement by £700 from the base value? No idea, you'd have to speak to them to get an explanation... could be high mileage, could be it was close to a next MOT or a host of other things.

You are not obliged to accept any car, indeed no one is offering you are car. The law of torts and the general principles of common law damages means the TP must put you back in the same financial position which is a private sale price of your car basically. It is totally up to you if you buy a doer upper, bet it all on red, put it towards a brand new car (as I did when I got rid of my EOS).

As already conceded, you had no warranty so the third party has no obligation to buy you a warranty. Tomorrow the hydraulics of the roof on your old car could have died and that would have been a four figure repair bill on a 13-14 year old car. I know as they hydraulics on my Eos did die. Personally I also wouldnt rate a VW servicing either, three times VW telephoned ME asking how to get into the boot if the roof mechanism has died with the roof in mid movement.

Cutting to the chase, you are saying I am obliged to accept that a car with no service history is in fact a fair replacement for one with a full service history.  Correct?  They are to be had.  No mistake.