We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Car Written Off - Lousy Deal from LV
Options
Comments
-
If you had spent as much energy on fighting LV's offer as you have on this thread you may have got a higher payout.
When our car was written off our insurance company made a low offer.
Mu husband refused the amount and sent information , including Glasses guide which they said they used, to justify a higher amount.
24 hours later they came back with an amount we were happy to accept.
2 -
RedditchResident said:
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.Sandtree said:
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: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.neilmcl said:
And there we have it. Always comes to this when a new poster doesn't doesn't get the answers they want to hear.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.
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.No. No-one in the past 12 pages and 120 posts has said that.The insurer has no obligation to provide you with a replacement car of any description.He is obliged to pay you a sum of money, which you have accepted.5 -
Have been following this thread and full disclosure I am not in the motor trade or insurance industry but I have bought and sold many cars over the years. Once a vehicle gets to 100k miles the value drops dramatically and also after a certain age service history means diddly squat in real terms what it will do is make it a little more saleable. Not wanting to get in to a dabate over age, mileage and value but I did have a look on autotrader and the cars being advertised at the price you think yours was worth had half the mileage and came with a service history as well.RedditchResident said:
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.Sandtree said:
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: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.neilmcl said:
And there we have it. Always comes to this when a new poster doesn't doesn't get the answers they want to hear.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.
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.5 -
Its not cutting to the chase to ask the same question again.RedditchResident said:
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.
The guides are based on the sales of thousands of vehicles via a large number of channels. Importantly they are based on agreed deals not advertised prices... you could have advertised your car on Autotrader for £100,000 if you wanted, doesnt mean its worth that.
The question is only what would your car have sold for... they have shot themselves in the foot with a poor choice of comparison but as many others have pointed out there are many diesel Eos on Autotrader advertised for less and you can obviously look at higher priced one and use your passion to negotiate them down.
Whilst I loved by Eos, I did much prefer its replacement.1 -
A sum of money sufficient to replace the car destroyed by his customer. No a junkyard special.Car_54 said:RedditchResident said:
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.Sandtree said:
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: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.neilmcl said:
And there we have it. Always comes to this when a new poster doesn't doesn't get the answers they want to hear.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.
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.No. No-one in the past 12 pages and 120 posts has said that.The insurer has no obligation to provide you with a replacement car of any description.He is obliged to pay you a sum of money, which you have accepted.
Yes. I got cornered into tacit acceptance of a sum of money. I set about the process of replacing the car and discovered within a week or so just how well I had been shafted. I complained to LV. I tried the Ombudsman (at the recommendation of LV) and found out two days ago that they cannot help. LV would have known that. So, I lose. Doesn't make it right. I hope others find this thread and find it helpful if they face the same situation, or LV, or both.0 -
Maybe just maybe if you'd done your homework before accepting the offer you wouldn't be in this position.RedditchResident said:
A sum of money sufficient to replace the car destroyed by his customer. No a junkyard special.Car_54 said:RedditchResident said:
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.Sandtree said:
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: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.neilmcl said:
And there we have it. Always comes to this when a new poster doesn't doesn't get the answers they want to hear.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.
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.No. No-one in the past 12 pages and 120 posts has said that.The insurer has no obligation to provide you with a replacement car of any description.He is obliged to pay you a sum of money, which you have accepted.
Yes. I got cornered into tacit acceptance of a sum of money. I set about the process of replacing the car and discovered within a week or so just how well I had been shafted. I complained to LV. I tried the Ombudsman (at the recommendation of LV) and found out two days ago that they cannot help. LV would have known that. So, I lose. Doesn't make it right. I hope others find this thread and find it helpful if they face the same situation, or LV, or both.1 -
Don't keep blaming LV., they haven't "done anything wrong "as such
It could have been any insurance company0 -
There are indeed many cars out there but any like for like replacement is not to be had for what the compensation paid by LV. They admitted after the event that they paid out far less than their guides while insisting their guides are their basis. They offered no justification for their action. I thought I would hear some empirical story about x pounds per 1000 miles above average or whatever. Something I could challenge based on the maintenance records and the condition of the actual car. They didn't even bother. 'We can get away with it and you will have a hard time forcing us to pay honest compensation' was the gist of it. That's true. They are right. They know that the ordinary citizen will have a hard time challenging them. So they behave whatever way they want. Doesn't make it right.Sandtree said:
Its not cutting to the chase to ask the same question again.RedditchResident said:
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.
The guides are based on the sales of thousands of vehicles via a large number of channels. Importantly they are based on agreed deals not advertised prices... you could have advertised your car on Autotrader for £100,000 if you wanted, doesnt mean its worth that.
The question is only what would your car have sold for... they have shot themselves in the foot with a poor choice of comparison but as many others have pointed out there are many diesel Eos on Autotrader advertised for less and you can obviously look at higher priced one and use your passion to negotiate them down.
Whilst I loved by Eos, I did much prefer its replacement.0 -
I think you are right. Someone else here had a similar if not worse experience with Direct Line. I doubt if there's much separating a lot of them. In fairness I know they get scammed too. I just don't feel I'm the guy they should be taking that out on.boobyd said:Don't keep blaming LV., they haven't "done anything wrong "as such
It could have been any insurance company0 -
I will not be monitoring this thread. Thanks again for the input.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards