We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 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!
RAC complaint - serious car damage
Comments
-
Grumpy_chap said:williamgriffin said:0
-
Maybe the debts 10 years ago are linked to the 10yo car with a seized engine.0
-
This has taken some time, but it is only fair to come back with an update given the input from you. To sum things up, it was a difficult one and both parties in this case had an argument. The claimant believed the car should not have been driven in that state, but the defendant was adamant the vehicle was already damaged when they turned up. The question was whether there was a mistake when the expert did not highlight the issues of the car at the scene and still proceeded to ask the claimant to drive it. Rather than continue with the battle, the case was assisted by a neutral party who helped us reach an agreement/compromise. Thank you all for your initial contribution regarding this issue.
2 -
Thanks for returning ,can you share the compromise1
-
Tanjawi said:This has taken some time, but it is only fair to come back with an update given the input from you. To sum things up, it was a difficult one and both parties in this case had an argument. The claimant believed the car should not have been driven in that state, but the defendant was adamant the vehicle was already damaged when they turned up. The question was whether there was a mistake when the expert did not highlight the issues of the car at the scene and still proceeded to ask the claimant to drive it. Rather than continue with the battle, the case was assisted by a neutral party who helped us reach an agreement/compromise. Thank you all for your initial contribution regarding this issue.
You were the owner of an old Volvo with a knackered engine that would have no doubt been a right off due to the repair cost being more than the value.
You were then perhaps wrongly advised by the RAC person to drive the car so this resulted in a dead (rather than knackered) engine which was a right off.
So the compromise is surely the scrap value between a knackered engine old Volvo vs a dead engine old Volvo? Plus the cost of a door repair?Should've = Should HAVE (not 'of')
Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')
No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards