Insurance low balling on total loss for non fault claim

drsquirrel

[Deleted User] said:

The problem is that people want silly money for used cars at the moment. It's going to be very hard to challenge. You could get your own expert, but it will cost you.

This has been going on a while, though by that logic shouldn't mine be worth more as well?

[Deleted User]

drsquirrel said:

[Deleted User] said:

The problem is that people want silly money for used cars at the moment. It's going to be very hard to challenge. You could get your own expert, but it will cost you.

This has been going on a while, though by that logic shouldn't mine be worth more as well?

What I mean is that people can ask silly money, but that doesn't mean people will pay it. The prices advertised are not the prices paid.

It's most unsatisfactory, but there really isn't much you can do. Maybe look for another model or make, similar but cheaper due to being more common or something.

drsquirrel

The autobox makes it less common than anything else really.

Part of my original question was if I just went ahead and purchased a car, I would have a real price. Then if I could claim this from teh other driver, specially if there was a shortfall in the difference offered by MY insurance company.

Aretnap

drsquirrel said:

The autobox makes it less common than anything else really.

Part of my original question was if I just went ahead and purchased a car, I would have a real price. Then if I could claim this from teh other driver, specially if there was a shortfall in the difference offered by MY insurance company.

Broadly, no. 

The other driver's liability is to pay you the market value of your old car. This will not necessarily be the same as the actual price of any car you choose to replace it with. The car you buy as a replacement is unlikely to be an exact copy of the one that was written off. And even if it is, the price you pay for one particular car at one particular dealership is not necessarily the market value. You might have been lucky enough to get a very good deal, or you might have been fleeced by a dealer who saw you coming a mile off. Either way, the amount you can claim would be different to the amount you spent in a replacement.

At best the price you paid for a similar model is some evidence of the market price - but probably not good enough evidence by itself to overturn the opinion of an expert or the trade guides.

In theory if you can show that your insurer did pay less then the market value you could reclaim the difference from the at fault driver (or in practice from his own insurer, who will deal with any claim against him). However if you could prove that your insurer paid less then the market price, you would be able to get the full value out of your own insurer, via the Ombudsman.

Making a claim against the driver (which in practice means dealing with his own insurer) at best gives you another bite of the cherry at arguing over what the fair market price is - it doesn't change the principles of how fair market price is calculated. And the problem with going through the courts is that (a) the FOS has a greater pro-consumer bias than the courts, so it is unlikely (not impossible) that you'll get a better result in court than you did from the FOS and (2) you will be liable for costs if you lose in court. Admittedly costs would not be huge in the small claims court - but they would not be zero either. 

Sandtree

drsquirrel said:

[Deleted User] said:

The problem is that people want silly money for used cars at the moment. It's going to be very hard to challenge. You could get your own expert, but it will cost you.

This has been going on a while, though by that logic shouldn't mine be worth more as well?

No, its worth what it was immediately before the crash... the valuation doesn't continue to fluctuate after, in normal times if it did that'd mean insurers just sat on claims waiting for the vehicle to continue to depreciate.