Used car compensation for " repairs"

Aylesbury_Duck

whatsthenews said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

whatsthenews said:

k3lvc said:

whatsthenews said:

k3lvc said:

whatsthenews said:

The insurance company didn't ask for specifics re the modifications. He told them it was tuned to Stage 3 and had had modifications to the air intake, turbocharger  and exhaust system and they didn't ask anything else.

Seems strange given most insurance companies micro-management of modifications. Are you sure you're getting the full story from son and not the edited version after his dream/flash car failed it's MOT ? (speaking from experience as someone who's been in a similar position with motorbikes in the past )

What would the unedited version sound like? Keen to hear as maybe it's something that I haven't already thought of and discounted as making no sense and / or totally out of character. I think people think he's a " boy racer " type . He's not at all.. He worries about the neighbours if he has to go out to work early because its loud for about  15 secs in cold start. Doesn't fly about in it ( (can't afford the petrol) , just likes to burn  off the odd cocky driver at lights every now and again.

As with many things heart often rules head and the story he tells his mates 'may' be different to the story he tells you.

Anyone buying a stage 3 tuned car knows exactly what they're getting into and that it often comes with risks of being on the outer limits of (road) legal

Historically it's not been to difficult to either find an MOT station that didn't look hard at whether a cat existed in an (original looking) exhaust or just turned a complete blind eye to it - the test was made stricter and very little that's now been subject to decat will now get through (unless of course the original is refitted for the test and removed immediately afterwards )

Likewise the insurance company is (very) unlikely to have just accepted the broad-brush engine/suspension/exhaust modifications - they'll have to know details, power added, costs etc - again he might be simplifying the story to you to avoid looking silly for his purchase decision

Your sentence sums it up - that's exactly what 'boy racer'/'flying about in it' is - I may be 50 but I'm reliving my youth in a similar way (albeit un-tuned but with manufacturers performance parts fitted) and some of the points you make are exactly what I'd tell the wife 

Anyone buying a stage 3 tuned car knows exactly what they're getting into and that it often comes with risks of being on the outer limits of (road) legal

But this was completely non  road legal, not on the  "outer limits"
As you say, anyone who knowingly buys a car without a cat  doesn't take it to a random MOT testing station , because they know it'll fail the emissions test. 
So surprised that given the fact that most people have probably had a less than satisfactory experience buying a used car ( you know the saying " he's like a used car salesman"?)so many would rather put the buyer in the wrong and defend the dealer. 

What would you gain from a load of anonymous strangers agreeing with you?  

People "defending the dealer" are actually making you think carefully about your case and what you'll need to do to get the outcome you want.  If you can't counter reasonable arguments from people on here, you stand little chance in a consumer rights dispute or in court.

Rubbish. Counter argument's  a waste of time when people aren't even reading ( or comprehending ) what's written. 

In which case, I shall leave you to it.  You clearly know better than those from whom you've asked for advice, so it's a mystery why you're here.

Manxman_in_exile

whatsthenews said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I'd have to say I was generally inclined to side with the OP's "young relative" - until I read this:

whatsthenews said:

k3lvc said:

whatsthenews said:

The insurance company didn't ask for specifics re the modifications. He told them it was tuned to Stage 3 and had had modifications to the air intake, turbocharger  and exhaust system and they didn't ask anything else.

Seems strange given most insurance companies micro-management of modifications. Are you sure you're getting the full story from son and not the edited version after his dream/flash car failed it's MOT ? (speaking from experience as someone who's been in a similar position with motorbikes in the past )

... Doesn't fly about in it ( (can't afford the petrol) , just likes to burn  off the odd cocky driver at lights every now and again.

So using your acceleration and  lifting off at lights still within the speed limits is synonymous with being stupid enough to buy a non road legal car? Heaven's above. 

No - it doesn't necessarily give any indication of his level of stupidity, but if he "just likes to burn  off the odd cocky driver at lights every now and again" I'd suggest that it definitely says something about his arrogance and his attitude towards driving and other people in general.  How does he (or you for that matter) come to the conclusion that other drivers are cocky and deserve to be burnt off?

It may have escaped your notice but in my earliest contributions to this thread I gave you and your "young relative" the benefit of the doubt.  I suspect now that that was a mistake.

born_again

Aylesbury_Duck said:

In which case, I shall leave you to it.  You clearly know better than those from whom you've asked for advice, so it's a mystery why you're here.

And started a 2nd thread when all the answers were in the 1st one..