Disputing value of an insurance claim

[Deleted User]

You need to document the cost of getting you back into the position you were in before. So cost of a replacement car, plus quotes to install all the modifications it had done to it. Get quotes from a company that would do the work for you. You might also ask how much it would cost to fix the existing car, if that is even possible.

Same with the van, you need to document everything that was in it that needs replacing and get a quote for converting a standard van to that spec.

Then you can present that as your cost to put you back where you were before the accident.

Sandtree

[Deleted User] said:

You need to document the cost of getting you back into the position you were in before. So cost of a replacement car, plus quotes to install all the modifications it had done to it. Get quotes from a company that would do the work for you. You might also ask how much it would cost to fix the existing car, if that is even possible.

Same with the van, you need to document everything that was in it that needs replacing and get a quote for converting a standard van to that spec.

Then you can present that as your cost to put you back where you were before the accident.

Which is ok unless the value of repairs/making a new one is more than what the vehicle is worth

If you have something that is worth £5,000 then that's the most you can claim even if it would cost you £10,000 to make a new one. Technically speaking what you actually claim from the third party is the reduction in value caused by the damage but the courts accept that the cost of repair is a reasonable proxy for this. Given something cannot have a negative value you therefore get a total loss once repairs exceed value.

As already explained, you can spend thousands making changes to a vehicle and not only not actually increase its value but actually reduce it

The challenge is not showing how much to make a new one but how much the old one was worth. If its too obscure then you are into expert opinion space it becomes very subjective and difficult to substantiate 

NBLondon

Herzlos said:

I don't think it'd matter, the value would be calculated in the same way. It's just with cars insurers have databases with values already, rather than having to do any additional work.

Is that not the problem?  Those tables are saying "1998 Whatever road car" as opposed to "Competition prepared 1998 Whatever"

Petriix

It's fairly simple: you need to quantify your loss (with evidence) and present them with an ultimatum. If they won't pay any 'reasonable' costs to put you back in the position you were in immediately before the accident, then you take them to court. 

Car_54

Petriix said:

It's fairly simple: you need to quantify your loss (with evidence) and present them with an ultimatum. If they won't pay any 'reasonable' costs to put you back in the position you were in immediately before the accident, then you take them to court. 

Doesn't he take the driver to court, not the insurer?

lincroft1710

Petriix said:

It's fairly simple: you need to quantify your loss (with evidence) and present them with an ultimatum. If they won't pay any 'reasonable' costs to put you back in the position you were in immediately before the accident, then you take them to court. 

OP has no contract with the 3rd party insurer. Also they didn't cause the accident, their insured did. Taking the other driver to court will be expensive as the amount involved is above the limit for Small Claims.