Insurance company didn't report car as class N for two years.

ChilliDevil

My friend has asked me to help him selling his car - a 2012 Volvo estate in really nice condition. However, when I downloaded a Car Analytics report on the vehicle it showed up that the car had been a Cat N back in October 2019. My friend had the car checked when he bought it in January 2021, and it came back clear. NFU Mutual updated the record in October 2021 to show the write off that my friend was totally unaware of until today.
Two years seems an excessively long time for NFU to get their admin up to date, so I'm asking:
A) Has anyone else come across this sort of issue
Has anyone found a way of getting redress for it - as my friends car is suddenly probably not worth quite what he thought it was and probably wasn't worth what he paid for it in 2021.

paul_c123

What company was used to do the check in Jan 2021? How do you know the record was updated Oct 2021, is that the date of the Cat N marker that's now on the car? Or is the Cat N marker dated Oct 2019?

Car_54

ChilliDevil said:

Two years seems an excessively long time for NFU to get their admin up to date, so I'm asking:

I'd agree, but is there in fact any applicable time limit?

If not, then I don't see any grounds for a claim. NFU owed no duty of care to your friend.

FWIW, I doubt if the Cat N will make much difference to the value of a 13-y-o car.

MyRealNameToo

1) there have been cases of people saying a car was clean when they checked but later it was identified as a total loss but in those cases they had no evidence as to when the marker was applied. In most cases it was deemed they had bought a cheap service that uses secondary databases and therefore likely it was the limitation of the budget service rather than anything else

2) Your only possible redress would be against the vendor but that depends on who your friend bought the car from... if it was a private sale then you'd have to prove that you asked and that they lied. It potentially could have been written off before they owned it and they were ignorant and so cannot disclose what they dont know. 

If it's a commercial seller there is a much higher duty of care but if truly it was only logged after the sale then again potentially they didnt know either. 

ChilliDevil

paul_c123 said:

What company was used to do the check in Jan 2021? How do you know the record was updated Oct 2021, is that the date of the Cat N marker that's now on the car? Or is the Cat N marker dated Oct 2019?

He can't remember what company he used in '21 - and doesn't have a copy - so that's a problem. As for the dates, this from the check I ran today:

ChilliDevil

Car_54 said:

ChilliDevil said:

Two years seems an excessively long time for NFU to get their admin up to date, so I'm asking:

I'd agree, but is there in fact any applicable time limit?

If not, then I don't see any grounds for a claim. NFU owed no duty of care to your friend.

FWIW, I doubt if the Cat N will make much difference to the value of a 13-y-o car.

There is no specific time limit, but they are required to post the info to the database "promptly". I think one could argue that two years is not exactly "promptly".

I know this is all a long shot, but if you don't ask...

ChilliDevil

MyRealNameToo said:

1) there have been cases of people saying a car was clean when they checked but later it was identified as a total loss but in those cases they had no evidence as to when the marker was applied. In most cases it was deemed they had bought a cheap service that uses secondary databases and therefore likely it was the limitation of the budget service rather than anything else

2) Your only possible redress would be against the vendor but that depends on who your friend bought the car from... if it was a private sale then you'd have to prove that you asked and that they lied. It potentially could have been written off before they owned it and they were ignorant and so cannot disclose what they dont know. 

If it's a commercial seller there is a much higher duty of care but if truly it was only logged after the sale then again potentially they didnt know either. 

I think you're almost certainly 100% right, and my friend has next to no chance of any redress - if indeed there is significant impact on the car's value today. 
It does concern me though that this may be happening in other cases and I think consumers deserve better than to find that the check they have paid for was over a year out of date and therefore inaccurate because an insurance company took 2 years to post correct info to the MIATA database.

What do others think on that point?

GrumpyDil

But, in practical terms what is the difference in value between a clean and a CAT N 2012 car?

My guess is also not a lot.

Nobbie1967

ChilliDevil said:

MyRealNameToo said:

1) there have been cases of people saying a car was clean when they checked but later it was identified as a total loss but in those cases they had no evidence as to when the marker was applied. In most cases it was deemed they had bought a cheap service that uses secondary databases and therefore likely it was the limitation of the budget service rather than anything else

2) Your only possible redress would be against the vendor but that depends on who your friend bought the car from... if it was a private sale then you'd have to prove that you asked and that they lied. It potentially could have been written off before they owned it and they were ignorant and so cannot disclose what they dont know. 

If it's a commercial seller there is a much higher duty of care but if truly it was only logged after the sale then again potentially they didnt know either. 

I think you're almost certainly 100% right, and my friend has next to no chance of any redress - if indeed there is significant impact on the car's value today. 
It does concern me though that this may be happening in other cases and I think consumers deserve better than to find that the check they have paid for was over a year out of date and therefore inaccurate because an insurance company took 2 years to post correct info to the MIATA database.

What do others think on that point?

It’s a bit of a loophole for sure. I wonder if the HPI guarantee covers late notification of a loss?

MyRealNameToo

ChilliDevil said:

MyRealNameToo said:

1) there have been cases of people saying a car was clean when they checked but later it was identified as a total loss but in those cases they had no evidence as to when the marker was applied. In most cases it was deemed they had bought a cheap service that uses secondary databases and therefore likely it was the limitation of the budget service rather than anything else

2) Your only possible redress would be against the vendor but that depends on who your friend bought the car from... if it was a private sale then you'd have to prove that you asked and that they lied. It potentially could have been written off before they owned it and they were ignorant and so cannot disclose what they dont know. 

If it's a commercial seller there is a much higher duty of care but if truly it was only logged after the sale then again potentially they didnt know either. 

I think you're almost certainly 100% right, and my friend has next to no chance of any redress - if indeed there is significant impact on the car's value today. 
It does concern me though that this may be happening in other cases and I think consumers deserve better than to find that the check they have paid for was over a year out of date and therefore inaccurate because an insurance company took 2 years to post correct info to the MIATA database.

What do others think on that point?

MIAFTR is run by the MIB, though oddly the rules around MIAFTR are hosted on the ABI website instead https://www.abi.org.uk/globalassets/files/publications/public/motor/2025/codepracticecategorisationmotorisedvehiclesalvagemay2025.pdf 

You'll note that all decisions should be logged within 2 working days however no one is flawless and on most MIB reporting requirements there is a minimum standard that needs to be met which is never 100%. It was designed as an insurance fraud prevention tool and whilst others buy its data these days and come up with creative uses for it its not its fundamental purpose. It's not a consumer facing tool and hence they dont sell the ability to do searches to Joe Public. 

Arunmor

Swings and roundabouts, I bought my daughter's car as a Cat N also in 2021 from Copart, had it repaired, it has never appeared on the Database.