Beware Skoda Fabia VRS LK07AVE for Sale on Ebay

[GrahamE]

     This car is described as "Skoda fabia vrs cat c was Minor Damage low miles full ssh", also as having "NO suspension damage". Unfortunately the bit about "Minor Damage" and "no suspension damage" is far from the truth. I was the original owner from new. The car was written off on the 13th of Jan 2015, when a car driving down the outside of stationary traffic, as I was turning right in front of them, hit the rear off side passenger door. This twisted the "B" pillar pulling down the roof. It also bent the rear axle, caused rippling in the boot floor, flatting the sill, rear quarter panel  and after a week of standing the near side passenger doors now where not opening and closing smoothly as they did prior to the accident, suggesting the chasses was twisting.

   

     The repair costs where estimated at well over £4000 and that was before they had started to take it apart! I was going to buy it back and repair it, but decided against it after the assessor said he was surprised that I was allowed to buy it back as in his option it was only fit for breaking due to the amount of damage.  There for to repair it correctly and make a profit on resale corners may have been cut. as it is only listed at £3200 ono. As a side note the interior suffered slight fire damage when a can of deicer punctured and ignited due to the force of the accident.

 

    A friend emailed the seller and asked what the damage was, as a door would not make it a "cat C". The sellers reply was, it needed a door and a seatbelt. Both true, but seems to have forgotten about the body work, chasses and suspension damage.

 

    I have photos of the damage if required. 

[J306TD]

Link? Such a shame people have to lie like that too sell a car. I thought all right offs go straight to the scrap yard from the recovery firm or bodyshop?

Sent from my Galaxy S5

[Hyphons]

Hope you don't mind me popping in and posting this http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Skoda-fabia-vrs-cat-c-was-minor-damage-low-miles-full-ssh-/111649185896?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item19fecf6068

 

Edit - 

 

Just noticed this

 

Item condition:

Used

 

“immaculate”

 

It sure doesn't sound "immaculate" from your statement

Edited 19 April, 2015 by Hyphons

[pete_fabbie_vrs]

I think itbshoukd be compulsory for all insurance companies to release the information regarding a car they write off which is available to anybody when they carry out a hpi check, this will offer a lot more protection against dodgy people like this, the seller could be genuine and maybe wasn't aware to the extent of the damage when they bought it. But it is certainly too easy for people to cover up the history

[Hyphons]

I also noticed in the description it said no suspension damage :wonder:

[VWD]

i notice MOT is 04/2016- now HOW the f**k did it get an MOT, with reported damage , UNLESS --- tester has vision problems .

Edited 20 April, 2015 by VWD

[Hyphons]

i notice MOT is 04/2016- now HOW the f**k did it get an MOT, with reported damage , UNLESS --- tester has vision problems .

I also find the photos on eBay a bit fishy, can't really see any damage, the car looks immaculate to be honest

[Yaris]

Cat C shouldn't exist imo, too many cowboys out there fixing on the cheap and screw the consequences.

[GrahamE]

      The car would have needed a complete respray to be immaculate. The N/S passenger door had a small dent in it which was done on a gate, the drivers door had paint damage where a hubcap came off a car as we passed on a country lane and the rear bumper had a deep scrape and scuffs where people "touch parked" where I used to live. The N/S door mirror casing also had some deep scratching too. The front seat backs would have also needed changing because of the fire damage.

 

       The original MOT runs out on the 28th April 2015 and should have expired when the car was written off, not that it was, but still says 2015 on the DVLA, The tyres where up for renewal, but look like the originals even thought they are suppose now to be new!  It needed a VIC check but it seemed to have passed that a few weeks ago.

 

       I have attached a few photos.

 

 

 

 

[softscoop]

I wonder if this is actually a different car that they've cloned the details on to?

Looking at that damage it's hard to see how it could be fixed properly and sold at that price, unless someone has completely bodged it and it's full of filter.

[BossFox]

Cat C shouldn't exist imo, too many cowboys out there fixing on the cheap and screw the consequences.

 

Cat C is not a description of a level of damage, it's only an indicator of the cost of the repair against the value of the vehicle at the time.

 

A £1,000 twelve year old Fabia can be a Cat C with just a dented boot and rear bumper.

Yet it can be easy fixed and go on to give several years of service.

 

Likewise an Audi RS3 can have the front corner stoved in and the wheel hub completely ripped off (using an example I've seen) but due to the vehicle''s value a £10,000-£20,000 repair estimate saw the car labeled as Cat D.

Not inspected, no VIC test.  Just MOT'd and put straight back on the road.

Recently for sale with the advert "Cat D, light damage only" :peek:

 

I'd rather have the cat C car out of those two examples I've seen.

 

Cat C doesn't automatically mean heavy damage.

Cat D doesn't automatically mean light damage.

 

That's why if you are buying any car with Cat C or D damage you should ask for pre-repair photos.

When I buy a Cat C or D I always take them for exactly this reason.

Because I am not an ebay trader trying to earn a quick pound by telling porkie pies.

 

 

 

For reference.

Cat D is when the car is written off, but the repair is less than the value of the car.

Cat C is when the repair estimate is more than the value of car.

 

So as you can see, a nice car like an RS3 can have a serious amount of repairs and still be a Cat D.  So just need an MOT to go back on the road.

But a Fabia that needs a new boot and bumper at list price is a Cat C by the time you add in labour and painting.

Arguably, it's a flawed system.

[Yaris]

Cat C is not a description of a level of damage, it's only an indicator of the cost of the repair against the value of the vehicle at the time.

A £1,000 twelve year old Fabia can be a Cat C with just a dented boot and rear bumper.

Yet it can be easy fixed and go on to give several years of service.

Likewise an Audi RS3 can have the front corner stoved in and the wheel hub completely ripped off (using an example I've seen) but due to the vehicle''s value a £10,000-£20,000 repair estimate saw the car labeled as Cat D.

Not inspected, no VIC test. Just MOT'd and put straight back on the road.

Recently for sale with the advert "Cat D, light damage only" :peek:

I'd rather have the cat C car out of those two examples I've seen.

Cat C doesn't automatically mean heavy damage.

Cat D doesn't automatically mean light damage.

That's why if you are buying any car with Cat C or D damage you should ask for pre-repair photos.

When I buy a Cat C or D I always take them for exactly this reason.

Because I am not an ebay trader trying to earn a quick pound by telling porkie pies.

For reference.

Cat D is when the car is written off, but the repair is less than the value of the car.

Cat C is when the repair estimate is more than the value of car.

So as you can see, a nice car like an RS3 can have a serious amount of repairs and still be a Cat D. So just need an MOT to go back on the road.

But a Fabia that needs a new boot and bumper at list price is a Cat C by the time you add in labour and painting.

Arguably, it's a flawed system.

Cat C means extensive damage, costing close to, equal to, or more than the value of the car. VIC test required.

Cat D means light damage, costing close to, equal to, or more than the value of the car.

Nothing to do with cost.

[BossFox]

Cat C means extensive damage, costing close to, equal to, or more than the value of the car.

Cat D means light damage, costing close to, equal to, or more than the value of the car.

 

No it doesn't.

Reread my post.

Light damage on a cheap car means Cat C.

[BossFox]

An example.

 

http://www.copart.co.uk/uk/Lot/17712955?searchId=38580791

 

Cat C Fabia.

Far from extensive damage.  Light repair only and perfectly safe to go back on the road.

 

People need to get away from the D = light, C = heavy idea they have.

The D/C Catagories completely relate to the insurance estimate compared to the value.  Nothing else.

[DanHarper]

Nothing to do with cost.

 

:clap:    :no:

 

Richard probably has more Cat cars in his possession right now than you've had cars! With insurance companies, everything is to do with cost...

[Yaris]

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/insurance-write-offs/

Why do you think Cat Cs require a VIC test and Cat Ds don't?

[DanHarper]

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/insurance-write-offs/

Why do you think Cat Cs require a VIC test and Cat Ds don't?

 

Vehicle Identity Check... nothing to do with safety or damage or costs or anything.

[BossFox]

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/insurance-write-offs/

Why do you think Cat Cs require a VIC test and Cat Ds don't?

 

Because as I said the system is flawed.

 

I had to VIC test my Cat C fabia which I never even repaired before it's MOT or VIC test.

Both of which it passed.

 

It just had a dent in the boot.

 

This was a Cat C...

Look how extensively damaged the boot is.

 

 

It's because the COST of a new boot, fitting and painting is more than the value of the car.

Nothing else.

 

Most people think light = D and heavy = C, but that's incorrect.

[Yaris]

When I bought a Cat C Honda Prelude back in 2005, my insurers demanded an engineers report to confirm the car had been repaired to an acceptable standard, stating this was a requirement for all Category C write offs due to extensive damage. Either they were wronng, and now i'm wrong, or you guys are wrong. Someone is definitely wrong lol.

Anyone in the trade here care to confirm?

[softscoop]

Exactly as Richard says, it's all down to money. One of my work mates had her car written off as cat c.

It was in a workshop with the head off for some work.

Part of the garage caught fire, and the keys and head were destroyed, but the rest of the car was 100% untouched. Due to the cost of repair through insurance it was written off.

Edited 20 April, 2015 by softscoop

[BossFox]

When I bought a Cat C Honda Prelude back in 2005, my insurers demanded an engineers report to confirm the car had been repaired to an acceptable standard, stating this was a requirement for all Category C write offs due to extensive damage. Either they were wronng, and now i'm wrong, or you guys are wrong. Someone is definitely wrong lol.

Anyone in the trade here care to confirm?

 

They are wrong.  From a legal point of view.

I have insured several Cat C cars as normal, including the one above.

 

It was probably a decision somebody at that particular insurance company made, so it was part of their policy.

It's not usual practice.

 

Not sure about "Trade" but I have dealt with Cat D and C cars for 20 years.

I probaby would have considered myself trade before but I've moved on to other things.

[Yaris]

Oh well I put my hands up then. Something new i've learned today. I wish it was to do with the severity of the damage though. Anything extensive than can be repaired, shouldn't be allowed back on the road, as it is too easy for lowlifes to bodge repairs and punt on for a quick buck, not giving a **** about the safety of occupants.

[BossFox]

Oh well I put my hands up then. Something new i've learned today. I wish it was to do with the severity of the damage though. Anything extensive than can be repaired, shouldn't be allowed back on the road, as it is too easy for lowlifes to bodge repairs and punt on for a quick buck, not giving a **** about the safety of occupants.

 

I agree 100%.

The system is flawed and certain critical components like suspension should require a geometry check etc.

 

But even a Cat D or C with heavy suspension damage just needs an MOT and a VIC if a Cat C.

So at no point is there a requirement for all the wheels to be accurately facing the direction they should.

It will only be questioned if something looks clearly wrong.

 

The system is just for insurance use, not safety or buyer protection.

[Hyphons]

The photos you posted definitely differ to the photos in the ad, I'd be tempted to question the damage on the car and to ask for further proof

[wilsonian]

Personally I think any car that is classed as a right off - no matter what level needs to have a IVA check. If their so worries about people building their own cars the same should be done for those who repair them.

 

Unfortunately that does mean examples like a dent in the boot is a bit extreme but it would catch cars like in the OP.