Is this likely to be a write off?

[philthejuggler]

Hi all

 

My 2014 Skoda Octavia (approx value £8k-£9k) was involved in an accident on Monday.

 

A UPS driver caught the tow bar in a loop of metal at the back of his van and dragged my car about 3 feet and smashed it into a colleague's car.

 

Most of the damage looks fairly superficial - replacing the passenger side rear panels and respray of the bumper.

 

When the car was picked up by the body shop they noticed a slight crease in the driver's side strut that runs alongside the hatchback indicating a possible distortion of the chassis.

 

If the chassis is distorted is it likely to be repaired or written off?

 

Thanks!

Phil

[nidza]

I've seen them fixing unbelievable damages on that spider-look machine. Small damages aren't a big deal, but... Personally wouldn't like to drive such a car anymore... :(

 

I am very sorry, but such things do happen. Let it be only a material damage always and nobody gets hurt.

 

[philthejuggler]

6 minutes ago, nidza said:

I've seen them fixing unbelievable damages on that spider-look machine. Small damages aren't a big deal, but... Personally wouldn't like to drive such a car anymore... :(

 

I am very sorry, but such things do happen. Let it be only a material damage always and nobody gets hurt.

 

 

Thanks - could be issues with finance if the car is written off :(

[nidza]

You keep the car if written off? Can you sell it in spare parts? People usually pull out from this mess okay in my country.

 

Not a best scenario, better that such things never occur, but when they do, you try to get the maximum out.

 

[Jaco2k]

If the chassis bent... unlikely they repair. Sucks, but it is true. I have been on a crash also recently and my car was repaired, but I was lucky enough that nothing distorted.

Personally, I would try to get them to write-off the car, since a bent car is not safe anymore, but that is my opinion.

[MorrisOx]

It isn’t so much the damage itself, but whether repairing it to a standard approved by your insurer would amount to more than around 50% of the car’s current market value. Panel kits aren’t necessarily that expensive, but time on an alignment rig and in the spray booth is.

[Gabbo]

Given the price you quote for the car I would says its 50%-50%.

You can probably convince them to repair the car if you want (unless the chassis is really damaged) but I would prefer a write-off.

 

As its a company insurance & 100% their fault, you should push your insurer to negotiate at least the cost to payoff the finance.

Don't accept being left out of pocket because its completely not your fault.

[philthejuggler]

OK - update from the garage - no distortion to chassis so repair going ahead as planned!

[Ootohere]

?

Have they carried out a Lazer Alignment Check? 

 As long as they have and have the report.

[philthejuggler]

8 minutes ago, Headinawayoffski said:

?

Have they carried out a Lazer Alignment Check? 

 As long as they have and have the report.

 

Yes - laser check complete - no issues!

[scj103]

9 hours ago, philthejuggler said:

 

Thanks - could be issues with finance if the car is written off :(

No - dont accept an issue with the finance - as its entirely their fault, they must pay the value of the finance, not the car's value.  You didnt ask them to smash it up, so do not accept any personal losses as a result.  Small claims court all the way if you have to.

[philthejuggler]

12 hours ago, scj103 said:

No - dont accept an issue with the finance - as its entirely their fault, they must pay the value of the finance, not the car's value.  You didnt ask them to smash it up, so do not accept any personal losses as a result.  Small claims court all the way if you have to.

 

Luckily I'm not going to have that argument! I'll be getting rid of the car early next year all being well, so for now I just want it repaired!

[ahenners]

On 04/10/2017 at 21:07, scj103 said:

No - dont accept an issue with the finance - as its entirely their fault, they must pay the value of the finance, not the car's value.  You didnt ask them to smash it up, so do not accept any personal losses as a result.  Small claims court all the way if you have to.

 

So if a financed car is smashed up and in negative equity, the "at fault" party's insurance must pay the outstanding finance amount, rather than the value of the car?

 

That's not how it works, they pay the market value of the car. Sure there can be some negotiation on the offer but good luck pursuing anything other than its market value worth in a small claims court. That's why people take GAP insurance to cover this sort of scenario.

[scj103]

No, people take gap insurance to cover all eventualities and to cover own fault situations or complete loss. 

GAP insurance is sold by people to make money, and as with many insurances could actually be done away with in certain circumstances. It is normal practice within awarding damages and liabilities to expect that the injured party is not left worse off as a result of someone else's stupidity or incompetence. It is the foundation of the whole compensation industry, so what I said stands. 

[ahenners]

11 minutes ago, scj103 said:

No, people take gap insurance to cover all eventualities and to cover own fault situations or complete loss. 

GAP insurance is sold by people to make money, and as with many insurances could actually be done away with in certain circumstances. It is normal practice within awarding damages and liabilities to expect that the injured party is not left worse off as a result of someone else's stupidity or incompetence. It is the foundation of the whole compensation industry, so what I said stands. 

 

But the fact a car is "worth" (potentially thousands) less than the outstanding finance is not the fault or problem of the other party? 

 

Paying market value of a car does not leave the affected non fault party worse off; prior to the accident they would have still had a car worth less than the amount owed on finance. Being involved in accident hasn't introduced or changed this situation.

[philthejuggler]

I guess the practicality of the situation comes in here. Could I buy a similar car and continue the finance with the HP moving to the new vehicle? If so then fair enough, if not it would seem unfair to continue to pay for a car I didn't own.

Edited 6 October, 2017 by philthejuggler

[S00perb]

13 minutes ago, scj103 said:

No, people take gap insurance to cover all eventualities and to cover own fault situations or complete loss. 

GAP insurance is sold by people to make money, and as with many insurances could actually be done away with in certain circumstances. It is normal practice within awarding damages and liabilities to expect that the injured party is not left worse off as a result of someone else's stupidity or incompetence. It is the foundation of the whole compensation industry, so what I said stands. 

Sorry, I have been in this situation. They don't pay for what you owe, what you need, what it will cost to replace like for like - just what (they say) it was worth.

My totally non fault case:

3 yr old car Car bought for £12k

1 year later, accident, book price (they said) £8.5k

Lucky I wasn't on finance, but was made clear to me that did not come into it

I would have to have gone to an older car to replace on what they were paying me

BUT

Gap not only stepped in to give me the full £12, BUT andded extra £2k to get an exact age and model car as the one I bought - i.e 3yr old. So I ended up witht the money to buy a car one year newer than the one I had the accident in

At £99 for 5 years cover it was VERY worth buying the GAP insuarance

[S00perb]

Interestingly, just spoken to my case manager.

Asked this specific question and got an unexpected answer.

Had I not got the GAP insurance and had proof of everything I needed proof of, I MAY eventually have got the £12k back (not £14k in any way)

BUT

It is a case that is now over 4 years old and I would still be waiting

So the £99 was still worth it

Outstanding finance loss would have been covered as it was a non-fault (not my fault) case - still, its been years already and still waiting for resolution

Edited 6 October, 2017 by S00perb

[philthejuggler]

Hmm - the saga continues - the body shop have said that a depression in the body work that runs alonside the hatchback from the rear panel to the roof has not yet been authorised for repair. It looks to me like it was caused by some distortion when the car was dragged by the towbar - apparently the insurance assessors are looking at it again on Monday!