New government guide lines for financial write-off??

[morsing]

Hi, my partner's car has had a minor front end shunt but as the car is 15 years old and they made her go to Perry's for a quote (talk about 3x the price for a tiny bit of work) they are likely to write it off.

I've dealt with this a couple of times before as my Volvo has already been written off twice but my partner has received a long letter from Admiral explaining that new government guide lines means that if a car is written off, you can no longer keep it! Anyone heard of this?

They continue in a very stern tone to tell her that she MUST now send her V5 to them and declare the car SORN.

I've never, ever heard this before... What are they on about?!

We've dumped the car at our local friendly garage and asked them to sort the car out, but my partner is worried she'll lose the car. I'm not really, more worried that they'll refuse a pay-out based on some small-print we hadn't noticed.

Any advice?

[Gareth]

Possibly a mis-reading of the End of Life Vehicle Directive? Or government advice about scrapping a vehicle?

One issue that may make a car more liable to be written off is garage storage fees.

[morsing]

Well, can Admiral refuse pay-out if we want to keep the vehicle? A more direct question...

[Gareth]

Various people seem to have had similar issues with Admiral over the years - I found a recent example and a slightly older one -- see post #21 -- which together may give you some ideas about potential pitfalls.

[Renny]

The pitfalls of "cheap" insurance

It is your car, not Admiral's. Keep it, get it repaired and if it is not your fault, claim via small claims from the other party. Do not send any documents to Admiral.

[faboka]

Seems strange as it will only go to a salvage yard and sold on to someone else.

[morsing]

The pitfalls of "cheap" insurance

It is your car, not Admiral's. Keep it, get it repaired and if it is not your fault, claim via small claims from the other party. Do not send any documents to Admiral.

The other party don't owe us anything. If Admiral won't pay-out we'll have to pay for repairs ourselves.

[michael769]

Insurers and government are becoming concerned about the number of write-offs that either end up being put back on the road after being registered as scrapped, or are sold to the unwary with botched repairs. The government are putting pressure on insurers to stop selling write-offs on other than to breakers, so this type of response will become commonplace in the near future.

If your insurer decides to write it off and offers you a settlement fee then as a condition of your policy the car becomes their property. As their property they are free to do whatever they want (within the law) to it. If they don't want to sell their property to you that is their right.

You can, of course choose not to accept the settlement and keep the car, but in that case they are entitled to refuse their claim. The car will still be recorded as potentially being damaged beyond economical repair by IDS, and you can expect to be required to provide proof that the vehicle is legally roadworthy.

[jont]

Insurers and government are becoming concerned about the number of write-offs that either end up being put back on the road after being registered as scrapped, or are sold to the unwary with botched repairs. The government are putting pressure on insurers to stop selling write-offs on other than to breakers, so this type of response will become commonplace in the near future.

In lotus circles, it's some of the "breakers" that have the worst behaviour for performing dubious repairs to cars and not declaring them as write-offs before trying to pass them off to unsuspecting punters.

[morsing]

Michael, there's a point to what you say, but replacing a dented bonnet with a new one hardly makes the car dangerous. The insurers need to use some common sense. I will never insure any of my cars with an insurance company that would try to take it away from me. My main car is only deemed "worth" £300, but have a far, far greater value to me than that.

I usually have to pay out of my own pocket whenever anything happens to it. It's a bit silly...

[michael769]

In lotus circles, it's some of the "breakers" that have the worst behaviour for performing dubious repairs to cars and not declaring them as write-offs before trying to pass them off to unsuspecting punters.

Dubious breakers and repairers are not limited to Lotus circles. I assume the government is trying to make this sort of thing harder rather than impossible.

It is no different from using ANPR and seizure to deal with uninsured cars. It does not eliminate the problem, it just makes it harder for criminals and hopefully puts some casual offenders off. Criminals are inventive and no matter what you do the smart ones will get around it.

Michael, there's a point to what you say, but replacing a dented bonnet with a new one hardly makes the car dangerous.

Few of the staff have the level of training to be able to make a judgement on what is safe and is not. And a photograph is usually not much cop as while a dented bonnet is visible, A distorted chassis is not visible, nor are cracked weld joints, and the "back street" body shops rarely have the equipment needed to detect such faults. Many write offs are in much worse condition that their owners realise - something they only findout if they have a major collision and the safety cell fails.

Yes some old cars are salvageable - but the vast majority of write offs are death traps that have no place on our roads. It is the latter that the government are concerned about.

The insurers need to use some common sense.

As insurance company is a business not a person. People have common sense, businesses don't. Few businesses these days can afford to train (and pay) staff to a level where they can be empowered to go against the companies stated policies, or to decide if it is worth risking antagonising the government to the point that they impose additional regulation on an industry.

I will never insure any of my cars with an insurance company that would try to take it away from me.

No insurer can try your property from you. If you ask them to cover any write-off you effectively sell the car to them for its pre-damage value. It is your choice to accept or reject their offer.

And yes you have the choice of accepting or rejection the conditions on any policy offered. Good luck finding one willing to ignore government pressure.

I usually have to pay out of my own pocket whenever anything happens to it. It's a bit silly...

At £300 why are you paying for extra comprehensive insurance? At that level I'd suggest TPF&T - which means right offs don't come into the equation.

[zadocbrown]

At £300 why are you paying for extra comprehensive insurance? At that level I'd suggest TPF&T - which means right offs don't come into the equation.

My thoughts exactly. Or just 3rd party. Any money you get through insurance will be peanuts by the time you've dealt with the hassle of making a claim and presumably deducting an excess.

[gfoot]

Comprehensive can be cheaper than TPF&T, especially if you bolster it with a huge voluntary excess. That effectively turns it back into third party only insurance, as you'd never bother claiming due to your excess being about as much as the value of the vehicle. For a low value vehicle that seems fine to me, you only need insurance for legal reasons really. Plus this kind of scheme gives you the regular comprehensive perks such as covering your use of other people's cars, which you don't tend to get with a straight third party policy. Given that the premium ends up lower than TPF&T, it seems a no-brainer to me.

I've never been in an accident, but I'd be interested to hear how this issue with insurance companies works when it's somebody else's insurer who declares your car a write off. I guess you still have the option of not claiming? This way round you don't get to choose which insurer you're dealing with though, so you can't just say "avoid Admiral" - it depends who you get hit by.

Are third party insurers more polite to the claimants, as they have a legal obligation to pay out?

I don't think there's a strong enough correlation between safety and cost of repairs. Some cosmetic repairs are hugely expensive, but don't compromise the safety of the vehicle, and some things that do compromise the safety are trivial to repair. So I don't think judging the safety of a vehicle should be any concern at all for an insurance company (or its untrained staff). All they need to do is judge the cost of the repairs and decide if it's worth it.

[MGF]

Hi, my partner's car has had a minor front end shunt but as the car is 15 years old and they made her go to Perry's for a quote (talk about 3x the price for a tiny bit of work) they are likely to write it off.

Michael, there's a point to what you say, but replacing a dented bonnet with a new one hardly makes the car dangerous.

Few of the staff have the level of training to be able to make a judgement on what is safe and is not. And a photograph is usually not much cop as while a dented bonnet is visible, A distorted chassis is not visible, nor are cracked weld joints, and the "back street" body shops rarely have the equipment needed to detect such faults. Many write offs are in much worse condition that their owners realise - something they only findout if they have a major collision and the safety cell fails.

What if Morsing refuses the insurance money and takes it back to to Perrys? Are they going to replace the bonnet and let him drive an unsafe vehicle? Or can we presume Perrys would have carried out the necessary checks prior to preparing the quote for the repair? It seems to me that if Admiral's approved repairer haven't identified a safety issue then there is no reason for Admiral to suspect the vehicle might be unsafe. If the vehicle is not suspected to be unsafe as a matter of fact (as opposed to Admiral merely being aware there are unsafe written-off cars on the roads) I cannot see why they would have a problem 'selling' it back to the insured.

[morsing]

As to Perry making a "Safety" assessment, what a joke. A friend had already warned me about Perry's when his insurer forced him to go there, and he had to return three times to have tings put right, so I wasn't surprised when my partner returned and told me about her experience there.

A bit of mmm'ing and ahh'ing, and he then got a drill out and drilled two holes in the bumber I'd just painted and fitted, because he didn't spot the original holes and bracket for the number plate! I was pretty furious! And he certainly didn't do any safety assessment, not more than I could have done anyway. It's pretty obvious the damage is cosmetic and the car is otherwise solid.

I don't think dropping the insurance to TP&T would help enormously, but I suppose I could ask. My insurance is pretty cheap, through the owners club, and comes with European breakdown cover and other goodies. £150 where everyone else quote me £500-750