Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Cat D - 2 options
our car has been deemed a Cat D rite off.
The car is a Mazda RX-8, 34,000, Full service history, perfect condition.
The insurance have given us a figure for cash in lieu to get the car fixed which was �500 approx less than the quote. they told me that they only pay us enough to get the car fixed with second hand parts.. Is this correct?
WE have also been given a total loss figure shich is unacceptable. I have printed 8 adverts of cars with more miles than mine, and the same spec (231) they are all �3k ish more than the insurance offer....What other proof should I send to the insurrance as to why their offer is unacceptable...
Finally, (sorry), the insurance have told us that the extras on the car can not be taken into consideration and are our property. does this mean i can strip the car of all those things that are not "insured"???
The car is a Mazda RX-8, 34,000, Full service history, perfect condition.
The insurance have given us a figure for cash in lieu to get the car fixed which was �500 approx less than the quote. they told me that they only pay us enough to get the car fixed with second hand parts.. Is this correct?
WE have also been given a total loss figure shich is unacceptable. I have printed 8 adverts of cars with more miles than mine, and the same spec (231) they are all �3k ish more than the insurance offer....What other proof should I send to the insurrance as to why their offer is unacceptable...
Finally, (sorry), the insurance have told us that the extras on the car can not be taken into consideration and are our property. does this mean i can strip the car of all those things that are not "insured"???
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jacey21. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Cash in lieu should be the estimated cost of repairs, less your excess, less the VAT (until you can provide proof that you paid VAT on the repairs).
This is normally used in cases where the policyholder has showed an interest in retaining the vehicle and repairing it themselves.
However, this takes into account that you may use your own repairer (rather than the insurance companies approved repairer), and so may get a lowere labour rate, and/or use second hand parts to repair your car - basically to stop you making a profit from your accident (which goes against the principles of insurance - ie putting you back in the same position that you were in prior to your loss).
In regards to disputing the valuation, you have done the correct thing. The adverts should show vehicles of the same model which are comparable - ie they have the same or higher mileage, are the same age or older, and are the same model. By doing this, you can show that an older vehicle with more miles is worth more, so their value is unfair. However, if you can find adverts to show that their offer is fair and you;re just looking to get more, then be warned that they can find exactly the same adverts to support their value by showing that you could replace your vehicle for the same money, or possibly less. I have seen people submit adverts for F reg fiesta's in mint condition for �2000+, when their car is held together with rust and adverts for same condition vehicles show the cars for under �200.
This is normally used in cases where the policyholder has showed an interest in retaining the vehicle and repairing it themselves.
However, this takes into account that you may use your own repairer (rather than the insurance companies approved repairer), and so may get a lowere labour rate, and/or use second hand parts to repair your car - basically to stop you making a profit from your accident (which goes against the principles of insurance - ie putting you back in the same position that you were in prior to your loss).
In regards to disputing the valuation, you have done the correct thing. The adverts should show vehicles of the same model which are comparable - ie they have the same or higher mileage, are the same age or older, and are the same model. By doing this, you can show that an older vehicle with more miles is worth more, so their value is unfair. However, if you can find adverts to show that their offer is fair and you;re just looking to get more, then be warned that they can find exactly the same adverts to support their value by showing that you could replace your vehicle for the same money, or possibly less. I have seen people submit adverts for F reg fiesta's in mint condition for �2000+, when their car is held together with rust and adverts for same condition vehicles show the cars for under �200.
Finally, in regards to the extras, I assume you mean non-standard modifications rather than optional extras fitted at the time of manufacture?
If this is the case, most insurers have standard parts clauses (unless you go through a spealist like Adrian Flux). This means that if you fit a performance exhaust, or body kit, etc, they will only repair your vehicle to a standard specification, using original parts. Obviously when estimating the damage, a body kit wouldn;t be taken into consideration, so you could be losing out on a few grand in parts that they won;t replace.
However, if you can show that the parts were fitted by Mazda at the time of it being first registered, then they should realistically cover this - we would
Hope that covers everything! Too many characters for one post!
If this is the case, most insurers have standard parts clauses (unless you go through a spealist like Adrian Flux). This means that if you fit a performance exhaust, or body kit, etc, they will only repair your vehicle to a standard specification, using original parts. Obviously when estimating the damage, a body kit wouldn;t be taken into consideration, so you could be losing out on a few grand in parts that they won;t replace.
However, if you can show that the parts were fitted by Mazda at the time of it being first registered, then they should realistically cover this - we would
Hope that covers everything! Too many characters for one post!
That's a really stupid position your insurance company are taking there.
Whilst they may not be standard to your particular vehicle, the fact that they were added at the time of purchase (as I seriously doubt they were added afterwards), then they should be covering these.
Technically, you could remove them, but the insurance company (assuming they keep the car after they have paid out) would ask you to replace the ''non-standard'' items with standard parts instead, or they will use this as an excuse to reduce the vehicle value.
I'm pretty certain that this is an unfair practice, and personally, I would speak to the Financial Ombudsman Service to see where they stand on this.
Can I ask what company insure you? I really hope it's not one I work for or I'll have someone shot.
Whilst they may not be standard to your particular vehicle, the fact that they were added at the time of purchase (as I seriously doubt they were added afterwards), then they should be covering these.
Technically, you could remove them, but the insurance company (assuming they keep the car after they have paid out) would ask you to replace the ''non-standard'' items with standard parts instead, or they will use this as an excuse to reduce the vehicle value.
I'm pretty certain that this is an unfair practice, and personally, I would speak to the Financial Ombudsman Service to see where they stand on this.
Can I ask what company insure you? I really hope it's not one I work for or I'll have someone shot.
Hi yes it is Admiral.
we have had nothing but nightmares with them.
An example of this:
I spoke to a girl the other day who said I would get no more that 5K for the car. when I asked why she told me it was becasue the car was an M reg. I had to point out to her that it was a private plate and they didnt even start making them til 03????????
We were told that the sun roof was not standard, and was not fitted at time of purchase?????????
when the crash happend they took our car to some garage and i had to make 2 complaints 1- that my car was left open by the side of the road opposite the garage, and 2- when it first got there it was placed infront of the reception door and when people entered or exited they were banging my car with the metal door!! They told me that I would have to pay to get it moved to a another garage.
I also asked for the car not to be taken to salvage until we had received areport figures etc. i rang to ee where my car was (had that feeling) and gues what it was on the back of a truck going to salvage. i had to pay �70 to get the car brought back to my house. the insurance helped me arrange this but when i spoke to them the other day.. they think my car is at the salvage yard,, they dont even know where my car is.. and they cancelled my policy?????
we have had nothing but nightmares with them.
An example of this:
I spoke to a girl the other day who said I would get no more that 5K for the car. when I asked why she told me it was becasue the car was an M reg. I had to point out to her that it was a private plate and they didnt even start making them til 03????????
We were told that the sun roof was not standard, and was not fitted at time of purchase?????????
when the crash happend they took our car to some garage and i had to make 2 complaints 1- that my car was left open by the side of the road opposite the garage, and 2- when it first got there it was placed infront of the reception door and when people entered or exited they were banging my car with the metal door!! They told me that I would have to pay to get it moved to a another garage.
I also asked for the car not to be taken to salvage until we had received areport figures etc. i rang to ee where my car was (had that feeling) and gues what it was on the back of a truck going to salvage. i had to pay �70 to get the car brought back to my house. the insurance helped me arrange this but when i spoke to them the other day.. they think my car is at the salvage yard,, they dont even know where my car is.. and they cancelled my policy?????
OK - I have no idea who you're dealing with, but sadly this is part of the company I work for, so I'm not going to be able to help you as much as I would like to due to a conflict of interest! Just promise you won't mention any of this and we'll be fine ; )
Demand to speak to the manager of the team, or the senior. If that doesn't resolve matters, I really would suggest you write to the Quality Department heading your letter as a complain and explain this all - they're very good at sorting this stuff out.
I am a little shocked at howyou've described this so far, but obviously without seeing the actual claim, I wouldn't like to comment further.
Demand to speak to the manager of the team, or the senior. If that doesn't resolve matters, I really would suggest you write to the Quality Department heading your letter as a complain and explain this all - they're very good at sorting this stuff out.
I am a little shocked at howyou've described this so far, but obviously without seeing the actual claim, I wouldn't like to comment further.
1 to 7 of 7
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
News4 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
News27 mins ago
News28 mins ago
