Write off?

TempestSabre

Taximen are keen on them as they are cheap, and pretty much bullet proof. Theres a lot of ragged ones aroudn though.

_Kaiser_

Just an aside if I may...

When my first car got written off last year I had serious rows with the other party's insurance company about a fair value for the car and only after escalating to management did I get the money I paid back - as I saw it, their client was at fault & accepted responsibility thus their job was to get me back on the road in the condition I was in beforehand (which didnt include a written off car or being 2 grand outta pocket).

Anyway, this whole thing about trade value seems like another scam to me. So when the insurance renewal came up last month, I rang a few garages for the trade value of the car as it is today. Turns out it's now worth about half what I paid for it last October.

So, should I be reducing the value I give to the insurance co every year as the book value decreases? As I see it, what's the point in insuring a car for twice what I'd get if anything happened?

I rang the insurance co back and got them to quote based on the current trade value - it only worked out at 50 quid cheaper!!

Like I said, seems like a scam to milk the public out of more money for something they can't NOT have for a car.. or am I missing something obvious?

crosstownk

Insurance companies use the trade value as they get any work chargeable to them at trade price. Remember, any claim you make to insurance company is paid for, by them, to the repairer/dealer. Because of this purchasing power they get trade prices.

TempestSabre

crosstownk wrote:

Insurance companies use the trade value as they get any work chargeable to them at trade price. Remember, any claim you make to insurance company is paid for, by them, to the repairer/dealer. Because of this purchasing power they get trade prices.

I always thought, that repairer/dealers hiked up the prices for work chargeable to an insurance claim. Seems a lot dearer than a quotes you get yourself for the same work.

TempestSabre

Kaiser2000 wrote:

....
Like I said, seems like a scam to milk the public out of more money for something they can't NOT have for a car.. or am I missing something obvious?

I totally agree. What is lacking is transparancy on how insurance premiums are calculated, and thus what you can do to reduce them. Its a cartel, one that the Govt seem unwilling to tackle.

John R

crosstownk wrote:

Insurance companies use the trade value as they get any work chargeable to them at trade price. Remember, any claim you make to insurance company is paid for, by them, to the repairer/dealer. Because of this purchasing power they get trade prices.

That's ok when it's for repairs but they have no place offering trade value for replacements when the claimant has to go out and replace the car at market value.

Of course they know this, it is just the way they operate. If you want to get a proper amount out of them then you need to stand your ground and fight. Or much easier is just to put in a claim for back injury. It's no wonder so many people do that, the system is designed to make an an honest damage claim as difficult as possible while a personal injury one is far easier to get a decent payout.

The car valuation is utterly meaningless, why it is even asked for is beyond me as it has little bearing on the premium and no bearing on any claim. The only situation it would be relevant is if you mistakenly undervalued your car and tried to get it's proper value back, then the valuation on the proposal would be rigidly stuck to.

_Kaiser_

John R wrote:

That's ok when it's for repairs but they have no place offering trade value for replacements when the claimant has to go out and replace the car at market value.

Of course they know this, it is just the way they operate. If you want to get a proper amount out of them then you need to stand your ground and fight.

This was exactly what I had to do last year. I actually had the guy from the other party's insurance co go to carzone.ie on the phone with me, look up cars like mine, and only once I showed him that ones older and with more mileage than mine were selling for MORE than I paid, did he reluctantly conceed that there was "a bit of a difference" in what they were offering alright.

I still had to escalate to his manager though in the end (having worked in Callcentres myself for years, you learn how to work the procedures - there's no point shouting at someone who hasn't the authority do anything - just escalate) and repeat myself over and over (cause of course, like every Irish callcentre, the next person you talk to either can't be bothered to read the case history or hasn't been briefed in advance by the last person - when I would take over escalations I read through everything before talking to the customer) before I got the full amount back and that week too. It'd already dragged on for 3 weeks at that stage (the first week they had done nothing at all) and me without a car as a result.

As I reminded her, if *I* was at fault they'd be quick enough chasing up on it! I suppose though it was because I'd worked in a callcentre myself though that it was annoying me even more, as one thing you can say about the Americans is they know how to do these things - procedures for everything, and no way you'd get away with leaving a customer hanging like that for weeks

colm_mcm

wouldn't use sellers asking prices on carzone as a guide on what a car is actually worth

TempestSabre

colm_mcm wrote:

wouldn't use sellers asking prices on carzone as a guide on what a car is actually worth

50% of that price doesn't right either...

_Kaiser_

colm_mcm wrote:

wouldn't use sellers asking prices on carzone as a guide on what a car is actually worth

Fair enough but as the injured/innocent party, I'm the one who has to replace the car. If it's gonna coxt me x amount to replace it (and I insured the car for x), the offering me x-50% is no good to me is it?

Why should I have been out of pocket when their client (rightly) accepted liability? If the insurance co wants to recoup the cost, then they should do so by increasing their client's premium - not expecting me to pick up the tab!

Seems pretty straightforward to me!

colm_mcm

unfortunately lots of people end up out of pocket after crashes, my 6 month old car was written off, and 7 months later I got about 3/4 what I paid for it, and didn't have a car for that time. read the fine print

_Kaiser_

colm_mcm wrote:

unfortunately lots of people end up out of pocket after crashes, my 6 month old car was written off, and 7 months later I got about 3/4 what I paid for it, and didn't have a car for that time. read the fine print

No offense to yourself, but it's that "ah sure what can you do?" attitude that has this country in the shambles it is

Just because that's the usual outcome doesn't mean it's good enough or that you should accept it. 3/4 of the value and 7 months off the road?? No way would I have accepted that!

Yea I had to chase them every day for a week and argue with them every step of the way, but unfortunately that seems to be the only way to get anything done in this country.. but at the end of it I got my full amount off them and was back on the road 3 weeks after the accident occured.

colm_mcm

This was 6 years ago, and there was a lot of arguing done, the point is just because you insure your car for a high amount, itdoesn't mean you'll get it in the event of your car being written off. The insurance company I had has since introduced a policy that if your car is under 12 months old, they will replace it witha new one.

John R

If you are claiming off your own policy then the terms and conditions are relevant, there may be a clause limiting the value of compensation.

When claiming off the insurance of another motorist that is not valid as essentially you are claiming rather than taking a civil court action to regain your losses. In that instance accepting 2/3 of the value of the car and being without a car for 7 months is ridiculous. Legally you would be entitled to full compensation for all losses.

crosstownk

TempestSabre wrote:

I always thought, that repairer/dealers hiked up the prices for work chargeable to an insurance claim. Seems a lot dearer than a quotes you get yourself for the same work.

This used to be the case but not any more - both repairers and insurance companies use standards for repair costs and in order for a repairer to charge work to an insurance company they must be on that insurance company's approved list of repairers. Most repairers/insurance companies use GlassMatics or Thatcham Times for repair costing. Both use the same systems and have an agreed labour cost per hour - its about €50-€60 at the moment AFAIK. If you insist on a repairer that is not on your insurance comnpany's approved list you could loose benifits like replacement car. Insurance companies have done a lot in recent years to limit thier costs but IMO the customer seen these benefits in primia prices.

crosstownk

colm_mcm wrote:

The insurance company I had has since introduced a policy that if your car is under 12 months old, they will replace it witha new one.

Sounds reasonable - which insurers?

colm_mcm

Axa, the car has to be a write off though. Good article in the sunday world yesterday about insurance, worth a read

nanoro

Ok the insurance company called today. The woman told me that their engineer thought it was not economical to fix the car so she told me that the market value of the car before the crash was €6,000 and it would cost €400 for scrappage so they are prepared to offer me €5,600 for it. I would prefer to have the car back repared but I accept that this is a reasonable offer and more than I expected. I have my eye on a '99 1.6 Passat now for €5,500. Thanks to all who let me know what they thought.

TempestSabre

Good result. You must have Mr Incredible working on your claim...:D

colm_mcm

Wow! well done!

what a result!

crosstownk

nanoro wrote:

Ok the insurance company called today. The woman told me that their engineer thought it was not economical to fix the car so she told me that the market value of the car before the crash was €6,000 and it would cost €400 for scrappage so they are prepared to offer me €5,600 for it. I would prefer to have the car back repared but I accept that this is a reasonable offer and more than I expected. I have my eye on a '99 1.6 Passat now for €5,500. Thanks to all who let me know what they thought.

WOW - That's some PAV!!!! I reckon it's worth more than €400 for salvage - you should have the option to sell the damaged car yourself - you may make more money this way. I usually prefer to sell tha damaged cars myself. I can usually get a few hundred more than the insurance companies offer. It can be hassle and can take a while but it could be worth checking into.