Car financially wrote off?

carzony

Bought a car off a family relation and was told it wasn't wrote off but it was financially wrote off.

I plan on fixing the car myself as it's only the back bumper and the boot. Can I just get it fixed and put it back on the road or will the insurance company's give me hassle because they wrote it off?

mgbgt1978

Your best bet is to ring your inurer and ask what category write-off this car is in.
Then ask if it's just financial, rather than mechanical, and if an engineer's report is needed to put the car back on the road.
One problem you will face is if/when you come to sell the car. It will always have this 'write-off' incident marked against it and a Cartell (or any other car-check company) check will flag it.

carzony

well my uncle said he wanted to get tax back on it but they wouldnt give it as it was on financially wrote off and not mechanically.. I have driven it and inspected it, It seems on the button, just needs the bumper and boot lid really.

Can I ring any insurer?

mgbgt1978

Probably best to ring the company that paid out on it. Any other company will just see a note against the reg and will have to contact the original insurer anyway.
You might get the runaround until you get through to the proper Department

OREGATO

If it's been wrote off, get the current owner to get the details of what category - will range from A - D, D being the least serious.

Cat D tends to be a financial write off but beware that when you're actually going to try and insure it, you must declare it and the insurance company are entitled to ask you for an engineers report that states the car has been fixed and is suitable for the road again.

It has other repercussions as well, if you fail to state that the car was a write off and a claim is made for the car itself (i.e. stolen/burnt out), you will receive less due to the fact that it was a Cat D.

The resale value of the car is also affected as potential buyers should be told that it's a cat D write off and to be honest, I would think some people would walk away from a previously Cat D damaged car unless it was super super cheap.

dr.fuzzenstein

It really depends on what car it is, how much is it worth and how much to fix it.
I've driven cars where an empty fuel tank constituted a financial write off, because filling it up exceeded the value of the car.
If you got the car for free or cheap and can do it up for very little, why not?
If you can get the same model in good condition for less than the above outlay, not worth it.

carzony

i was actually thinking of keeping it for myself. it;s a nice little 2001 colt. great engine and loads of work done on it before the crash. got it from my uncle for 150

_Kaiser_

carzony wrote: »

i was actually thinking of keeping it for myself. it;s a nice little 2001 colt. great engine and loads of work done on it before the crash. got it from my uncle for 150

Had 2 of those years ago (the hatchback and coupe Mirage versions). Great little cars and never gave me any problems whatsoever.

grainnewhale

carzony wrote: »

i was actually thinking of keeping it for myself. it;s a nice little 2001 colt. great engine and loads of work done on it before the crash. got it from my uncle for 150

if you go to tax it and there is no problem you ok. if they never give the tax money back this should be the case. wouldn't worry about insurance as you will hardly be claiming for car. if you have valid nct then insurance will be valid.

scrap_man

You can get it fixed, bust you may need to get an engineers report to say its been fixed properly.
As for the tax, your uncle can only claim that back if the car is scrapped by an authorised dismantler.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

grainnewhale wrote: »

if you go to tax it and there is no problem you ok. if they never give the tax money back this should be the case. wouldn't worry about insurance as you will hardly be claiming for car. if you have valid nct then insurance will be valid.

rotfl

grainnewhale

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

rotfl

dick

dr.fuzzenstein

grainnewhale wrote: »

dick

His name isn't Richard? :P

Aka Ishur

grainnewhale wrote: »

if you go to tax it and there is no problem you ok. if they never give the tax money back this should be the case. wouldn't worry about insurance as you will hardly be claiming for car. if you have valid nct then insurance will be valid.

No one cares about the 150 euro car. Everyone cares about the premiums we all see rise when he hits you on the road uninsured!

grainnewhale

Aka Ishur wrote: »

No one cares about the 150 euro car. Everyone cares about the premiums we all see rise when he hits you on the road uninsured!

who said anything about been uninsured. I was merely pointing out that if the car is nct then there is no need to mention to the insurer that the car was financially wrote off.

Aka Ishur

grainnewhale wrote: »

who said anything about been uninsured. I was merely pointing out that if the car is nct then there is no need to mention to the insurer that the car was financially wrote off.

a) Considering that will be in the insurance database there's not a chance he will get insurance without them knowing.

b) NCT doesnt matter a jot to the insurance. I can put a 3.0 engine in the colt and fly through an NCT, if i crash into someone you think the insurance will say 'yeah no worries you got an NCT so you're fine'

carzony

Aka Ishur wrote: »

b) NCT doesnt matter a jot to the insurance. I can put a 3.0 engine in the colt and fly through an NCT, if i crash into someone you think the insurance will say 'yeah no worries you got an NCT so you're fine'

yet another reason why the nct is a load of crap.. But that's another discussion..

grainnewhale

Aka Ishur wrote: »

a) Considering that will be in the insurance database there's not a chance he will get insurance without them knowing.

b) NCT doesnt matter a jot to the insurance. I can put a 3.0 engine in the colt and fly through an NCT, if i crash into someone you think the insurance will say 'yeah no worries you got an NCT so you're fine'

bull**** there is no way you can fit a 3.0 engine in a colt and if you did it would likely fail on emissions. what you say about the database is exactly my point if he gives them the reg and they don't mention it then why should he.

oldyouth

grainnewhale wrote: »

bull**** there is no way you can fit a 3.0 engine in a colt and if you did it would likely fail on emissions. what you say about the database is exactly my point if he gives them the reg and they don't mention it then why should he.

Because if you have information in your possession that may effect the premium an insurer may charge or the acceptance of the risk, you are obliged to disclose it to them. If in doubt, disclose it and await their decision.

Aka Ishur

grainnewhale wrote: »

bull**** there is no way you can fit a 3.0 engine in a colt and if you did it would likely fail on emissions. what you say about the database is exactly my point if he gives them the reg and they don't mention it then why should he.

That whistling sound you hear is the point flying high over your head.

grainnewhale

Aka Ishur wrote: »

That whistling sound you hear is the point flying high over your head.

nobody was talking about putting a 3.0 engine in a colt only you. it had no relevance to the o.p. .but feel free to throw in any other useless information that you wish to get off your chest.

grainnewhale

oldyouth wrote: »

Because if you have information in your possession that may effect the premium an insurer may charge or the acceptance of the risk, you are obliged to disclose it to them. If in doubt, disclose it and await their decision.

what if he didn't have this information.

Odelay

grainnewhale wrote: »

what if he didn't have this information.

Errrrr...... but he does, he bought it from a family relation as stated in the op.

oldyouth

grainnewhale wrote: »

what if he didn't have this information.

If he didn't have this information then he

a) doesn't need to disclose it to his insurers
b) shouldn't start a thread on Boards giving everyone the details

grainnewhale

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

His name isn't Richard? :P

surely it should be. Richard cranium.

grainnewhale

oldyouth wrote: »

If he didn't have this information then he

a) doesn't need to disclose it to his insurers
b) shouldn't start a thread on Boards giving everyone the details

sweet jesus.

grainnewhale

Odelay wrote: »

Errrrr...... but he does, he bought it from a family relation as stated in the op.

its never ending.

mickdw

To be fair on a car worth a few hundred, I see little issue as long as insurers actually issue policy for the car. He won't be claiming for the car itself due to its low value and seeing that the car was only cosmetically damaged, I don't see why it should be a major problem.
In any event, other road users are fully covered as even if the op told every lie imaginable when taking out the policy, insurers are bound to pay all other party costs if the op causes damage as long as policy is in force They can attempt to recover these costs from the insured but there would be no chance of this happened in a case such as this.

oldyouth

grainnewhale wrote: »

sweet jesus.

He is cute, I'll grant you.

Do you have a point?

oldyouth

mickdw wrote: »

To be fair on a car worth a few hundred, I see little issue as long as insurers actually issue policy for the car. He won't be claiming for the car itself due to its low value and seeing that the car was only cosmetically damaged, I don't see why it should be a major problem.
In any event, other road users are fully covered as even if the op told every lie imaginable when taking out the policy, insurers are bound to pay all other party costs if the op causes damage as long as policy is in force They can attempt to recover these costs from the insured but there would be no chance of this happened in a case such as this.

So to follow your logic, every (for example) young driver should buy themselves a **** but street legal vehicle and tell insurers every lie they can think of in order to get a cheap policy. Sounds like a plan :rolleyes:

grainnewhale

mickdw wrote: »

To be fair on a car worth a few hundred, I see little issue as long as insurers actually issue policy for the car. He won't be claiming for the car itself due to its low value and seeing that the car was only cosmetically damaged, I don't see why it should be a major problem.
In any event, other road users are fully covered as even if the op told every lie imaginable when taking out the policy, insurers are bound to pay all other party costs if the op causes damage as long as policy is in force They can attempt to recover these costs from the insured but there would be no chance of this happened in a case such as this.

who would lie to an insurance company.

grainnewhale

oldyouth wrote: »

So to follow your logic, every (for example) young driver should buy themselves a **** but street legal vehicle and tell insurers every lie they can think of in order to get a cheap policy. Sounds like a plan :rolleyes:

how many lies could they tell them
they have your license. d.o.b
access to your penalty points
your ncb

oldyouth

grainnewhale wrote: »

how many lies could they tell them
they have your license. d.o.b
access to your penalty points
your ncb

Your address
Claims under other policies
Pending motor convictions
Non-motor convictions
Modifications to the vehicle
Vehicle security information

grainnewhale

oldyouth wrote: »

Your address
Claims under other policies
Pending motor convictions
Non-motor convictions
Modifications to the vehicle
Vehicle security information

and am sure lots do and it never comes to light.
but if your young this is going to be the major factor in your quote and its less lightly that a young person starting out and paying a high premium will have any of the above.

oldyouth

grainnewhale wrote: »

and am sure lots do and it never comes to light.

And that makes it OK in your book?

Aka Ishur

grainnewhale wrote: »

and am sure lots do and it never comes to light.

(a) its illegal - just because its not coming to light doesn't make it ok
(b) in the case of vehicle mods and security features the insurance can decide to not pay you, pay third party costs and chase you for said third party costs.

oldyouth

grainnewhale wrote: »

and am sure lots do and it never comes to light.
but if your young this is going to be the major factor in your quote and its less lightly that a young person starting out and paying a high premium will have any of the above.

The more you edit your post, the less sense you make

grainnewhale

oldyouth wrote: »

The more you edit your post, the less sense you make

I hope some day to be as smart as you.

grainnewhale

oldyouth wrote: »

And that makes it OK in your book?

yes

Aka Ishur

grainnewhale wrote: »

yes

you do realise that you are the one paying for the drivers through elevated premiums and your taxes when these (what are essentially uninsured) drivers are brought to the courts? If you are ok with that you can pay my premium next year, just let me know where to send the bill.

Odelay

Another one to ad to the "ignore" list for me. Great way of avoiding the tolls/trolls:-)

mickdw

oldyouth wrote: »

So to follow your logic, every (for example) young driver should buy themselves a **** but street legal vehicle and tell insurers every lie they can think of in order to get a cheap policy. Sounds like a plan :rolleyes:

Never mind the roll eyes. I was making the point in response to some comments earlier in this thread. It was stated that the cheap car isn't the issue, moreso driver uninsured- by way of failing to disclose - hiting other driver.
I was pointing out, correctly I might add, that even with non disclosure or worse, as long as policy is in force, there will never be a case where other parties are not paid. I further mentioned that insurers would most likely not seek to recover cost in this particular case. That is a matter of opinion of course. My point further related to the cheap car. Failure to pay out on own damage is the first get out for insurers so any non disclosure would result in no payment in that regard most likely - Not a huge penalty given the low value car.
In response to your post, I don't particularly care what a young driver tells his insurer. It will result in his own loss of property come claim time but should he hit anyone, they will be looked after as long as the policy had not been voided prior to that date.
I would certainly rather be involved in a accident with a guy who has insurance regardless of what he told insurer than a guy who didn't pay his insurance past the first month and kept the worthless disc on the window.
Of course, false declaration etc can have comeback when looking for future insurance and that is right and proper but my point is valid - Other drivers will be compensated and quite frankly as a driver who is fully and correctly insured knowing that I will be compensated if involved in an accident with a less than truthful driver is all that matters to me. I couldn't care less if other driver gets paid for his own damage or whether he gets sued for all costs by his own insurer.

oldyouth

mickdw wrote: »

In response to your post, I don't particularly care what a young driver tells his insurer. .

You should care about insurance fraud, because obtaining insurance by deception is fraud, as it has a direct effect on what you end up paying for your own insurance. I don't confine this to young drivers either.

dr.fuzzenstein

oldyouth wrote: »

You should care about insurance fraud, because obtaining insurance by deception is fraud, as it has a direct effect on what you end up paying for your own insurance. I don't confine this to young drivers either.

Yep and quite frankly if the vehicle you drive is different from the vehicle that's insured, there is no insurance.
So all the knobjockeys that put a 2.0 turbocharged engine into their car and keep it as a 1.2 on the books, you might as well not bother, print out a fake insurance disc and drive around with that, because it's the same thing.
If you feel comfortable being a criminal scumbag that is.
Penalty for knowingly driving without insurance should be a year in prison, €10k fine and licence gone for 10 years.
If some degenerate piece of pondscum refuses to see the point, at least they should do so walking or taking the bus.

mickdw

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yep and quite frankly if the vehicle you drive is different from the vehicle that's insured, there is no insurance.
So all the knobjockeys that put a 2.0 turbocharged engine into their car and keep it as a 1.2 on the books, you might as well not bother, print out a fake insurance disc and drive around with that, because it's the same thing.
If you feel comfortable being a criminal scumbag that is.
Penalty for knowingly driving without insurance should be a year in prison, €10k fine and licence gone for 10 years.
If some degenerate piece of pondscum refuses to see the point, at least they should do so walking or taking the bus.

Its far from the same thing. Insurers are bound by law to pay out on 3rd party claims as long as there is a policy in force. People don't seem to understand this point. So if some guy is driving around with wrong engine declared, Yes insurers will not pay out on his car and yes they may seek to recover their costs from him but to anybody he hits, he has insurance and they are legally bound to pay. That is drastically different to the guy with the fake disc or the cancelled policy.
I don't sympathise with these people but there are blatantly wrong statements being made here.

Aka Ishur

mickdw wrote: »

Its far from the same thing. Insurers are bound by law to pay out on 3rd party claims as long as there is a policy in force. People don't seem to understand this point. So if some guy is driving around with wrong engine declared, Yes insurers will not pay out on his car and yes they may seek to recover their costs from him but to anybody he hits, he has insurance and they are legally bound to pay. That is drastically different to the guy with the fake disc or the cancelled policy.
I don't sympathise with these people but there are blatantly wrong statements being made here.

Hi Mick, you do see that those efforts to recover costs, especially when going through the courts, end up in your premium? Nobody is saying third party costs are not covered.

grainnewhale

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yep and quite frankly if the vehicle you drive is different from the vehicle that's insured, there is no insurance.
So all the knobjockeys that put a 2.0 turbocharged engine into their car and keep it as a 1.2 on the books, you might as well not bother, print out a fake insurance disc and drive around with that, because it's the same thing.
If you feel comfortable being a criminal scumbag that is.
Penalty for knowingly driving without insurance should be a year in prison, €10k fine and licence gone for 10 years.
If some degenerate piece of pondscum refuses to see the point, at least they should do so walking or taking the bus.

also they would have to know the wrong engine was in it.
a lot of engines their is no visible difference in a 1.6 or 2.0 litre.

mickdw

Aka Ishur wrote: »

Hi Mick, you do see that those efforts to recover costs, especially when going through the courts, end up in your premium? Nobody is saying third party costs are not covered.

If you read the thread, people are clearly saying that a non disclosure equals no insurance and that its the same as having a fake disc in the window. My point is that this is clearly not correct. I trust you see my point and that people were therefore saying 3rd party costs were not covered.
I realise all these costs contribute to the figure im quoted each year but I'm not going to change the world. There will be messers. There will be an uninsured drivers fund and as such we are all contributing to people who have not got their stuff in order. I also think there are far bigger issues that adversely affect my premium from false injury claims etc so that is a whole other argument for another day.

Aka Ishur

mickdw wrote: »

If you read the thread, people are clearly saying that a non disclosure equals no insurance and that its the same as having a fake disc in the window. My point is that this is clearly not correct. I trust you see my point and that people were therefore saying 3rd party costs were not covered.
I realise all these costs contribute to the figure im quoted each year but I'm not going to change the world. There will be messers. There will be an uninsured drivers fund and as such we are all contributing to people who have not got their stuff in order. I also think there are far bigger issues that adversely affect my premium from false injury claims etc so that is a whole other argument for another day.

But we all know that third party costs are covered even when the driver is completely uninsured? That is why someone lying to the insurance is in the same position. Third party costs are paid and insurance has to chase the driver for the difference.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yep and quite frankly if the vehicle you drive is different from the vehicle that's insured, there is no insurance.
So all the knobjockeys that put a 2.0 turbocharged engine into their car and keep it as a 1.2 on the books, you might as well not bother, print out a fake insurance disc and drive around with that, because it's the same thing.
If you feel comfortable being a criminal scumbag that is.
Penalty for knowingly driving without insurance should be a year in prison, €10k fine and licence gone for 10 years.
If some degenerate piece of pondscum refuses to see the point, at least they should do so walking or taking the bus.

But this is where you are missing, that the insurance policy is valid and the only part that the insurer can legally refuse to pay out on is any comprehensive or fire/theft claim.
For 3rd party claims insurers are bound to pay on an active policy. They can then pursue the policy holder if they broke the terms of their policy.

However the innocent third party will be paid first.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Aka Ishur wrote: »

But we all know that third party costs are covered even when the driver is completely uninsured? That is why someone lying to the insurance is in the same position. Third party costs are paid and insurance has to chase the driver for the difference.

That is MIBI though, and not related to the issue at hand.