Insurance claim - advice please

mistermogue

Hi all,

6 weeks ago another driver drove into the side of my car. It was a low impact collision with relatively minor cosmetic damage done to the front door/wing/bumper, i.e. the car still runs perfectly. The other driver admitted full responsibility and put me in touch with her insurance company.

I got a quote of 2600 euro for repairs from a local reputable company and sent this on to the insurance people. Their assessor/engineer called out, made his report, and told me the insurance company would be in touch. I've just spoken to them and here's the deal....

As my car is a '97 Almera with 150k on the clock the cost of repair exceeds the value of the car, therefore making it a "class C - total loss". They offered me 500 euro! After some questioning I was put through to someone further up the food chain and the offer was increased to 700. I calmly expressed how unsatisfied I was that they were not willing to cover the cost of repairing my car, perhaps I was naive in thinking this was their job.

I don't doubt that the initial quote exceeds the value of the car, but the fact that their classification system terms it a "class C" (i.e. write off) isn't of much help to me when all I want is to have the car returned to the state it was in before the crash. Like I said the car runs perfectly and I have absolutely no intention of changing it any time soon, I just want the cost of repairs covered.

Any thoughts on what my options are? Anyone else had similar problems with insurance companies? I've already lost a 35 euro non-refundable payment for the first quote and don't fancy getting the same off 10 more garages...

Any advice much appreciated.

BennyBlanko

Tell them to fix your car or you'll seek litigation.

twowheelsonly

I'd imagine that you'll need an independent Engineers report stating that the car is not a total write off but it may possibly be an 'economical write-off'.
Tricky one, but your own insurance company or an independent engineer may be able to advise you further. I presume that it would be a farily regular occurrence.

2600 sounds a bit expensive for the damage that you describe though. Might be worth your while to shop around.

itarumaa

Even I don't actually like insurance companies (who would) from their point of view fixing 97 Almera for 2600e is utterly madness.

Tigger

tell them that you are entitled to have your car put back howit was or replaced

was it nct'ed if it was its worth at least a grand

twowheelsonly

Actually if you can get them up to €1000 it might be worth your while to trade the car in under the scrappage scheme!!

kodute

Spending €2600 on fixing an almera is stupid.
Take the money and get another car, if it must be an almera get this: http://cars.donedeal.ie/for-sale/cars/1129716

Tigger

thats 900 they offered him 7

so as i said he needs to get 1000 at least

kodute

Tigger wrote: »

thats 900 they offered him 7

so as i said he needs to get 1000 at least

Sure squeeze them for a K or haggle the almera man down to 700. Those are the realistic options.
Repairing the car is not.

Tigger

kodute wrote: »

Sure squeeze them for a K or haggle the almera man down to 700. Those are the realistic options.
Repairing the car is not.

agreed

at least the op didn't develop imiganaryneckpainitis

mistermogue

Cheers for the replies everyone.

@twowheelsonly: An "economical write off" sounds spot on. Technically the car is fine (bar aesthetics) but financially it doesn't make sense for them to pay the quoted amount. Will talk to my own insurance people and see what they say.

@Tigger: It's NCT'd, new tax & insurance just paid, runs perfectly and never gives any trouble. I think 1000 is a fair evaluation too given the age. Any ideas (other than twowheels' suggestion) on how I might get sufficient 'proof' that the car is worth more than the 700 they've put on it?

@kodute: Cheers for the link but again, we're talking "economical write-off" from the insurer's point of view, from my position the car is perfect bar the dent in the door! Exchanging a trusted '97 for an unknown '98 doesn't make much sense to me.

On the scrappage scheme idea... I realise this could make sense in terms of value for money but like I said, I'd much rather just have the basic repairs done and hang on to what I know to be a reliable trouble-free car.

I agree that repairing it for 2600 is not realistic, I too think the quote was a little high... If I could get 1000 off the insurers I'd be happy to take that and get the repairs done elsewhere.

Whatever happens I think I'll be hanging on to the car, 1k seems to be the consensus on current value. My issue is with the insurance company and how they deals with claims. I don't think it's right that I should be penalised for choosing to drive an old car. Their customer presumably has been paying her premium for years so that issues like this can be resolved quickly should & when they arise. Then as soon as an incident occurs they go into overdrive trying to get out of paying. As Tigger alluded to, there's enough people out there suffering from imiganaryneckpainitis, all I'm after is a fair trial...

RGS

you cant expect an insurance company to pay for repairs when the cost of repairs exceeds the value of the vehicle.

No court will back up your argument that they should repair the car.

Accept its BER and try to get the best deal on the vehicle.

mistermogue

RGS wrote: »

Accept its BER and try to get the best deal on the vehicle.

What does BER stand for RGS? You understand I have to try & bargain to get a better offer than the original 500, I realise they won't pay the full amount quoted.

This BER figure... is that completely at their discretion? For instance if I found a garage that could do the repairs for 1k and vouch that the car was worth at least that much would the insurers be likely to meet that amount? Impossible to answer I know, just wondering what people with more experience in this area think.

Thanks again.

RGS

mistermogue wrote: »

What does BER stand for RGS? You understand I have to try & bargain to get a better offer than the original 500, I realise they won't pay the full amount quoted.

This BER figure... is that completely at their discretion? For instance if I found a garage that could do the repairs for 1k and vouch that the car was worth at least that much would the insurers be likely to meet that amount? Impossible to answer I know, just wondering what people with more experience in this area think.

Thanks again.

BER--Beyond Economic Repair.

Cant comment on the second point without seeing the engineers report confirming car is BER--there are 4 classes of BER--cat A, B, C and D.

mistermogue

They said it was category C.

kodute

mistermogue wrote: »

@kodute: Cheers for the link but again, we're talking "economical write-off" from the insurer's point of view, from my position the car is perfect bar the dent in the door! Exchanging a trusted '97 for an unknown '98 doesn't make much sense to me.

On the scrappage scheme idea... I realise this could make sense in terms of value for money but like I said, I'd much rather just have the basic repairs done and hang on to what I know to be a reliable trouble-free car.

Whatever happens I think I'll be hanging on to the car, 1k seems to be the consensus on current value. My issue is with the insurance company and how they deals with claims. I don't think it's right that I should be penalised for choosing to drive an old car. Their customer presumably has been paying her premium for years so that issues like this can be resolved quickly should & when they arise. Then as soon as an incident occurs they go into overdrive trying to get out of paying. As Tigger alluded to, there's enough people out there suffering from imiganaryneckpainitis, all I'm after is a fair trial...

The 98 car has a full NCT and is the same reliable (if bland) make and model as your original car.

You are not being penalised for driving an old car. It is simply not worth fixing. Thats what Beyond Economical Repair means. They are offering you what the car is worth instead of fixing it. You can by all rights take what they give you, be it 700 or 1000, try and fix the car for that amount or buy a similar car for the money.

You got a fair trial. They offered you money, you asked for more and they obliged. In my opinion and alot of peoples here you should go and buy a replacement car with the money. I understand a sentimental attachment to the car but seeking a repair for the money you have will be fruitless.

Zubeneschamali

kodute wrote: »

In my opinion and alot of peoples here you should go and buy a replacement car with the money.

I've a better idea: take the money and don't buy a replacement. The damage is cosmetic, so just run the car into the ground.

kodute

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I've a better idea: take the money and don't buy a replacement. The damage is cosmetic, so just run the car into the ground.

Nice idea, but insurance companies have thought of that loop hole and will take ownership of the car after paying out on a write off.

BennyBlanko

kodute wrote: »

Nice idea, but insurance companies have thought of that loop hole and will take ownership of the car after paying out on a write off.

Not if you buy the car of them as Salvage in any deal agreed, for a pittance.:)

mistermogue

kodute wrote: »

Nice idea, but insurance companies have thought of that loop hole and will take ownership of the car after paying out on a write off.

What?! If I accept their 700 offer they'll take ownership of the car?!!