Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Cat D/C Cars help needed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5174 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have a question someone might be able to answer for me! or point me in the right direction.

 

How much less is a car worth on the register? ( written off by the insurance company but then repaired) and where would I find facts to that effect, for a court case I am currently going through.

If you need any more info please ask.

 

Many Thanks in advance,

 

Sarah :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Sarah!

 

I regret I don't think there is any clear evidence out there. However, I can say that my own rule of thumb would be to use something like Parker's Guide, which is readily available in most Newsagents, and also on-line.

 

They keep changing the Pricing structure, which is not helpful, so you'll have to hear what I say and then re-work it to fit their current bands of Prices.

 

But they used to have the following Price Bands (what they use now is based on this, but with different names and with additional sub-divisions within what was an older Price Band):

 

A1

Good

Fair

Part-Exchange

 

In general, a well-repaired Cat D Car that was A1 in all other respects such as age, mileage and Service History, if the damage and repairs were fully declared, would expect to achieve around Fair to Good. IOW, this is really down to plain common sense. If something is perfect, then it is perfect. If something is not perfect, and you are made aware of any imperfections, then its Price ought to be lower than an otherwise perfect example.

 

The key is that you were made aware if the person selling was himself/herself aware, or should've been aware if they were in a position to check via Trade HPI Check (to spot Cat C/D), or via Physical Inspection when preparing a Car for Sale (to spot Cars that have been previously Repaired by an Insurance Company and/or that were 3rd Party Insurance in the past and repaired by a previous owner/garage). If they declare what they know, and adjust Price to reflect this, then all well and good. Nothing bad about that at all.

 

It's when people don't tell you about something, when they reasonably should've done, that you have a clear complaint. If they were Trade, then you may well have reasonable grounds for some form of Compensation for their failure to declare what they knew.

 

For example, if the Car was sold as A1 at £10,000 but they neglected to mention that it was Cat D, or that it had been previously repaired and the evidence was there to see if inspected during normal pre-sales preparation, then the Car's likely value at that time may've been Fair (£7,500) to Good (£9,200). Your Claim would therefore be between £800 to £2,500, depending on the issues.

 

I would get an Engineer to inspect in such a case, and base any Claim on that report. If the Car was still in very good order, and the issue is mainly just history rather than anything physical, then the Claim would tend towards the lower level. OTOH, if the Engineer came back to say the front chassis rails are not perfectly aligned, say, out by 1-2mm so that the bumper, wings, bonnet and headlights do not quite sit perfectly with a 2mm difference between panel gaps left to right, then the Claim would be higher. A slight mis-alignment won't affect the Car being usable for the rest of its life but, had you known, you would not have paid £10,000. You would either not have bought, or you would've expected to see a hefty discount off A1 to reflect the slight mis-alignment and history. In that case, £7,500 would've been a reasonable price to get an otherwise decent looking Car, with low mileage, and a slight mis-alignment that you could live with in return for a £2,500 discount.

 

Working further ahead, when it came to selling the Car, say, after 3 years of use, then the A1 example should be worth, say, £4,500 and the Cat D example perhaps £3,800. Again, when the next owner sells after another 3 years, then the A1 example may be worth £2,000 and the Cat D example perhaps £1,850. This reflects my experience of what tends to happen, the effect of an Insurance Database marker fades as the Cars age and the further away from the event they get.

 

Your main Claim, therefore, should really be aimed at the initial loss of value, because the older a Car gets, the depreciation factor is actually lower on a Cat C/D than on an A1 Car, so it's probably better not to tackle the Claim based on depreciation. The key issue is value at time of sale.

 

Thus, before damage or loss (some are not actually damaged, such as Stolen and then Recovered), then the Car would otherwise be Priced at A1. After loss/repair it would deflate to Fair to Good, depending on just how A1 it was initially, and upon just how good the Repairs were, or how little Repairs were needed in the first place (such as Stolen/Recovered and needing just a Lock Set).

 

Category C tends to have a further deflationary effect on Price, mainly owing to the misconceptions about what Cat D and Cat C actually mean:

 

Cat C = Cost of Repairs assessed as being greater than Pre-Accident Value. Insurance Engineer has confirmed Car is Repairable (i.e. it is not Controlled Waste).

 

Cat D = Cost of Repairs assessed as being lower than Pre-Accident Value. Insurance Engineer has confirmed Car is Repairable (i.e. it is not Controlled Waste).

 

That is it. The categorisations have nothing whatsoever to say about severity of damage. An old Car with a broken headlight and dented wing can be a Cat C, whereas a late Sports car that has been wrapped around a tree can be Cat D if the value is such that a new Bodyshell is warranted and the overall Cost does not exceed the Pre-Accident Value.

 

Likewise, an older Car that has been wrapped around a Tree can be a Cat C, and a later Car with large tin of paint spilt all over the seats can be a Cat D (fit good 2nd hand seats and Carpets and the Car is then 100% repaired to the same standard as when A1, albeit Cat D).

 

Thus, the same previously A1 Car if damaged/repaired with a Cat C rating, would tend towards Fair.

 

All of this will depend on the type of Car. But the general rule of thumb holds true in my experience. Therefore, if the Car was Good or Fair before damage, then you need to crank down the value for it, if it ends up as Cat C/D as applicable.

 

There are exceptions in all things, so you need to take into account all factors. For example, a Jaguar D Type if fully restored will fetch what it will fetch, irrespective of any marker on an Insurance Industry Database.

 

The Trade use (or did use) two main Publications: Glass's Guide and CAP/Black Book. Glass's tends to be only accurate for later Cars, i.e. geared to Cars under 4 Years old. CAP/Black Book is more down to earth, and better for Cars as they age.

 

Parker's is never a million miles out, and is surprisingly effective as a general guide.

 

The bottom line is Age and Mileage. Those two factors are the key, and are the two that have the main effect on Price...hence why so many Cars are clocked. Disposing of the Service History to mask when a Car has been clocked is usually well worth doing for a dishonest Seller, which tends to show that whilst Service History is something that adds value, it does not do so more than an apparently low Mileage reading.

 

The older a Car gets, and the further away a Car gets from when a Cat D/C rating was applied, has the effect of reducing and even eliminating the deflationary effect on Price. Once Cars get to a certain age and value, people just want something that is clearly reliable, good looking and at the lowest Price they can find.

 

Ultimately, Cat C/D just means that the Car has been declared Repairable by an Insurance Engineer, and the Insurance Company concerned did not want to pay for Repairs. Why they did not usually has more to do with their own internal policies, than with the Car itself. Always remember that Insurance Companies are not in business to Repair Cars. They are in business to charge Insurance Premiums. They will pretend otherwise, but that is where they are coming from.

 

They now have a ready market for damaged Cars, so are not bothering to repair significantly greater numbers than ever before. Thus, Cat C/D is now more common than it once was, in view of the greater percentages being sold before Repair, not because more Cars are being damaged as a percentage of all Cars on the road.

 

In simple terms and just to illustrate the percentage effects, if you can imagine that there were 100 Cars on the road in 2000, and around 10 a year were damaged, then back then, maybe 5 would be repaired, 2 declared Cat D, 2 declared Cat C, and one scrapped as being too badly damaged. Total Cat C/D thus being 4%, with another 5% being Cars that were damaged but that were Repaired by an Insurance Company and not repaired. Total number of Cat C/D is 4 Cars out of the 100 that were on the Road at the start.

 

If by 2009 there are 1000 Cars on the road, and the same percentage get damaged, i.e. 10%....that's now 100 Cars that are damaged. Same 10% but bigger numbers in view of the larger numbers of Cars whizzing around. However, the thing that has changed is whereas in, say, 2000 5% would be repaired by Insurance Companies, that figure is now less, say, 3%. That's because they can now sell damaged Cars more easily than they once could.

 

Thus, in 2009, 10% are damaged (100 Cars), of which 1% are scrapped (10 Cars), 3% Repaired by Insurance Companies (30 Cars) and 6% declared Cat C/D and sold damaged (60 Cars). So you may see that Today, more numbers of Cat C/Ds are around, because the volumes of Cars on the road are greater, and a greater percentage of that greater volume are declared Cat C/D. The percentage being damaged in the first place has not really changed, it's the ratio of Insurance Repaired (not Recorded) to Insurance Repair Declined (Cat C/D Recorded) that has changed and is changing.

 

I do not have the actual percentages, but have seen many reports that confirm year on year growth in terms of the percentages declared Cat C/D. Plus there is ample physical evidence in terms of the number of Salvage Contractors in operation whose business is dealing with damaged Cars before repair, who represent a ready market for damaged Cars that the Insurance Companies are only too happy to sell to.

 

Do remember that Cars damaged and repaired when the repairs were paid for by an Insurance Company, have no damage history whatsoever! None.

 

My gripe is I think that issue is very unfair, and Insurance Companies should be required to record all Cars that are damaged, irrespective of who pays for the Repairs. Full stop! Repairable damage is a fact of life, and there is nothing inherently bad about repairing a Car for re-use. It is the double standards that I would like to see changed, so that Consumers get to see the full picture. Adverse information is not bad in itself, it is the act of hiding it that is the problem.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited by banker_rhymes_with
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi i buy and sell a few cars and anything that is on the hit list i would say should be 1/2 the value of a car in a1 condition. But most likely they will be 25-35% cheaper + most dealers wont touch them.

What is the circumstances of your case you are going through?

If you bought a car from a dealer and it turned out to be on the hit list then you would have a good case, but if you bought it private you wouldn't as its buyer beware ( there is a proper name for it ). Apparently its only breaking the law if you specifically ask ' has this car been written off and repaired or is it on the HPI register'

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
Hi i buy and sell a few cars and anything that is on the hit list i would say should be 1/2 the value of a car in a1 condition. But most likely they will be 25-35% cheaper + most dealers wont touch them.

What is the circumstances of your case you are going through?

If you bought a car from a dealer and it turned out to be on the hit list then you would have a good case, but if you bought it private you wouldn't as its buyer beware ( there is a proper name for it ). Apparently its only breaking the law if you specifically ask ' has this car been written off and repaired or is it on the HPI register'

 

thanks

 

h i know this is gonna sound stupid.

 

i brought a car privatly i asked him if there was any damage to the car has it ever been in a crash has it been in any insurance claims

he gauranteed thme that it had not what action can i take to get this matter sorted or take him to court over the mateer?

 

many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes he sent them through texts saying the car was totally legit?

 

It is legit.

 

Category C: Repairable total loss vehicles where repair costs including VAT exceed the vehicle's pre-accident value

 

Category D: Repairable total loss vehicle where repair costs including VAT do not exceed the vehicle's pre-accident value

 

What it says it that it is uneconomical for the insurance company to pay for repairs. If someone buys it cheap and does it up cheaply, then it can be sold on, (cat c subject to Vic test).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bankers response to this question is exceptionally good and well put.

 

Can the moderators or powers that be sticky it as "What is a cat C or D car".

 

Very useful and clear information.

 

Deserves a Kraft Cadburys Dairy Milk and Bar for that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a used car dealer and this issue does crop up occaisonally. As the car has, by law, got to be road worthy and fit for purpose the fact that it is a cat C or D doesnt really make any difference in relation to whether the dealer can sell it. The only requirment on description in law is that it is as described, i.e. I cant say its not on the register if it is and I cant say it isnt if asked. This is rather poor but when tested in law (cant remember the case name) the judge ruled that as the car was roadworthy and safe a perceived loss of value was irrelevant, its still a car!

 

As a dealer I would value it 30-40% less than unregistered but will take a view. I would then put it on ebay or similar as I wont sell them from the pitch. I also always declare what it is.

 

Another point is that cat C carries a reference on the V5C so you can tell.

 

I have seen cars that have been written of as cat C or D and required no work at all to put back on the road, stolen recovered etc. Imagine an 1994 M reg fiesta that someone reverses into a post, an insurance company would replace the bumper with a new one and get it resprayed all in a major bodyshop at £60 per hour or more. This repair would probably be in excess of £500 with materials yet I could probably get a bumper from the scrappy for £20 (probably the right colour) and have it back to pre accident condition in an hour!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...