Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.    Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.   The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved.  Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
    • You can use a family's address.   The only caveat is for the final hearing you'd need to be there in person   HOWEVER i'd expect them to pay if its only £200 because costs of attending will be higher than that
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 161 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-C Write off and the rules?


mazbck
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4205 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

Not sure if Im in the right place, but hoping someone can help me.

 

My hubby's MR2 was in an accident 2 weeks ago, all it needs in a new driver's door, the A-pillar is slightly bent and a new drivers wing. There is no other damage than that.

 

The engineer has seen it and he has classed it as a CAT-C write off due to the age of the car(J-Plate), and my OH has accepted a cash settlement and the car.

 

What is the rules regarding a CAT-C write off, Ive searched high and low and I know that it needs a VIC test, but can the car be driven to get repaired, or is the MOT invalid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The MOT would be invalidated at the point that the car was categorised as a cat c on the DVLA register.

 

You'll need to effect repairs prior to MOT so you couldnt really be seen to be acting lawfully by booking MOT and driving to it. As for the VIC check, think its still the case that without one you won't get issued a new V5. No V5, no tax, no valid insurance.

 

Best bet would be to have the thing towed to garage for repairs and let them deal with the formalities of moving it between MOT and VIC test centres under their commercial insurance.

 

The DVLA website says :

 

Taking the car for a VIC

repairs must be conducted and the car must be roadworthy and capable of being driven under its own power

if over 3 years old, the car must be covered by a valid MOT if it is to be driven to the VIC

the person driving the car must be insured to do so

the car must display front and rear number plates if it is to be driven to the VIC. For assistance in obtaining number plates, contact VOSA on 08706 060 440

a car can be driven directly to and from a pre-arranged VIC without road tax

Link to post
Share on other sites

The MOT would be invalidated at the point that the car was categorised as a cat c on the DVLA register.

Actually that is incorrect. The MoT is not invalidated.

If the vehicle is roadworthy, with no jagged edges, but is just light panel damage, it is possible to have a VIC check done as it is. They may refuse to test it if the tester considers it not roadworthy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually that is incorrect. The MoT is not invalidated.

If the vehicle is roadworthy, with no jagged edges, but is just light panel damage, it is possible to have a VIC check done as it is. They may refuse to test it if the tester considers it not roadworthy.

 

I stand corrected, I was erring on the side of caution.......and the possibility of being pulled on the way to the test centre.

 

I understood the MOT to only be valid if the car is in a roadworthy condition, a CAT C would (I assume) by definition question the cars roadworthiness. In this instance there is clear structual damage and the interpretation of the legalities at the point of being pulled over by plod would be a difficult one to question if faced with possible penalty points.

 

If the VIC centre also considers the vehicle to be unroadworthy you would then be left with removal costs from the test centre as your insurance would also be invalidated?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is only cosmetic damage and it is roadworthy, would it be worth contacting the insurance company to get it changed to a CAT-D, as they have said it was due to the age and make of the car that it would be classed as a CAT-C.

 

Its a MKII MR2 and it would require a complete re-spray.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is only cosmetic damage and it is roadworthy, would it be worth contacting the insurance company to get it changed to a CAT-D, as they have said it was due to the age and make of the car that it would be classed as a CAT-C.

 

Its a MKII MR2 and it would require a complete re-spray.

 

You could give them a try, don't see what harm it would do.... the primary basis of category is a commercial decision. Not so sure they'd look at it again though as its a cost to them to send someone out to inspect again, not sure they'd just over rule the initial loss adjusters decision without a second opinion. You would of course also run the risk of seeing the value lift as part of your settlement.

 

Do you have any 'friendly' local PC's that could offer you some guidance regarding your insurance status, at least if you're taking it somewhere local for repairs and VIC they'd be aware that your intentions are genuine and they will already have the heads up on your vehicle if by any chance you get stopped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the car is going to be repair about 175 miles from where we live, as a specialist bodyshop. My OH says it is roadworthy (he is a mechanic) and it is mechanically sound, as the bump wasnt anywhere near the engine.

 

He has checked with his own insurance and it is still insured, as the other driver admitted full liability.

 

Its just the MOT side of things he is worried about and driving it down to get repaired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd look for some clarity (in writing) from your insurers.

 

Driving to any pre booked MOT would ensure you insurance remains valid.. you must ensure it is prebooked though.

 

My only concern would be the distance to the repair centre you mentioned, are you sending it up on a low loader or is the intention to drive it that distance? I wouldnt want to be in your shoes arguing the finer points of law in the middle of the street with an irate copper

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood the MOT to only be valid if the car is in a roadworthy condition,

No. An MoT is an indication that only at the time of the MoT test the vehicle met the required standards.

From VOSA:

"An MoT Test pass confirms that, when the vehicle was examined in accordance with Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 it met the minimum legal requirements for those items prescribed under the Act. It does not mean that the vehicle fully meets all legal requirements or that it will continue to be roadworthy for the next year."

 

If you think about it, if an MoT became invalid the moment a vehicle became unroadworthy, if your tail light should blow on a journey, your MoT would instantly become invalid. A colleague of mine is a dealer in Cat Cs and Cat Ds and many Cat Cs he sells come direct from the insurance companies with the current MoTs. The VIC check does not check roadworthiness, just the identity of the vehicle. But if the vehicle has jagged edges they may refuse to test it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got the insurance chq in today and according to the paperwork they have classed it as a CAT-D :D

 

Thanks guys for all the info that in the end wasnt needed, very much appreciated.

 

Cat D is the lowest form of damaged classed by Insurers, a friend of mine bought a Cat C a number of years ago, hes still got it now, passes every MOT etc, only down side it will reflect the resale value when you decide to sell.

 

Some extra info for you:

 

Category C or D write-off is one that insurers consider unecomonical to repair but one that could, given enough time in the workshop, be repaired and returned to the road.

 

Category A and B should never be returned to the road. A Category B write off is one that is so badly damaged it can only be used for the salvaging of spare parts, while a Category A is one that is sent to the crusher.

The retailers worst nightmare !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought they had originally got it wrong with classing it as a CAT-C, as it is only cosmetic damage, and didnt need a VIC test, which I understand that is needed if it is badly damaged but still repairable, but ours only needs a new door and wing!

 

So off to the specialist body shop on Saturday, and hopefully get the wee beastie back in a couple of weeks!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

the VIC check is what it says - a Vehicle Identity Check, not an MOT, likewise a CAT C or D is an insurers definition of a vehicle "BER" beyond economical repair - for them, not for joe public. none of the above need actually void an MOT Insurers willingly write off cars for 1 good reason, they know that the insured will get zilch and then lose all thier NCB, my lads just lost his £3K (november 2011) and got just £760, after paying his excess and ALL his outstanding insurance instalements (£600) and that INCLUDED £120 he had to spend on a bonnet after his flew off on the M5, so much for having fully comp (but unprotected NCB)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

My Vauxhall Corsa has also just been written off due to a cat C write off, it needs 3 new wheels (due to light damage from being scuffed) and there is a dent in the bumper. It's the first accident my I have ever had to deal with and I am confused! I know I need to get a VIC test done but obviously I need to have work done on the car first. Does the work have to be carried out by the same garage that would do the VIC test? And does it need another MOT doing?

 

Hope you can help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The VIC is carried out by VOSA, not a garage and as long as the MOT is still current, you can drive the car to the VOSA centre for the VIC. A VIC is a Vehicle Identity Check, all they are checking is the identity of the vehicle - it is the same one that had been damaged and not a stolen one with a false identity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...