Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss.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
  • 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

Category C car


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3783 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 am in the process of buying a car but apparently the dealer said the car was a cat C in 2003 please can someone explain to me please what this means and if it's safe to buy? The car is a T reg polo.

 

Grateful for any help or advise.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cat C refers to an insurance write off. There are four levels of damage A-D. Cat D = minor and Cat A = vitually impossible to repair.

 

The car has been involved in an accident and deemed un-economical to repair by the insurance company. The owner then buys back the car off the insurance company and repairs it, re-registers it and sells it on. All Perfeclty legal. Personally I'd steer clear of it. A HPI check will usually tell you what damage was recoreded.

 

You should count yourself lucky that the dealer told you. They do not have to inform a buyer that the car has been written off in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My car is a Cat C write off, after the ex kindly doused it with brake fluid.

 

Structure wise it is still sound, but to do a full repair job in the insurance companies garage was more than the car is worth.

 

I bought it back for a few hundred quid, got it re-sprayed at a pal's garage for a few more, and it lived on a happy for a few years until a 70mile daily commute finished it off.

 

Having said that, I probably wouldn't buy a Cat C car, with mine I knew the circumstance...

Co-op - £128 settled in full, June '06

First Direct - £125 settled in full, July '06

Barclays - offer made, Dec '06.

First Direct part deux - charges refunded in full, Oct '06, threatened to close a/c in Nov '06, letter dispatched to head man.

Student Loan Company - £25 of charges refunded, Nov '06.

 

Mr Princess

Lloyds - LBA dispatched, Oct '06

MBNA - LBA dispatched, Nov '06

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 years later...

Vehicles in Categories A. B, C and D are categorised as per the Association of British Insurers Code of Practice for the Disposal of Motor Vehicle Salvage.

Categories F, N, U, X and Retail Ready have been introduced by some resellers to assist the buyer when purchasing vehicles outside of the recognised categories. None of these categories will show on a HPI check only A B C and D

The categories can be defined as follows:

A: Not allowed to be repaired or parts sold, to be sold only for its recyclable content.

B: Heavy damage, Not repairable, can be broken for spare parts only, shell must be crushed.

C: Repairable, where the insurer's repair costs exceeded the vehicle's pre-accident value.

D: Repairable, where the insurer's repair costs did not exceed the vehicle's pre-accident value.

F: A vehicle that has suffered fire or flood damage (Could also be classed as CAT A if fire damage is more that 10%) (flood damage can also show as a Category A).

N: Non salvage vehicles taken in part exchange.

U: Vehicles not owned by an insurance company that may have sustained damage.

X: Stolen and recovered vehicles that insurance companies have paid out on and are then later recovered.

Retail Ready: Vehicles prepared to retail standard and sold with an MOT (where applicable).

There were 265,877 road vehicle accidents in 2012 to 2013. Of those 197,388 were cars. If 60% of those were repaired by the insurer then there are 118.4 thousand repaired cars put back on the road in 2012 and beyond. Most but not all of these cars were repaired by a main dealer and because of that they don't have any Category D or C marked against them.

The vehicles not repaired by the insurance companies (irrespective of the level of repair required) are sold for resale to any person or car repair workshop that can then repair them. These cars have been through the same process of being repaired but they have a Category D or C marked against them.

The question of whether they have been repaired correctly is a separate issue.

I don't have any problem with a correctly repaired car but I do not want to buy a car that has not been correctly repaired and I have no way of knowing this if it's one of the 118.4 k previously mentioned or indeed one of the many more thousands of repaired cars that have never been through the insurance claim procedure.

If I buy a car that is advertised as a Category D or C then I know what I am buying. I am being given the cars history and can make a informed judgment. I can if required get the car inspected.

A car given a Category C or D does not mean the "car" is a 'write off' or 'total loss'.

Insurance companies often call vehicles involved in an accident a 'write off' or 'total loss', which gives the wrong impression to anyone not familiar with the insurance or salvage industry. An insurance company faced with a claim first estimates the financial cost of repairing the vehicle to its pre-accident condition. The cost of the repair will be based on new parts prices, main dealer garage labour and storage charges, often making it uneconomical for the insurance company to carry out the repair.

If the financial cost to the insurance company is the same or near to the market price, the insurance company would normally call this vehicle a write off which means that they will 'write off' the financial cost of the repair, not the vehicle itself.

The term total loss is also often misused. It actually means the insurance company made a complete financial loss, i.e. they recovered no money from the sale of the salvage and therefore made a total financial loss on the claim.

It's all about money.

Because a insurance company wants to keep is cost down (this ultimately means insurance premiums are cheaper) it looks for the most cost effective way of dealing with a cars repair.

Category C cars are more heavily damaged than Category D

The category C or D given to a car is mainly determined by the cost of repairs in relation the vehicles age and value. A Category C car can have less damage than a car with a Cat D listing.

Barry Hensall (CatigoryCars)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...