Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
  • 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
      • 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...