Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
  • 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 
        • 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 D/C Cars help needed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5201 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...