Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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 4197 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...