Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jonnycool]

Surely, if you've had the car long enough to have needed it to be MoTd, a fresh one will make no difference as it's already been tested since being written off

If you bought it a month or so ago with a short MoT, without an hpi check, then the trader could be pulling a fast one, depending how he came to have the car. From an auction such things are declared in the vehicle sale details.
For the shadier side of things, there could be good money made from selling repaired Cat D cars and selling them on without declaring owt A lesson if ever there was... firms such as HPI and Equifax exist for a very good reason.

Hope you get it resolved

The car was bought on 10 Nov 2009 and had been declared stolen/recovered and written off on 20 Sept 2008, a good 13 1/2 months before. I think it's unlikely that the dealer didn't know the situation TBH

A lesson if ever there was... firms such as HPI and Equifax exist for a very good reason.  

You're absolutely right, another harsh lesson learned, I feel extremely stupid and p***ed off right now, yet again 

I've sent an email to my local trading standards office to get the ball rolling. Not really holding my breath at the moment, but thanks to all who have contributed to this thread

Jon

[Entwood]

Surely, if you've had the car long enough to have needed it to be MoTd, a fresh one will make no difference as it's already been tested since being written off

If you bought it a month or so ago with a short MoT, without an hpi check, then the trader could be pulling a fast one, depending how he came to have the car. From an auction such things are declared in the vehicle sale details.
For the shadier side of things, there could be good money made from selling repaired Cat D cars and selling them on without declaring owt A lesson if ever there was... firms such as HPI and Equifax exist for a very good reason.

Hope you get it resolved

The car was bought on 10 Nov 2009 and had been declared stolen/recovered and written off on 20 Sept 2008, a good 13 1/2 months before. I think it's unlikely that the dealer didn't know the situation TBH

A lesson if ever there was... firms such as HPI and Equifax exist for a very good reason.  

You're absolutely right, another harsh lesson learned, I feel extremely stupid and p***ed off right now

So .. you've had it 3 years .. and insured it all that time .... and the insurers have JUST decided it was written off 4 years ago Something wrong there TBH ...

[jonnycool]

So .. you've had it 3 years .. and insured it all that time .... and the insurers have JUST decided it was written off 4 years ago Something wrong there TBH ...

Yes, good point, apparently Axa have done a 'routine check' which showed up the problem

[Kevin Wood]

It's also possible that there has been an administrative error, I suppose? Then again, with the cat D being dated so long ago I'd be surprised.

[05omegav6]

A routine audit check on your policy has highlighted that the vehicle you currently have insured with us, <describes car> was previously declared an insurance Category D write off on 20/09/2008.[/i]

As detailed in the Terms and Conditions, your vehicle is unacceptable for cover and we will be unable to continue to insure this vehicle due to it’s history. Your policy will be cancelled in 7 days with effect from 23:59 on 11/07/2012 unless a change of vehicle is made on your policy.

If this is their policy, then it does raise the question as to how/why they insured the car in the first place surely a quick check by themselves of the insurance database at the policies inception would have highlighted the Cat D listing. Unless the car was given a new registration number which has only just filtered through the system.

[jonnycool]

I've been thinking about this overnight... This happened over 3 years ago so it's had 3 MOT's since then - it should just be a case of re-insuring with a different insurer and declaring it a Cat D shouldn't it? This will obviously push the premiums up though 

 It doesn't need a VIC check either by all accounts, but the HPI check I did defines the Cat D write-off as being a car that has been damaged and repairable, where the cost of the repair is less than the value of the car. Why would they write it off in this case?

[Elite Pete]

I've bought, repaired used and sold quite a few Cat D cars, infact the Diesel i've just bought is a cat D which had bumper and headlight damage and i've never had trouble insuring them

[jonnycool]

I've bought, repaired used and sold quite a few Cat D cars, infact the Diesel i've just bought is a cat D which had bumper and headlight damage and i've never had trouble insuring them

Thanks Pete, I'll have a look at a few quotes today 

Why do they write a car off if the cost to repair is less than the value of the car? I thought the whole idea of a 'write-off' was because it was uneconomical to repair, costing more than the car's worth 

[jonnyboyws6]

Cat Ds are often fairly minor damage, but by the time you factor in the cost of hire cars whilst it is repaired, it's enough to push it "beyond economical repair" I personally have no problems with cat Ds, but each to their own. Omegas are not worth a great deal so are likely to be written off by pretty much any damage that would be worth claiming for!

Cat Ds are not recorded on the log book and don't need a VIC, maybe that implies the DVLA are not too fussed about them???

As for insurance companies, it's another example of them making it up as they go along (in much the same way as some won't touch grey imports but others accept them as the same as the equivalent UK spec car) As I understand it, the problem is that they won't pay out a total loss claim twice so if it's a cat D it means thay have already paid out on it once.

[Elite Pete]

I've bought, repaired used and sold quite a few Cat D cars, infact the Diesel i've just bought is a cat D which had bumper and headlight damage and i've never had trouble insuring them

Thanks Pete, I'll have a look at a few quotes today 

Why do they write a car off if the cost to repair is less than the value of the car? I thought the whole idea of a 'write-off' was because it was uneconomical to repair, costing more than the car's worth 

To repair my diesel using genuine new Vauxhall parts would have cost a lot of money. I was lucky as I had a breaker here in the same colour

[cem_devecioglu]

insurers also make mistakes and sometimes on purpose
 
it took me nearly a month to clear the omega insurance state.. the idiots recorded the windscreen change as an accident
 
and dropped my insurance reduction rates  

[jonnycool]

Cat Ds are often fairly minor damage, but by the time you factor in the cost of hire cars whilst it is repaired, it's enough to push it "beyond economical repair" I personally have no problems with cat Ds, but each to their own. Omegas are not worth a great deal so are likely to be written off by pretty much any damage that would be worth claiming for!

Cat Ds are not recorded on the log book and don't need a VIC, maybe that implies the DVLA are not too fussed about them???

As for insurance companies, it's another example of them making it up as they go along (in much the same way as some won't touch grey imports but others accept them as the same as the equivalent UK spec car) As I understand it, the problem is that they won't pay out a total loss claim twice so if it's a cat D it means thay have already paid out on it once.

Are you saying that if I had a total loss claim, that the insurer wouldn't pay out on it? Kind of defeats the purpose of having insurance in the first place 

[Kevin Wood]

If this is their policy, then it does raise the question as to how/why they insured the car in the first place surely a quick check by themselves ....

But you were dangling a cheque book at them. Why would they refuse your money? They can always decide that you failed to declare it if there's a claim, leave you high and dry with no cover, and they are quids in.

 This is a financial institution we're talking about. They are in it to make money, not satisfy the customer.

[bigegg]

My 2p worth, in no particular order:

I don't remember *ever* having to answer a question on the lines of: "has the car ever been written off", when buying car insurance.

If the insurer *does* ask, and insures you anyway - you have an expectation that the policy would be exactly the same as one for a car which has not been written off.
On a side note - if the insured buys the car back to repair, it's not been a "total loss" to the insurance co.

Insurers don't check VIC details, and they don't check points/claims when you apply - they are only checked at the point of claim - don't know why. mate who works for insurance says its data protection. I reckon that checking costs money, either in losing customers, or actually paying for a database check.
or just that they get your money and then refuse to pay out if you didn't tell them.


A formal complaint to the insurance company would be a good start - if they didn;t ask about write off, and you didn't know until they told you, then I don't think they can cancel your contract as technically you aren't in breach.
If nothing else, you might get a partial refund of your premium - take it all the way to the ombudsman, cos it'll cost the insurance co £800 for the referral, and if they know you'll do that, they'll figure it's cheaper to pay you off, or admit they've made a mistake (in which case, don't forget you can ask for "costs" of £18 an hour for writing letters'research + stationery, parking, petrol for visit to post office etc)

Be aware - there is a question on most comparison sites "have you ever had insurance cancelled or special restrictions applied?" which you will have to answer truthfully, and will inevitably bump your premium up 

[Kevin Wood]

My 2p worth, in no particular order:

I don't remember *ever* having to answer a question on the lines of: "has the car ever been written off", when buying car insurance.

If the insurer *does* ask, and insures you anyway - you have an expectation that the policy would be exactly the same as one for a car which has not been written off.
On a side note - if the insured buys the car back to repair, it's not been a "total loss" to the insurance co.

Insurers don't check VIC details, and they don't check points/claims when you apply - they are only checked at the point of claim - don't know why. mate who works for insurance says its data protection. I reckon that checking costs money, either in losing customers, or actually paying for a database check.
or just that they get your money and then refuse to pay out if you didn't tell them.


A formal complaint to the insurance company would be a good start - if they didn;t ask about write off, and you didn't know until they told you, then I don't think they can cancel your contract as technically you aren't in breach.
If nothing else, you might get a partial refund of your premium - take it all the way to the ombudsman, cos it'll cost the insurance co £800 for the referral, and if they know you'll do that, they'll figure it's cheaper to pay you off, or admit they've made a mistake (in which case, don't forget you can ask for "costs" of £18 an hour for writing letters'research + stationery, parking, petrol for visit to post office etc)

Be aware - there is a question on most comparison sites "have you ever had insurance cancelled or special restrictions applied?" which you will have to answer truthfully, and will inevitably bump your premium up 

VERY good point, and exactly why you should be fighting the insurance company. ALL insurance (Home, car, life..) ask if you've ever had cover refused or cancelled, so it could well bump up all your premiums for good.

I rather hate insurance companies.