Some barstool attempted to steal my sister's old Punto on Christmas Eve and
left it in an undriveable state having wrenched the door open and ripped out
half the wiring. This of course completely messed up Christmas plans but I
don't think the thieves had any concern for that...

Anyway, not surprisingly, due to the age of the car, the insurance company
have written it off. It's not been easy as the car was down at my sister's
fiancés parents house in Gloucester at the time of the attempted theft and
they live in Manchester. The car is still down there.

Initially, they were told the write-off cost would be £300 so with the
excess, they would end up with a cheque for £200. Not exactly the best
Christmas present you can get but there you go.

However, today they have said they have changed their minds and that the car
is only worth £200.

This seems very unfair but does my sister have any come back?

It's Tesco's BTW.

Thanks, Rob.

Rob Nicholson ("Rob Nicholson" )
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Initially, they were told the write-off cost would be 300 so with the
excess, they would end up with a cheque for 200. Not exactly the best
Christmas present you can get but there you go.

However, today they have said they have changed their minds and that the
car is only worth 200.

Less the £100 excess, of course. So £100 pay-out. It ain't worth
claiming, with the loss of NCB and rise in future premiums.

This seems very unfair but does my sister have any come back?

Of course. They don't have to accept the offer. They may need to provide
documentary evidence that the car was worth more - recent ads with sale
prices for equivalent cars, f'rexample.

"Rob Nicholson" wrote...

However, today they have said they have changed their minds and that the
car
is only worth £200.

This seems very unfair but does my sister have any come back?

Absolutely - in fact, for the sake of £200, more than you might think.

Haggle with them. They have more to lose in terms of lost productivity than
you do. My step-daughter crashed my wife's five-year-old Punto and we were
offered just short of a grand. We haggled with the loss adjuster, who
eventually settled on £1,800 on the proviso that we paid for the DVLA
transfer of the personalised plates ourselves. (In all his time dealing with
auto claims, he'd never been asked to authorise payment for DVLA fees. I
argued that the insurance company knew they were personalised, and as they
were not specifically excluded, they were part of the insurance.)

In message , at 16:30:07 on
Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Adrian remarked:
Rob Nicholson ("Rob Nicholson" )
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Initially, they were told the write-off cost would be 300 so with the
excess, they would end up with a cheque for 200. Not exactly the best
Christmas present you can get but there you go.

However, today they have said they have changed their minds and that the
car is only worth 200.

Less the £100 excess, of course. So £100 pay-out. It ain't worth
claiming, with the loss of NCB and rise in future premiums.

It's already been claimed, otherwise there wouldn't be talk of offers.

Even if they decline the offer, it'll still be a "claim" for the
purposes of "no claim" bonus etc.

Otherwise it would be called a "no payout" bonus

This seems very unfair but does my sister have any come back?

Of course. They don't have to accept the offer. They may need to provide
documentary evidence that the car was worth more - recent ads with sale
prices for equivalent cars, f'rexample.

The insurance companies say they know what values are, which aren't
necessarily "replacement cost" I'm afraid. But if you have the time,
then haggle.

Does the offer include the insurance company paying to dispose of the
wreck?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry (Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Does the offer include the insurance company paying to dispose of the
wreck?

Oh, and - hopefully not - because you'll get c.£100 for weighing in a
complete scrapper at the moment - even if it's collected. Scrap metal
values have risen markedly over the last few years.

Roland Perry (Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

The insurance companies say they know what values are, which aren't
necessarily "replacement cost" I'm afraid.

What else is the value of a car?

It's the money you'd get if you sold it. Which means it's the price you
could buy it for...

On 24 Jan, 21:20, Adrian wrote:
Roland Perry (Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

The insurance companies say they know what values are, which aren't
necessarily "replacement cost" I'm afraid.

What else is the value of a car?

It's the money you'd get if you sold it. Which means it's the price you
could buy it for...

You would probably pay less for "A Polo" than for "A blue Polo 1.4GL
with sunroof". In other words, replacing a car exactly is pricier than
getting something vaguely similar. The owners want the first, the
insurance company the second.

This is the reasoning behind those bizarre Antiques Roadshow
valuations " ... should fetch eight or nine hundred at auction, so
insure it for seventeen thousand ..."

Ian

Ian (Ian ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

The insurance companies say they know what values are, which aren't
necessarily "replacement cost" I'm afraid.

What else is the value of a car?

It's the money you'd get if you sold it. Which means it's the price you
could buy it for...

You would probably pay less for "A Polo" than for "A blue Polo 1.4GL
with sunroof". In other words, replacing a car exactly is pricier than
getting something vaguely similar.

Not necessarily. It make take a little longer, but not necessarily
pricier. And if it is, then that's the price of replacement. Thus - the
value.

The owners want the first, the insurance company the second.

The owners want to be left with a replacement. The insurance company want
to spend as little as possible, and will ALWAYS start with an offer they
know to be risible.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

[snip]
The insurance companies say they know what values are

They can say things like that, and very often do, not always correctly.
Just remember there is an ombudsman.

which aren't necessarily "replacement cost" I'm afraid.

No, and why should they be ?

But if you have the time, then haggle.
[snip]

And if you are still not happy, you can refer the dispute to the FOS.



--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)

In message , at 21:20:08 on Thu,
24 Jan 2008, Adrian remarked:
The insurance companies say they know what values are, which aren't
necessarily "replacement cost" I'm afraid.

What else is the value of a car?

It's the money you'd get if you sold it. Which means it's the price you
could buy it for...

That's the funny thing, it's quite unusual to be able to buy a
replacement car for the amount the insurance company claims the old one
would have sold for. At some level that gap represents the profit margin
of a used car dealer, but it's just as much an expression of the fact
that the market isn't 100% efficient. And then there are things like
"condition" - I may have just spent £100 on a new set of tyres, or a new
clutch - but that hardly increase the car's resale value; to get back to
having a car in that condition means re-spending that money.
--
Roland Perry