Print

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

[chrisgixer]

Precisely.

...nobody insures without a Vic.

[Entwood]

Admiral, multi car, if that matters.

Admiral were the insurers of Annette's Astra when a young girl crashed into the back of it, writing it off. Annette had been using the car up until when the assessor examined the car & his verdict of write off. Admiral then just happened to say that they don't insure write offs .... thanks for letting us know!  Perhaps what they should have said was, they don't insure them till they've had a VIC 

Been onto Admiral ... they want a "new" MOT and a VIC before even considering a quote .. original MOT is still valid and VIC only needed for a new V5C ... so neither needed legally .. just them being bloody awkward.

Justs hows what a bunch of rip-off merchants they all are ... Insurance is "supposed" to be about "risk" ... so how does driving a Cat C repaired car increase the "risk" of a further accident ?? .. answer .. it can't ... but we'll just increase the premiums by 180% ( yup   ?87 to ?193) anyway ...

[05omegav6]

It's just another excuse if the car is damaged again it will be written off and any settlement will be tiny due to it previously being written off. Which saves them money. Sorry saves them even more money

[PhilRich]

You can't win against these Gangsters Mr Entwood, so you need to either keep looking until you find one that has a soul (good luck with that!) or you comply with their outrageous demands

[05omegav6]

You can't win against these Gangsters Mr Entwood, so you need to either keep looking until you find one that has a soul (good luck with that!) or you comply with their outrageous demands

Plead ignorance, they're obliged to pay out any third party costs whether they choose to wriggle out of any claim you might make or not...

[chrisgixer]

Admiral, multi car, if that matters.

Admiral were the insurers of Annette's Astra when a young girl crashed into the back of it, writing it off. Annette had been using the car up until when the assessor examined the car & his verdict of write off. Admiral then just happened to say that they don't insure write offs .... thanks for letting us know!  Perhaps what they should have said was, they don't insure them till they've had a VIC 

Been onto Admiral ... they want a "new" MOT and a VIC before even considering a quote .. original MOT is still valid and VIC only needed for a new V5C ... so neither needed legally .. just them being bloody awkward.

Justs hows what a bunch of rip-off merchants they all are ... Insurance is "supposed" to be about "risk" ... so how does driving a Cat C repaired car increase the "risk" of a further accident ?? .. answer .. it can't ... but we'll just increase the premiums by 180% ( yup   ?87 to ?193) anyway ...

Mmmmmno, I don't agree Nige tbh. If the first line of this thread is correct, that implies this is the first attempt to insure the car as a CatC....?
That being the case I would expect the insurer to want to examine the car structurally or whatever, to be cirtain that it has;

Been repaired
The repair is up to scratch
Its not been cut n shut.
The numbers still match up.

And then, once that been cirtified (by the Vic check)
It is up to Mot standard sine the accident.

Assuming I have the order of events correct, I've speed read most if it tbh.

No insurer will cover a cat c without inspection.



However if it's a historical cat c then the Vic check details should exist somewhere, no? Dvla? And then the original mot should stand.

[brendan1983]

Hello,

I've insured cars & bikes (cat C+D) on ebike/eCar with no issues.

Brendan

[05omegav6]

The MoT issue arises from the simple fact that when the car is written off, the MoT, however current, gets voided.

The VIC is not a repair check, rather one that confirms the car is original, ie all the chassis identifiers match and are untampered with.

The subsequent MoT check simply confirms that the car is roadworthy, again not a specific check of the repair...

 

[Entwood]

The MoT issue arises from the simple fact that when the car is written off, the MoT, however current, gets voided.

The VIC is not a repair check, rather one that confirms the car is original, ie all the chassis identifiers match and are untampered with.

The subsequent MoT check simply confirms that the car is roadworthy, again not a specific check of the repair...

 

Not according to DVLA ..   https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-identity-check/taking-your-car-for-a-vic-test

"When you take your vehicle for a Vehicle Identity Check (VIC) test the following must apply:

    the car must be roadworthy and able to be driven under its own power
    the car must have a valid MOT if it needs one (if you?re driving it to the VIC)
    the person driving the car must be insured
    the car must have front and rear number plates (if you?re driving it to the test)"

so it must have an MOT BEFORE any VIC check .....

Also, the car now has a VIC check marker against it due to the Cat C repair but this site

http://motinfo.direct.gov.uk/internet/servlet/ECHIDDispatcher

informs me the MOT is valid until 20/09/2014 .. exactly the same date as the certificate.. so MOT has not been "voided" in any way.

Lastly .. Direct Line are happy to insure it without the VIC and with the current MOT, so if one can do it... why not the rest ??

[Kevin Wood]

An MOT can only be voided by the issue of a prohibition notice, as I understand it.

That said, a VIC is exactly as its' name suggests, a check of identity only, so I'm not surprised the insurance company want to see it get through an MOT. An accident may well have rendered it unable to pass an MOT, therefore, an MOT gives some indication that it's been put back into a roadworthy condition during repair.

[chrisgixer]

If a car is written off, the Mot at the time is void. How can it not be?

[Entwood]

If a car is written off, the Mot at the time is void. How can it not be?

So, "written off" by a rip-off insurance company for a door and a quarter panel replacement ?? that "their" repairers said would cost ?1400 ... actual cost ?900 - for a really first class job ... having "valued" the car at ?1100 when it would cost ?1600 to get an equivalent one off Autotrader ??

So, undervalue the car, overprice the repair and its an "uneconomic write off" ... as said .. a quarter panel (plastic), a door, and a bit of paint.......

so what has that to do with the MOT .. none of those items even get checked on an MOT ??

[chrisgixer]

Wo easy tiger. I'm not bending my experience to suit your situation Nige. That's just how I remember. Quite possibly wrongly it has to be said.

But..,Isn't that/shouldn't it be, a Cat D? Cosmetic?

Cat C being structural? Just asking, don't bite me head off

[Entwood]

Wo easy tiger. I'm not bending my experience to suit your situation Nige. That's just how I remember. Quite possibly wrongly it has to be said.

But..,Isn't that/shouldn't it be, a Cat D? Cosmetic?

Cat C being structural? Just asking, don't bite me head off

Insurance categories for write off

https://www.abi.org.uk/~/media/Files/Documents/Publications/Public/Migrated/Motor/Code%20of%20practice%20for%20disposal%20of%20motor%20vehicle%20salvage.ashx

C / D nowt to do with structure etc ...... purely down to finance - and only in the Insurers interest .......never the paying customers or the innocent parties .. 

Sorry if I reacted a tad .. been a long day arguing with faceless idiots. FOS now involved

[MR MISTER]

You're going to have to bend over, Nige, you can't win with these twots.