J
jonnytheboy
I,lll keep you all posted, Just checked it again its come back as a cat c loss in 19-12-2007. Vic pass on 03-06-2008. He still thinks he'll get 3.5k-4k for it!!!!!!!!
ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
J
jonnytheboy
Thats what i thought!
Christopher
ClioSport Club Member
Z4M
Gutted.
That's a £3k 182 now, if he's lucky.
That's a £3k 182 now, if he's lucky.
Clio MK 4
my last two cars i have never hpi checked them. until this zs which for some reason i felt i should even though i was pretty sure it was fine. spent £20 and it came up all fine. at first felt like i should have gone with my instinct in thinking it was fine but i guess i have a piece of mind. especially when i sell.
J
jonnytheboy
He,s not on here! £10 too much for him 
, I said he should sell it standard coz i want his exhaust
, I said he should sell it standard coz i want his exhaust 
J
jonnytheboy
Well its up for sale now. He wants 3k for it! Black gold 182 cup packed car 63000miles, completly standard ( well it will be when i the exhaust off it :rasp
J
jonnytheboy
not sure! he's having problems contacting him as hes a NAVY boy
Even if his mate crashed it or it was a cat c before he bought it, he should of told him
Punto/Clio GTT
if its a cat c and not sorn it has to be vic checked within 6 months (i think) or they have the power to scrap it. the car cannot be sold/registered if you go past the date they give you
J
jonnytheboy
He paid about 4k about 9 month ago for it
Sorry for bringing up an old post again but this BG182FF (YA04 AVY) has turned up again and I'm thinking of buying it... I have hpi checked it and everything seems okay. Who said it was a damaged or a cat C/D in the first place? I'm just waiting to go and view the car in person and I will give it a full and thorough going over along with its paperwork!
BG 182
My Pug 206 was a CAT C repair, and it was listed on the V5.
* didnt realise it was an ancient thread.
Thats Wrong
With a CAT C you will probably get 80% of the full value. It could have been CAT C'd because the repair was £1 over a threshold. However the price should have reflected that in the first instance.
Why? Someone's thinking of buying this exact car, it's a totally relevant bump/post.
Wasn't that as such, was the guy up there^ telling someone they are wrong when it was posted 4 years ago I was laughing at.
CS Dungeon
CAT C................ Structual/Chassis damage!
CAT D........... Is beyond economical repair and usually just cosmetic
It was written off as a CAT C in 2007 and VIC checked in 2008........... What else do you need to know?!
More f**king nonsense written on this forum in regards to categorised cars and vehicle damage.
Did you get that off Wikipeidia? The reason this kind of false statement is such a problem is because the people buying cars will read this and instantly dismiss any cat C car no matter how genuine.
Categories C/D are based on cost. There are many variables but the only way to get to either Category is through cost.
You don't Cat C a car because a roof is kinked or the chassis is bent. Why would you!
Clio 172
My rallye was a cat C. Bent chassis arm, inner wing, outer wing, bumper bonnet and suspension arm after a front end years before I bought it. A quick call to my insurance company and they put my mind at ease with an email regarding layout and recognition of the car being a cat c. It wouldn't effect my payout in the result of an accident as it's logged on the v5c, repaired to a roadworthy standard, has VIC cert in its paperwork and was MOTd and taxed.
Swarve, if you are interested in this Clio, call your insurance company and talk it through with them. There is nothing to worry about with a Cat listed car if your insurance company are happy to pay the valuation in the event of a non fault accident. As long as the car is priced right for it being listed you can save money on the initial purchase and enjoy it knowing your insured properly and you will get your money back if the worse happens.
Swarve, if you are interested in this Clio, call your insurance company and talk it through with them. There is nothing to worry about with a Cat listed car if your insurance company are happy to pay the valuation in the event of a non fault accident. As long as the car is priced right for it being listed you can save money on the initial purchase and enjoy it knowing your insured properly and you will get your money back if the worse happens.
CS Dungeon
Actually, this is what I was informed by my mate fiance when i looked into buying a Cat C M3 4 months back and she works for a popular insurer!
Post below proves my point!!
If it was just 'outer wing, bumper bonnet and suspension arm' it would of been Cat D.........Chassis arm and inner wing are structral are they not?!
Your point may also be correct or at least a contributing factor as structual damage = higher repair bill! However you dont need a VIC check just because of light cosmetic damage.....its there for a good reason!
Clio 172
My understanding is that its a combination of all the factors covered here. Take Rowan Atkinsons Mclaren F1
The car suffered structural damage but it wasn't written off and it was put back on the road after some fairly serious rebuild work! Estimated cost of £910k to put back on the road but because the car is worth more than that when on the road, its not been categorised.
From what iv read its something like Cat D cars can have for example, only suffered structural damage that might only be a few quid more than 50% of the value of the car to sort out, so its only cat D due to a relatively low yet invasive repair cost, and other cat C cars might have had no structural damage but to repair them might have cost twice as much as a similar age and spec car would cost second hand!
Structural damage isn't always the deciding factor, but due to the cost to fix it properly it often bumps the cost to be far beyond the "economical Repair" threshold putting it in the upper band of the Cat D/C section.
The VIC check as well, as mentioned, is just to check the cars not a cut and shut, so all vin numbers and codes match those on the logbook. I wouldn't totally overlook a Cat D/C car when looking to buy, I would just get an agreed valuation from my insurance company like I did before, be willing to accept the car as scrap if the worst happened because there is no way a car can be put back on the road twice IMO and double check what extent the damage went to!
Jack
PH2 172
Parts no longer available on a 12 year old car,combined with recovery,storage,estimate and hire car charges means a scratched bumper becomes a write off.
A Vic check has nothing to do with repairs to a car. Nothing!!! So much nonsense!
Cat C/D is cost relative. The chassis damage is only relating to cost. You should some of the cars that get chassis legs, full ones. Roofs, inner wings, boot floors.
Surely it's common sense?
Cat C/D is cost relative. The chassis damage is only relating to cost. You should some of the cars that get chassis legs, full ones. Roofs, inner wings, boot floors.
Surely it's common sense?
Hire charges and recovery cannot be taken into account with repair costs unless under "exceptional circumstances". If that was the case we wouldn't fix anything.
The engineer and assessor are the only 2 people who decide to total loss a car, neither mention recovery or hire, the engineer at the insurance side will have zero indication of outside costs at that stage.
As I said only under exceptional circumstances.
The rules and of law are.
Repair costs exceed 65% of value - Cat D
Repair costs exceed 100% of value - Cat C
Now please don't think that every car with repair costs exceeding the 65% or 100% are total losses or categorised. I have personally repaired cars at 90%-110%-125% of value. Nothing is ever set in stone.
The car has to be total lossed first then the category is given. A customer may be desperate for their car back and to be repaired. The insurance are happy to go to 100% of the value and retain the policy and customer.
Customers cancel claims and keep their car even if it was 150% repair cost vs value and fix it themselves and sell the car on... who would know about it? There has never been a "claim" put through.
Repair costs exceed 65% of value - Cat D
Repair costs exceed 100% of value - Cat C
Now please don't think that every car with repair costs exceeding the 65% or 100% are total losses or categorised. I have personally repaired cars at 90%-110%-125% of value. Nothing is ever set in stone.
The car has to be total lossed first then the category is given. A customer may be desperate for their car back and to be repaired. The insurance are happy to go to 100% of the value and retain the policy and customer.
Customers cancel claims and keep their car even if it was 150% repair cost vs value and fix it themselves and sell the car on... who would know about it? There has never been a "claim" put through.
Clio 172
Is that not what I said? :S
VIC check = simpley checking vin numbers to see its not a ringer/cut and shut/using stolen parts
Cat D/C = value related to the cost of the repair. Structural damage costs more to fix thus putting it in the higher band but this is NOT always the case where the car is worth stupid money or the structural damage isn't too hard to resolve.
Clio 172
presumption... My bad! haha
PH2 172
I can assure you that cost of hire and repairs are taken as the determining figure as to the decisision to repair or not.I have had customer claims approved on condition that repairs are completed within a time limit.Claims management companies,(f**ck**g ambulance chasers) have Insurers by the short & curlies where liability has been admitted.
PH2 172
No,I was workshop manager for the repairer,and had to prepare the estimates and liase with the Insurance company assessors,who are aware of inflated incurred hire charges.If parts are going to be on back order for month`s,it`s a write off,as hire charges exceed repair costs,that`s just the way it is.
Similar threads
