Hi guys, need some advice...
My 2006 E-Class was involved in an accident - cost of repair approx 5/6k. however since then it has come to light that the chassis is bent and needs a jig to re-allign. as the car is worth 27k market value the insurers wont right it off. Becuase the chassis is bent would that mean an automatic cat d and should it be written off? should I be concerned that it will be re-alligned?
|
"write off" is an economic decision, not an engineering one. An insurer will not 'write off' a car with £27k market value for a £6k repair.
'Bent chassis' covers a multitude of sins. It could be just that the front or rear chassis rails need pulling straight - or it could be some thing more major. If the repair is done properly then the car should be OK. It all hinges on the skill and experience of the guys doing the repair, plus access to appropriate jig equipment.
|
Added to that the choice as to where to get it repaired is yours.
|
I would strongly advise if it is going to be straightened to have it done at a authorised Merc bodyshop repairer.
Sorry to hear about your accident.
Cheers
Jlo
|
if insurer is going to repair then i would suggest get an independant inspection of repairs done to your satisfaction before they sign it over to you
sorry to hear of your problem by the way
|
Realignment (when necessary) is an accepted procedure in accident repairs.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Thanks for the advice guys. Can't believe my luck...bought the car from showroom in october 06 and have only driven 3k miles!
Mercedes have the car and any work will be done by them directly plus independent engineer will also inspect.
Accident wasn't even my fault!! Cheers guys
|
A question for BR lawyers. If the "value" of the repaired car is less than that of the car before the accident, are you entitled to receive compensation for this loss from the other party? Interested to know your thoughts.
BIG
|
If it is repaired properly, then a third party shouldnt even be able to tell it has been repaired, it wont be on a hitlist and therefore its value should would stay the same as pre accident.
(in an ideal world obviously,thats why i said have inspected before collection as the OP says he will which is excellant news)
Thanks for the feedback OP please keep us updated as it would be nice to hear everything runs smoothly.
|
|
|
... If the "value" of the repaired car is less than that of the car before the accident, are you entitled to receive compensation for this loss from the other party? ...
i.a.n.a.l. and this may not be current, but the answer is yes a.f.a.i.k.
indeed this company offers services in that respect:
amwillis.co.uk/diminution.htm
as they state:
"....imagine two identical vehicles were offered for sale to you, one was totally original and unblemished whilst the other had been accident damaged and repaired. Would you be prepared to pay the same price for the repaired vehicle as was being asked for the unblemished original vehicle ? or would you expect the price to be reduced ? That is what a diminution in value report does. It quantifies the value of a vehicle based upon the vehicles history. Diminution in value following accident damage repair became a valid head of claim in April 1991 when the Insurance Ombudsman, published his annual report. He reversed a previous decision by his predecessor from 1986 and ruled that an insured who can prove that he has a case for diminution in value following repair work, has not been fully indemnified by his insurers. Diminution in value is now a very common claim and can be made by anybody ....
|
|
You learn something new everyday ,well worth remembering .Good one Dalglish.
|
|
|
|
can you give me a case where this is proved then? Dalglish
|
can you give me a case where this is proved then? Dalglish
yes, hj lists some himself:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/motoring_answers/index.htm?id...8
a more recent (scottish one) i knew about is described here:
www.golds.co.uk/updates/e_ins_diminution_may2004.a...p
...Quote from Sheriff Principal MacPhail in Hunter v Thomson:
?In my opinion [the relevant principles] may be applied in the present case in the following way. I make the assumption, necessary for a decision [at this stage], that the pursuer's averments will be proved. The pursuer's car was damaged by the negligence of the defender's employee. As soon as the accident occurred the car suffered a diminution in value as a result of the damage it sustained in the collision. The pursuer sustained loss as a result of that immediate diminution in the value of his property. He appropriately mitigated that loss by having reasonable repairs made to the car. Nevertheless those repairs did not restore the car to its pre-accident value: thus, there remains a continuing, or residual, diminution in the value of the car which has not been extinguished by the repairs. Despite its having been properly repaired, the car is now less valuable, as a repaired vehicle, than it was before the accident. That continuing diminution in value is a natural and direct consequence of the negligent act of the defenders' employee. The pursuer is therefore entitled to recover damages for the continuing diminution in the value of the car.? ....
however, i am not sure if there have been further developments.
|
thanks for that Dalglish
got to say though its still not clear cut and unless you are a solicitor or know a cheap good one it could turn into an expensive litigation
However ,in the context of this post where the car is/was worth £26,000 plus then i personally think its worth an investigation by the op to see if indeed he can get 5 or 10 % of the agreed pre valuation back, assuming that he wasnt the at fault person of the accident.
Ive never seen the hj book by the way,maybe an updated copy would be worth a read, as i read a few months ago that it has not been updated for a while and hj has no intention of doing so?
|
... got to say though its still not clear cut and unless ..
spot on, bell-boy.
as the scottish judge said:
"....Sheriff Principal Macphail went on to quote from the English case Payton v Brooks where Lord Justice Roskill stated:
'I would only add one word of caution. This conclusion is not a charter under which infuriated plaintiffs, who have the misfortune to have their cars damaged by careless drivers, acquire an unfettered right to recover diminution in value in every case in addition to the cost of repairs. It is essential in such a case, in my judgment, for appropriate evidence to be called to prove diminution in value. I do not think that in the ordinary case the burden of proof which rests on the plaintiff would be discharged merely by calling an individual to prove his idiosyncratic view of the particular loss in a particular case. The diminution in market value must be proved by appropriate evidence of the kind usually called when diminution in market value is sought to be proved as a head of damage. Subject to that qualification, it seems to me that this head of damage is recoverable.'
....
|
|
|
|
