I wondered whether it's just me being cynical, but I wondered if anyone can shed any light on this?
Am currently dealing with my wife's car insurance claim. Due to the age of the car (2001), the insurer has deemed the car a 'total loss' because it sustained cosmetic damage in an accident (a fifty-fifty), which would be close to the value of the car to rectify. My wife wants to keep the car as the damage is cosmetic and the vehicle is otherwise OK and drives fine.
The insurer has valued the car at £1100 (a valuation I'm OK with, it's in the middle range of Glass' guide figures). They will deduct the excess (£150) from that amount, which is fair. They also want to take a 20% 'Scrappage charge' from the figure, leaving my wife with a sum total of £750.
When I spoke to the insurer, the Scrappage charge is due because my wife is choosing to hang onto the car and not scrap it. The insurer also said that this is because they don't make any money from scrapping the car, which they would have done otherwise.
My point is - surely that's irrelevant, as it's not their car to sell - it's my wife's car. As far as I'm concerned, my wife is paying her insurer to a) Insure her car and b) act in her best interests in doing so.
As an aside, I don't understand why a scrappage charge would be on a percentage scale either – surely a scrapyard wouldn't care much between vehicles? The cynic in me says it's just a good way for an insurer to make more money than a flat fee on more expensive cars.
Am I just being cynical? Don't insurers make enough money in premiums as it is?
|