Advice on Cat C cars

[Peter DLM]

You'd be wrong. Why would there be any extra premium for a cat c car? When it's been repaired and made roadworthy it's no worse than any other car on the road.

Indeed, this is my opinion also.

Having said that, my insurer last year (Swiftcover) declined to cover my Cat D for this year as they'd discovered its status, why they didn't establish this from the Registration during the application/offer process I don't know. eSure got my business this year.

 

[chord]

You'd be wrong. Why would there be any extra premium for a cat c car? When it's been repaired and made roadworthy it's no worse than any other car on the road.

stand corrected But as has been said some insurers might not cover it, so can be harder to insure.

 

[John_Doe]

Out of interest now has anyone else had an ML and been told by insurance company they want a tracker fitted?

 

[Shude]

Out of interest now has anyone else had an ML and been told by insurance company they want a tracker fitted?

I believe this is quite common, same goes for the CLK and the SLK. Not sure why they are insisting on a tracker though as in some cases the car is only worth a couple of grand

 

[steve333]

I wouldn't have even given £200 - his fault for not checking. You never said it wasn't accident damaged ever did you?

^ +1,buyers responsibility.

 

[steve333]

I think £200 is more than enough so he shouldn't take it any further. I mean, I'm pretty sure my car has been in some sort of collision judging by a strange dent above the grille (a sharp dent) and a poorly resprayed and mended front bumper, and 'missing' history. I'm going to do one of these online checks, but really wouldn't care if it turns out to have been a CAT C. It drives fine, and has been deemed safe and roadworthy (just like the car you sold). If it functions as it should, why should he care.

If a car gets through an mot then it's in roadworthy condition as in the op's case.

 

[steve333]

I believe this is quite common, same goes for the CLK and the SLK. Not sure why they are insisting on a tracker though as in some cases the car is only worth a couple of grand

If you use one of the insurance comparison sites a number of the insurers that come up in a search will ask for a tracker before they insure an mb.

 

[chrissoar1]

The stating as to whether the vehicle has been accident damaged within the notes section of the v5 is only a recent addition. Some people may not realise the history of their car until they send their v5 in for change of details and it comes back with the additional info in the notes section.

I always check the cars history after buying a mk2 jag and only to discover it was stolen. When I tried to sell in on the net, the original owner contacted me to say it was stolen and would be contacting the police. Went to local police station to check it out and it was reported stolen but owner suddenly went quiet and couldn't be contacted. I did finally receive a v5 and was then able to resell. All very strange.

Last four cars have all been accident damaged cat c/d with no problems reselling. No issues with mots. Admittedly 3 were bought from insurance disposal companies. Have always informed buyers as I was aware of history. Cant tell them something if you dont know. After all a check costs less than a tenner if their that interested in the vehicle.

I agree with others, buyer beware.

 

[akhan48]

Don't worry about it mate, he's just threatening you to make you crack. It will cost him time and a small fortune to take legal action. And for what? A $2500 car? Tell him you'll see him in court. He will soon disappear.

 

[brucemillar]

John

I suspect your worry is based on your own honesty. Were you dishonest you would simply shrug it off and tell him where to go. I feel for you, as this is not a nice situation to deal with. The euphoria of the sale soon gets lost in the hassle of things like this.

having said all of that it may be that your buyer is unaware of what Cat-C actually means. If he did not bother to get an HPI then he may not have bothered to do his homework on what a Cat-C actually means. He may simply be thinking he has bought a write-off.

having said all of that, if he will not listen to your honest responses, you may have no option but to tell him to sue and be dammed.

 

[John_Doe]

Just a quick update on this. I offered £200 cash back on Monday as a good will gesture. I have finally heard back from the buyer today. He has said that he is not willing to take £200, if I am willing to meet him half way (£1000) then he will consider the matter settled. So basically I would be selling a 1999 ml320, with 110k, mot and 6months tax, private plate, tracker, meta alarm system, DVD player and sat nav unit installed, with cat c damage 5years ago for £1500! If he wants the £1000 he can take it and give me the car back! lol. Over wise I'm just going to let him take it to the solicitors now because this is just stupid. Thanks for your advice people

 

[MJH]

It's a pain for you but bottom line is it's bad luck for him. It'll teach him to check in future and if he does go to a solicitor he will no doubt tell him not to bother. You may get a letter as a shot across the bows but ignore the first couple and see where it goes before jumping in and wasting your own money.

 

[brucemillar]

John

You have been fair with the guy. He has not got a leg to stand on if he tries to take this further. I know as I was on the other end as a buyer and got caught out. My neighbour is a practicing barrister and we sat down over a bottle for some free advice to me.

As others have said:

Private sale = Buyer beware. Bought as seen. Buyer does all the homework. Unless you can prove that the seller deliberately misled you in some way.

Trade Sale = You have full statutory rights under the sale of goods act which includes refund or put the car right.

If you do get a letter? I would respond politely referring them to the law.

Good luck

 

[janner]

Just a quick update on this. I offered £200 cash back on Monday as a good will gesture.

Did you offer in writing (eg. e-mail)?

 

[mejermy]

Suggest you send a recorded letter summarising the events as you see them, withdrawing your 'without prejudice' goodwill offer and stating that the matter is closed. It's a small claims issue, so he'll receive no significant costs even were he to be succesful, which is extremely unlikely on the facts as you state them.

The world is full of people who expect the state/consumer protection/'the law' to do their due diligence for them, and often retrospectively. Maybe you were just unlucky and found one?

Bonne chance

 

[steve333]

The guy is clearly trying it on,as others have said you've been more than fair & he didn't do the checks he should have before buying,let him waste his money going to a solicitor.

 

[John_Doe]

Did you offer in writing (eg. e-mail)?

Yes it was in a reply to an email