Cat D Write offs

[crockers]

I'm looking at Insurance Grp 1 or 2 cars for my granddaughter and have noted that there are a few Peugeot 107 or similar which are cat D write offs...

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....m=140209725215&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=004

and

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....m=150218153005&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=005

What exactly does Cat D mean? Is it something to shy away from? Surely an insurance company wouldnt write something off if it could repair it - or does this come under if it costs more than 60% to repair in the first year scenario?

One confused crocker needing enlightenment...

 

[Dieselman]

Cat D is the least damaged and is written off on cost grounds. It doesn't require a VIC check before a new V5 can be issued.

As long as the price is right and the seller says what the work is then buy it.

Forgot to say a vehicle can be written off due to being under an insurance clause say within the first year, that any damage and it gets replaced.

 

[television]

I would have thought that either of those would make a very good buy.

It will always look smart and modern, it is not an MB so it is not so criticle with the cat D thing, after all it will in a few years just be a run around and something that you do not worry about while parked in tesco

 

[Dieselman]

Given the price and age difference the Peugeot makes the better buy but has slightly less image.
They are the same car in reality and are built in the same factory.

 

[bolide]

My bodyshop has a late model Peugeot hatchback in. There is no front panel - no strength at all between the arches in front of the engine. The front panel and bumper are plastic. The bonnet has the structural rigidity of a lettuce leaf

The car has had a front-end smack and is bent. It's fixable but, having seen it, I would never ever recommend a small hatchback of that type for a young driver

I see far, far too many fatal single-vehicle accidents in Sussex newspapers to consider a small hatchback suitable for an inexperienced driver. They may pass NCAP but they're too small and too cheap to survive serious accidents

Nick Froome
www.w124.co.uk

 

[Piff]

We bought a Citroen C2 with similar history about a year ago. The guy didn't advertise that it was accident/repaired but on inspection we could see uneven panel gap on front wing/bonnet. Checked further and found overspray under the bonnet. Asked the guy and he was quite open about the repairs, showed us other vehicles he had ready to be repaired.
Damage to ours was front nearside corner - but was priced about £1000 below book price.
About 6 months ago the better half had a go at a bollard in Tesco's carpark with the same nearside front corner.
Damage caused was cracked bumper, kinked wing, twisted bonnet, broken headlight mountings.
On "fixing" this (we have only replaced headlamp, un-twisted bonnet and minor pulling on wing as 17 year old son is learning to drive at the moment!) we discovered some of the corners cut by the repairer we bought the car from:-
insulation tape holding back of fog light together
bonnet catch bodged
various mis-matched fixings for wing, bumper & bonnet
cheap plastic fixings re-used rather than replaced
etc.

If we had bought a perfect car, it would now be accident/repaired!!!

I agree that these small cars are quite flimsy and would do little to protect in an accident, however, for a beginner driver, insurance costs are crippling and group 1/group 2 cars are all small & flimsy.

If you are considering an accident/repaired vehicle, check it carefully for quality of repair and, if repair quality acceptable, then pay a reduced price.

We are relatively happy with ours - it's a lot nicer car than we would have got for the same money without being accident/repaired

 

[crockers]

My bodyshop has a late model Peugeot hatchback in. There is no front panel - no strength at all between the arches in front of the engine. The front panel and bumper are plastic. The bonnet has the structural rigidity of a lettuce leaf

The car has had a front-end smack and is bent. It's fixable but, having seen it, I would never ever recommend a small hatchback of that type for a young driver

I see far, far too many fatal single-vehicle accidents in Sussex newspapers to consider a small hatchback suitable for an inexperienced driver. They may pass NCAP but they're too small and too cheap to survive serious accidents

Nick Froome
www.w124.co.uk

Thanks Nick - Now you have me thinking - what would you recommend bearing in mind she is 17 and insurance costs are horrendous...

Cheers

 

[A210AMG]

Have to say both of those cars look very small, and if I hit it or something larger.....

Also Cat D what does that mean when you insure it?

Apparently the Astras have a good saftey rating and a bit larger. Think for my daughter I would want something a little safer ?

Saying that I had a Pug 205 GTi when I was 18, the mechanic at work always use to joke the only thinner steel is what you use to wrap your turkey up with at Christmas. With a wet sponge on the roof it would push the panel in !!! great car though

 

[jaymanek]

Nissan Micra

 

[bigalcam]

what would you recommend bearing in mind she is 17 and insurance costs are horrendous...

Cheers

To be honest I think it's a good idea for new inexperienced drivers to have an older car for the first year or so. It's not so hard on them when it gets scuffed in the multi-story car park or bashed off a kerb. It also allows them to get the feel of what they like/don't like about a car and therefore make a better informed decision when the time comes for the new one.

On your insurance point would it work out better going third party (perhaps without fire & theft?) on an older car. If you have an "at fault" accident or it gets nicked you're pretty stuffed, but then again if it's only worth a grand or so then it would be less of a loss than a year's depreciation on a £5000 car.

My fiancee's mate had a Toyota Starlet for about a year and a half when she passed her test. It cost her £900 and she got £600 back as a trade in for her Honda Jazz.

 

[Piff]

Fully comp in wifes name with me & 17 year old son as named drivers on C2 1.1 = £510. Protected NCD £600. TPFT only marginally cheaper.
TPFT for 17 year old, me & wife as named drivers £940!!! Fully comp £1600+
We've taken the protected NCD option and hope number 1 son is more careful than I was at his age! He will earn named driver NCD (Direct Line policy) and hopefully we can get him on his own insurance in a years time.
I believe 1.0L Vauxhall Corsa is group 1 insurance and there are loads available at www.Autotrader.co.uk. When I last looked for the 17yr old they were £650 upwards, 1998 onwards for mileages of less than 80K.
It just seemed a bit sick paying £700 for a corsa and then being asked £940 for a years TPFT insurance.

 

[glojo]

Whenever riders asked me about cheap crash helmets I always used to say, "A cheap helmet for a cheap head!"

I cannot put a value on our children and I cringe at the thought of letting my daughter buy a car that was once a write off. I gaurantee that whenever you go to buy an ex write-off the seller will explain how the repair was perfect and you have nothing to worry about.

On "fixing" this (we have only replaced headlamp, un-twisted bonnet and minor pulling on wing we discovered some of the corners cut by the repairer we bought the car from:-
insulation tape holding back of fog light together bonnet catch bodged
various mis-matched fixings for wing, bumper & bonnet cheap plastic fixings re-used rather than replaced etc.

Please think long and hard before taking the plunge.

Regards
John

 

[A210AMG]

Agree with above.

What price for piece of mind....

At that age lets be honest the 'chance' of an accident IS higher.

 

[Piff]

Whenever riders asked me about cheap crash helmets I always used to say, "A cheap helmet for a cheap head!"

I cannot put a value on our children and I cringe at the thought of letting my daughter buy a car that was once a write off. I gaurantee that whenever you go to buy an ex write-off the seller will explain how the repair was perfect and you have nothing to worry about.

On "fixing" this (we have only replaced headlamp, un-twisted bonnet and minor pulling on wing we discovered some of the corners cut by the repairer we bought the car from:-
insulation tape holding back of fog light together bonnet catch bodged
various mis-matched fixings for wing, bumper & bonnet cheap plastic fixings re-used rather than replaced etc.

Please think long and hard before taking the plunge.

Regards
John

This grade of "write off" is superficial damage where the cost of repair at an insurance approved bodyshop makes the insurance company look at the financial options.
My company recently had a van (Nissan Cabstar) run into the back of an A Class at a pedestrian crossing (A Class with plastic tailgate & plastic bumper).
The A class cost £1800 to repair.
With our van, the cost to repair was around £3500. The insurance company agreed to "write it off", paying us £4600 (we were thinking of changing it at the time).
They then sold it to a salvage company, presumably making up more than the difference between £3500 and £4600.
The van was then sold on, repaired, and was back on the road within 3 weeks.

I agree with your comment regarding children & safety, but if the damage (catagory D) is only a bent wing and a broken headlight/fog light the phrase "write off" is a financial statement rather than more serious grades of "write off" which cannot be safely repaired and should not be back on the road in the hands of our offspring or any one else.

When a vehicle value is low before an accident, even the slightest damage can result in a "write off".

Can anyone here say that they have never had a minor accident, had the car repaired at their own (or their insurance companies) cost and not continued to drive the vehicle? Is this necessarily unsafe?

I think it has been said before - check it carefully and, if satisfied, pay a reduced price.

 

[Fady]

A cat D means a car is uneconomical to repair from an insurance perspective. So say a car is that was worth 2K has a crash and requires 3K's worth of work from the insurer's recommended body shop, then it get's written off. This of course does not mean that an alternative garage could not do the work for a lesser price. And once this work is done, as I understand it, the car has to undergo stringent safety checks. You can't just put any old bag of nails back on the road!!!! So as with any car that has been in an accident, it's about the quality of the repair.

 

[TonyVianoAmbiente]

I see far, far too many fatal single-vehicle accidents in Sussex newspapers to consider a small hatchback suitable for an inexperienced driver. They may pass NCAP but they're too small and too cheap to survive serious accidents.

Did you see the Fifth Gear programme where they crashed a Volvo 940 (if I recall correctly) head on into a Renault Modus? The Modus has a 5 star NCAP rating but looked terribly flimsy next to the old Volvo.

Anyway, the collision was severe. Both cars sustained a lot of damage. But surprisingly, the Modus came off best by a significant margin. The crumple zones worked and the safety cell was almost untouched. The front of the Volvo was demolished, and the driver would have had serious injuries.

So perhaps we shouldn't be too quick to judge the crashworthiness of today's apparently flimsy hatchbacks.

 

[A210AMG]

Hello I agree with some of the points made above...

How ever I also see pictures of cars that say 'cat D' or minor damage...and I'm sorry but I would hate to see some peoples version of heavy damage

What would insurance be like insuring a car for a 17 yr old with a Cat D car??

I'm sure there are some great buys to be had but just not for me thanks.


Sorry I would rather buy and older if needs be car that is 'genuine' rather than a Cat D one especially for our daugher (athough a few yrs off yet..)

 

[Will]

I can see both views here and respect everyone with their decisions, however tiff makes some very good points - 'write off' is a financial term, some newer, expensive cars suffer horrific damage and are routinely repaired because it's financially 'worth it' for the insurance company.

A good example of a write-off that's actually very little damage would be with older cars, the repair costs would represent more of the vehicle's value, and hence can make a decent repair possible with, say, secondhand parts or lower labour costs.

John has also highlighted something which I find amusing, almost every vehicle with a condition alert category against it is described as how it had the very slightest amount of damage, or some other story...

Remember, any money saved when buying these cars is normally later lost when it become time to sell, a lot of people HPI check cars nowadays and it will be a considerable factor for the vehicle's value for the first 10 years or so I'd say.

Will

 

[glojo]

You can't just put any old bag of nails back on the road!!!! So as with any car that has been in an accident, it's about the quality of the repair.

I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree over this issue as I strongly believe that buying one of these vehicles is a gamble, and in life we all have to assess the odds whenever we take any action.

These so called repairs can indeed be done by a reputable dealer but please think about what your saying. The vehicle is usually beyond an economical repair, so the first thing a prospective buyer will be told is that the damage was confined to easily replaceable parts and none of which were load bearing. This is what might be said. The reality might be completely different. The reality might be that the structural part has been replaced by another wrote off vehicle an the part that is fitted has already been stresses, there is absolutely no way we can tell. Look underneath a modern vehicle and we will usually see plastic covering, and then there will be rubberised paint, all of this can be hiding plastic putty, chewing gum, body filler or plain ropey welding. 'Cheap helmet for a cheap head'.

The car might have undergone a very expensive repair with all the damaged parts replaced by new bits and if this is the case the the repair workshop would not object in showing the receipts for all the new pieces. Who hear has bought a damaged repaired car and been shown receipts for new pieces?

On "fixing" this (we have only replaced headlamp, un-twisted bonnet and minor pulling on wing we discovered some of the corners cut by the repairer we bought the car from:-
insulation tape holding back of fog light together bonnet catch bodged
various mis-matched fixings for wing, bumper & bonnet cheap plastic fixings re-used rather than replaced etc.

Imagine your daughter or son driving at 70mph along the motorway in the car you bought them and all of a sudden the bonnet flies through the windscreen because of a bodged bonnet catch. Could we live with ourselves because we saved a few pounds. Did the seller of this CAT D write off tell the buyer he used cheap bits for the repair, or did he say it was an excellent, first class repair that was a bargain? I feel very passionate about this because I have seen the end results and also helped out in a number of these back street repair outfits (only for very short periods)

Stolen recovered vehicles might be okee dokee but check to see they are a genuine stolen recovered vehicle and not someone flogging a repaired one

John

 

[Fady]

Before you arrive at a Cat D, there's also Cat A (beyond repair - must be crushed), Cat B (can be used for spares), Cat C (extensive damage but repairable) and then Cat D (insurance company decides not to repair).

I most probably would not buy a Cat D myself because asides, from the safety aspect which having read around the subject I would be satisfied with - I get upset by even a minor stonechip! So the thought of panel gaps being out etc. would really put me out.

But how can we not believe that a car classified as a cat D is not road worthy??? Surely we would ALL be at risk if such vehicles would permitted to take to the road. So for example, in the case John highlights, an innocent party in a brand spanking new car that has only just been taken delivery of might still suffer as the unsighted driver veers into their path.

But even within Cat D's there are categories within categories. The person making the judgement on behalf of the insurer, i.e. the assessor is usually one man - albeit qualified to do the job. I've heard reports of a different bloke coming along on a diffferent day and deeming a car previously classified as a D by someone else as a C. So there is an element of guesswork. It's like anything. How do you really know how much a repair is going to cost until you start the job. And as I said previously, it's down to the quality of the repair - after all every car begins it life as a multitude of parts.