Insuring a Cat N vehicle.

[AMGeed]

My son in law recently had the misfortune to be hit from behind by a car transporter whist waiting at a red traffic light. The impact sent his 04 Reg Volvo Estate about 15ft forward though no air bags were deployed.

Fortunately no injuries of note, daughter#1 had a stiff neck and is claiming for lost time at work, but to cut a long story short, the Volvo has been examined and the cost of repairs more than the car is worth.

He wants to keep the car (got it for a song at £900 last year) and the damage hardly noticable. He has been offered £1650 for the car and a buy back sum of £131.
As the car is in such good condition otherwise and just what he needs and wants, he is going to accept the insurance companies offer and buy back the car and continue driving it as it is for the time being.

His existing insurance company however refuse to continue with his current policy and have cancelled it saying they do not insure Cat N cars. His premium was being paid monthly at £31 pm.

After shopping around, he has managed with some difficulty to obtain cover with Direct Line but the premium is going to set him back £70 pm

He has searched autotrader, Gumtree and eBay and there just isn't another like for like Volvo estate to be found so has sucked it up and taken the Direct Line policy.

So........just a warning really that should you be unfortunate enough to have a bump that results in a Cat N, don't be surprised if your insurance company refuse to insure that vehicle should you wish to repair it and continue to drive it.

 

[bob6600]

Surely a CAT N is worth less than the original car now it has a marker on it? Typical insurance company rules where they err make their own rules! Even though the accident wasn't his fault, his premium will go up. Cannot understand why the insurance company won't cover a CAT N?

 

[markjay]

Can you not find another decent car for the £1650 the insurer is offering?

This would be the most straightforward way to deal with this issue...

I suppose you could in essence forgo the claim and keep the car without it becoming a Cat N, but then you'll be losing-out on the insurance payout.

Seems like you can't have both ways..

 

[zipdip]

Well a little puzzled as to why a CatD/N should cost more to insure,the vehicle is worth less than a car that is not a Cat,so instead of insuring say for £12,000 you insure for £8,000,most insurers ask is the car a Cat,but this will not effect the cost of insurance,if lots of insurance companies started to not insure Cat vehicles then they would not be able to sell the damaged vehicles into the market,which is a important in cash terms for insurance companies,

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Insurers like the ordinary and really don't like anything outside of this.

Perhaps their data shows that people who buy dodgy cars are, well, dodgy.

 

[m2287]

Strange, I insured a cat N e class with Aviva and it made no difference to the policy whatsoever!

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Strange, I insured a cat N e class with Aviva and it made no difference to the policy whatsoever!

Likewise - I’ve owned numerous Cat cars and never had a problem with insurance.

In fact, the XF I own right now is on the register...

 

[chrisk2010]

My first C Class was written off Cat N (formally Cat D) i bought it back, repaired it (all front end damage) and it didn't affect the policy whatsoever.

I vaguelly remember asking them the question before buying it back if it would be affected but they said as long as it passes the MOT (because you have to have it re-mot'd to deem it road worthy) then it doen't make a difference.

Should note this was 10 years ago so may have all changed.

I think just do the math if a new one work out cheaper than keeping and repairing then go that route but if he can buy it back repair and insure cheaper than buying a new one then great.

 

[brucemillar]

My first C Class was written off Cat N (formally Cat D) i bought it back, repaired it (all front end damage) and it didn't affect the policy whatsoever.

I vaguelly remember asking them the question before buying it back if it would be affected but they said as long as it passes the MOT (because you have to have it re-mot'd to deem it road worthy) then it doen't make a difference.

Should note this was 10 years ago so may have all changed.

I think just do the math if a new one work out cheaper than keeping and repairing then go that route but if he can buy it back repair and insure cheaper than buying a new one then great.

I believe this is correct. I base that on my Daughters recent purchase of a CAT 'S' Toyota Aygo. The Insurer wanted to see was, a new MOT to prove road worthiness (hmmm). This was all done on-line and in minutes as we stood in the Dealers Showroom. Car Taxed, MOT already carried by the Dealers agent (on a deposit) V5 Sent Off to DVLA and received back within 7 days.

My Insurers (Adrian Flux) were/are very helpful with this. I was actually really surprised just how quick and stress free, the entire process was, usually if it can go wrong with me? It will go completely wrong.

FYI: The dealer also provided us with a substantial file of before, during and after photographs of the repairs being carried out to the car during the process. We offered these to the insurer who had no interest but asked that we retain them for our own records.

Price wise: There was little or no difference between Cat 'S' and zero markers at all. I am unsure if that is the norm? But the car was only a few months lt had been clonked when stationary by a tail lifted truck that managed to drag his tail lift up the passenger side doors, requiring new doors and paint.

 

[Will]

Is the £70 vs £31 thing more a result of your SIL now declaring the recent accident with the new insurer (and this new insurance company may be less competitive than the old one anyway?) rather than the cat-N status of said car now?

In other words how much would the £70/month company want to insure the car without a marker? I can’t see there being any difference.

And would his old insurance company have re-insured him on a new policy for £31/month now on an equivalent car? My guess is they’ll load his premium anyway due the the accident.

All sounds a bit strange to me, I could understand perhaps if this was his insurer who paid out for the claim and not the TP but even so

But if you look on the positive side of this, he’s been paid out over £1500 and got the car for nothing, even taking away what he bought it for he’s still £600+ up which more than covers the extra on the insurance premium for a year plus easily.

Maybe run the Volvo until it breaks and then scrap it. Hope your daughter and SIL are otherwise okay now though

Regardless of this, there’s plenty of insurance companies who will insure categorised cars, just be aware that they will only pay out market value though in the event of a claim. Cat-N by its very nature refers to a non structural claim and will have only been written off due to the low value of the car (ie somewhere between the £900-1650 payout)

If it was a 14 plate and not an 04 you can pretty much guarantee it would have been a quick trip to the bodyshop with no marker resulting. Something to think about for those who say they would never buy a categorised car

Who are the old insurers btw?

 

[BTB 500]

I suppose you could in essence forgo the claim and keep the car without it becoming a Cat N, but then you'll be losing-out on the insurance payout.

Indeed, and you'd still have to declare the (non-fault) accident for the next 5(?) years with a risk of increased premiums even though you never actually claimed.

 

[219]

My son in law recently had the misfortune to be hit from behind by a car transporter whist waiting at a red traffic light. The impact sent his 04 Reg Volvo Estate about 15ft forward though no air bags were deployed.

Fortunately no injuries of note, daughter#1 had a stiff neck and is claiming for lost time at work, but to cut a long story short, the Volvo has been examined and the cost of repairs more than the car is worth.

He wants to keep the car (got it for a song at £900 last year) and the damage hardly noticable. He has been offered £1650 for the car and a buy back sum of £131.
As the car is in such good condition otherwise and just what he needs and wants, he is going to accept the insurance companies offer and buy back the car and continue driving it as it is for the time being.

His existing insurance company however refuse to continue with his current policy and have cancelled it saying they do not insure Cat N cars. His premium was being paid monthly at £31 pm.

After shopping around, he has managed with some difficulty to obtain cover with Direct Line but the premium is going to set him back £70 pm

He has searched autotrader, Gumtree and eBay and there just isn't another like for like Volvo estate to be found so has sucked it up and taken the Direct Line policy.

So........just a warning really that should you be unfortunate enough to have a bump that results in a Cat N, don't be surprised if your insurance company refuse to insure that vehicle should you wish to repair it and continue to drive it.

Why doesn't he accept a lesser sum in lieu of repairs . The car will then not be written off .

Equally , if he simply decided not to proceed with the claim , the car would not be written off . It is only written off once the policyholder accepts a settlement .

 

[Will]

For £1650 for a £900 car he’d recently bought he’d be crazy not to take the money. Especially as he can keep the car and still have over £1500 (in other words over £600 more than he bought it for and the car for nothing!)

 

[E55BOF]

Is the £70 vs £31 thing more a result of your SIL now declaring the recent accident with the new insurer (and this new insurance company may be less competitive than the old one anyway?) rather than the cat-N status of said car now?

There's the answer, I reckon. It would be easy to confirm; get online quotes for the same car, but with no recent accident in his driving history.

 

[AMGeed]

Strange, I insured a cat N e class with Aviva and it made no difference to the policy whatsoever!

Likewise - I’ve owned numerous Cat cars and never had a problem with insurance.

In fact, the XF I own right now is on the register...

I don't recall which company the car was insured with but any Cat marked car is a no no with them.

He really shopped around trying to find alternative cover and Direct Line were one of the only companies to agree to insure a Cat N.

Re the £70 V £31 increase, I also expect this is because he has had to declare a non fault accident.
An outrageous decision IMO considering he is waiting at a red light and gets hit from behind? Where is his blame in that?

Just as a matter of course, I too got hit back in 2013 and my insurance was not increased by a penny. Not all companies apply the rule it appears.

 

[BTB 500]

I think weighting for non-fault accidents is a relatively recent thing. My wife got hit from behind in her own car (all sorted by the other insurance, no problem or dispute, no other accidents) and it didn't affect her insurance but the renewal for my SL (which she's a named driver on) went up by £100 when we declared it! Declined the renewal and re-insured elsewhere for less than the original renewal quote, so a happy ending.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

I think that insurance underwriters have data to show that those involved in a no fault accident are statistically more likely to have another.

 

[AMGeed]

I think that insurance underwriters have data to show that those involved in a no fault accident are statistically more likely to have another.

Which is a crazy conclusion in the case of my Son in Law.
How is he more likely to be involved in another accident, fault or non fault, because he was waiting at a red traffic light and got hit from behind?

I hate insurance companies with a vengeance. Just another necessary evil in my book.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Which is a crazy conclusion in the case of my Son in Law.
How is he more likely to be involved in another accident, fault or non fault, because he was waiting at a red traffic light and got hit from behind?

I hate insurance companies with a vengeance. Just another necessary evil in my book.

I don’t know, maybe he should move to Scotland for a bit, one of the locals was boasting about a lack of traffic lights up there.

 

[E55BOF]

Insurance companies judge risk purely on actuarial statistics, and the statistics show that drivers who have had a recent accident are more likely to have another than those who haven't. It's not bloody fair to those who have a non-fault accident, but that's the way they do it. Necessary evil they are.

Declining to insure previous insurance write-offs is a new one on me, though. You'd think they'd be keen to do it; the premium would be the same as for a car with no adverse history, but if it all turned to rat sh!t the payout would be less. Perhaps the statistics show previous write-offs are more likely to be involved in accidents.