Write off or Repair??

[Skylarking]

UPDATE - assessor reviewed the quote (it came in at $7500) and then called me to ask what I wanted to do. He recommended write off as he said there was evidence that the timing chain was on the fritz and that would just cost me more money in the end. Thanks for all your helpful advice.

Not sure what you mean... if the “quote” you mention is the repair estimate, then as you have an agreed market policy that lists your cars writeoff value as $7200, then it is a writeoff. Not sure why the assessor would be asking you what you want to do?

If the “quote” is their offer for payout, then you are on a market value policy which is confusing as you’ve said you are on an agreed value policy.

Also not sure why the assessor would be talking about cost to repair timing chains as such would be understandable if you were on a market value policy where they try all sorts of tricks to have you accept the notion that their payout figure is fair (but in your case it’s not relevant in an agreed value policy).

I‘d re-read your insurance policy to clearly work out what sort of policy you are on... I’d also ask the claims clerk the question “am I on a market value policy”.

No idea. I haven’t gone back to see the car and I don’t drive it (hubby does). The assessor said it had relatively low kms for its age but didn’t say how much sorry.

The normal case is that a low mileage example is worth more than a higher milage example, sometimes much more.

Seems like you need the conditions of your policy clarifies because if you are on a market value policy you need to check whether you can actually buy your model with similar kms for the money they offer. if not you need to counter with the advertisements as proof their payout is deficient.

I know I’m labouring the point but when dealing with insurance claims, you really need to understand the terminology and the terms of your policy and fight for the best outcome, otherwise you will be shortchanged .

 

[Skylarking]

The car in question came from an auction and no one knew how long or what sort of water the vehicle was in.....However it is clear, the vehicle was obviously in water long enough to be classified as a economic write off, having a starter cactus because water got into it....A 5 minute dunk in fresh water don't stuff them up....Maybe a 5 minute dunk in salt water would

Then I'll mention about my brothers 2000 model 4 pot Camry...He went through a flooded road in surburban Brissy...Yeah, he was an idiot...The car stalled because it went in to the flooded road....That car would have been in rain water for 10 minutes and they wrote that off as a statutory write off, yet the Mitsubishi 380 I'm referring to wasn't....

So what you wrote doesn't ring true....I have just mentioned about 2 different cars, that have been subjected to 2 different write off statuses, with one not ringing true to what you wrote due to the unknown circumstances behind the write off...The other does, but if we believe what you wrote, the Camry shouldn't have been a stat write off...

Economic writeoff classification is related to cost of repair while statutory writeoff classification is rules based. From SA gov web site, Damage Assessment Criteria for the Classification of Statutory Write-Offs defines the rules... and I’ll quote the following:

About this guide​

This guide is intended to be used by insurance personnel and other notifiers who are required to classify WOVs for regulatory purposes. It has been prepared on the basis that it provides sufficient technical precision to be able to be expressly referenced as an incorporated instrument under State and Territory law should a jurisdiction wish to do so.​

​

Even Criteria​

Water damage criteria​

Where the internal cabin of a vehicle is inundated with any water (fresh, salt and/or brackish water) such that the internal cabin water level rises above the level of the inner door sill for any period the vehicle is to be classified as a SWO.​

The fact that the SA, docs state that water level is the overriding event factor, rather than length of time a vehicle is submerged under water, as I stated, seems to imply the rules have tightened since I last looked into water damaged cars years ago.

Since the SA Gove puts this doc up I’d assume SA gov wants these rules followed. I’d expect Sa insurance companies are assessing against the SA SWO rules.

In your Mitsubishi/Camry example, why the difference, who knows. All I can suggest is that maybe someone didn’t do their job correctly. Sadly it’s not unheard of within our bureaucracies that staff are often poorly trained and/or don’t care about work ethics...

What may be interesting is that insurance companies seem to move water damaged cars around Australia, ones damaged in one state are often sold in another states... Maybe there are some minor differences between states which allow such loopholes to be exploited buy these greedy insurance companies...

Me, just called it as I know it

 

[Natbart23]

Not sure what you mean... if the “quote” you mention is the repair estimate, then as you have an agreed market policy that lists your cars writeoff value as $7200, then it is a writeoff. Not sure why the assessor would be asking you what you want to do?

If the “quote” is their offer for payout, then you are on a market value policy which is confusing as you’ve said you are on an agreed value policy.

Also not sure why the assessor would be talking about cost to repair timing chains as such would be understandable if you were on a market value policy where they try all sorts of tricks to have you accept the notion that their payout figure is fair (but in your case it’s not relevant in an agreed value policy).

I‘d re-read your insurance policy to clearly work out what sort of policy you are on... I’d also ask the claims clerk the question “am I on a market value policy”.
The normal case is that a low mileage example is worth more than a higher milage example, sometimes much more.

Seems like you need the conditions of your policy clarifies because if you are on a market value policy you need to check whether you can actually buy your model with similar kms for the money they offer. if not you need to counter with the advertisements as proof their payout is deficient.

I know I’m labouring the point but when dealing with insurance claims, you really need to understand the terminology and the terms of your policy and fight for the best outcome, otherwise you will be shortchanged .

Insured value is $7700, quote for repairs came to $7500 so they have decided it would be economical to write off unless I had a significant attachment to the car and wanted to press for repair.
I understand my policy. Simply worded it wrong in the previous comments.

 

[vc commodore]

Economic writeoff classification is related to cost of repair while statutory writeoff classification is rules based. From SA gov web site, Damage Assessment Criteria for the Classification of Statutory Write-Offs defines the rules... and I’ll quote the following:

About this guide​

This guide is intended to be used by insurance personnel and other notifiers who are required to classify WOVs for regulatory purposes. It has been prepared on the basis that it provides sufficient technical precision to be able to be expressly referenced as an incorporated instrument under State and Territory law should a jurisdiction wish to do so.​

​

Even Criteria​

Water damage criteria​

Where the internal cabin of a vehicle is inundated with any water (fresh, salt and/or brackish water) such that the internal cabin water level rises above the level of the inner door sill for any period the vehicle is to be classified as a SWO.​

The fact that the SA, docs state that water level is the overriding event factor, rather than length of time a vehicle is submerged under water, as I stated, seems to imply the rules have tightened since I last looked into water damaged cars years ago.

Since the SA Gove puts this doc up I’d assume SA gov wants these rules followed. I’d expect Sa insurance companies are assessing against the SA SWO rules.

In your Mitsubishi/Camry example, why the difference, who knows. All I can suggest is that maybe someone didn’t do their job correctly. Sadly it’s not unheard of within our bureaucracies that staff are often poorly trained and/or don’t care about work ethics...

What may be interesting is that insurance companies seem to move water damaged cars around Australia, ones damaged in one state are often sold in another states... Maybe there are some minor differences between states which allow such loopholes to be exploited buy these greedy insurance companies...

Me, just called it as I know it

So water being half way up a cars body obviously isn't classed as a reason to have it as a statuary write off.

Seriously mate, you are quoting all this stuff with absolutely no idea on how things actually work...So best you not comment on things you know nothing about

Oh and the 2 different cars are from 2 different states.....So again something you don't know anything about

 

[Skylarking]

So water being half way up a cars body obviously isn't classed as a reason to have it as a statuary write off.

Seriously mate, you are quoting all this stuff with absolutely no idea on how things actually work...So best you not comment on things you know nothing about

Oh and the 2 different cars are from 2 different states.....So again something you don't know anything about

Seems you can’t be bothered to comprehend that there are rules for “insurance personnel and other notifiers who are required to classify WOVs for regulatory purposes” . They are not my rules but rules adopted by SA.

You also can’t be bothered comprehending what those rules that I linked to actually mean. Again not my rules but rules adopted by SA.

Seems your only interest is to find fault with my posts, something that’s occurred on this thread and on many other thread... Thats stalking behaviour...

What is clear is that if any water gets into the cabin up to the level of the door sill for any duration, the vehicle must be classified as a SWO, according to the doc on the SA Gove web site.

Why wasn’t the Mitsubishi classified as a SWO? I’ve got no idea as your weren’t specific as to the damage. I wasn’t at the auction I didn’t question the auctioneer and/or check the RWO documentation (which should clearly spell out the level of damage). Maybe the Mitsubish’s nose was dropped in a dam where no water got into the cabin... Who knows, as I said, maybe someone didn’t do their job correctly when classifying the writeoff status...

Wow, I said fresh water immersion for a specific duration results in a SWO classification and in your perspective the world no longer revolves around the sun.

Frankly, I posted to try and help @Natbart23 in the hope she won’t HDT screwed over by her insurance company (as can often occur). Maybe I did help her, maybe not....

You contribution is to rubbish my post, not based on factual references that clarify the rules but on what you see as two anomalies that fit your stalking agenda.

Reality is I don’t see any real contribution on your part to help OP, only more of your stalking and misguided fault finding to correct some perceived wrong. You need to grow up and leave me alone...

 

[Natbart23]

Thanks everyone for your advice and education!

 

[VS 5.0]

You need to grow up and leave me alone...

Add to ignore list.

 

[vc commodore]

Seems you can’t be bothered to comprehend that there are rules for “insurance personnel and other notifiers who are required to classify WOVs for regulatory purposes” . They are not my rules but rules adopted by SA.

You also can’t be bothered comprehending what those rules that I linked to actually mean. Again not my rules but rules adopted by SA.

Seems your only interest is to find fault with my posts, something that’s occurred on this thread and on many other thread... Thats stalking behaviour...

What is clear is that if any water gets into the cabin up to the level of the door sill for any duration, the vehicle must be classified as a SWO, according to the doc on the SA Gove web site.

Why wasn’t the Mitsubishi classified as a SWO? I’ve got no idea as your weren’t specific as to the damage. I wasn’t at the auction I didn’t question the auctioneer and/or check the RWO documentation (which should clearly spell out the level of damage). Maybe the Mitsubish’s nose was dropped in a dam where no water got into the cabin... Who knows, as I said, maybe someone didn’t do their job correctly when classifying the writeoff status...

Wow, I said fresh water immersion for a specific duration results in a SWO classification and in your perspective the world no longer revolves around the sun.

Frankly, I posted to try and help @Natbart23 in the hope she won’t HDT screwed over by her insurance company (as can often occur). Maybe I did help her, maybe not....

You contribution is to rubbish my post, not based on factual references that clarify the rules but on what you see as two anomalies that fit your stalking agenda.

Reality is I don’t see any real contribution on your part to help OP, only more of your stalking and misguided fault finding to correct some perceived wrong. You need to grow up and leave me alone...

I did say it didn't ring true to your statement and even with all this stuff you have posted up, the statement still rings true....They don't write off all cars dunked in water, even if it is some bungle with beaurcrats...These write offs are bought from pickles auctions...This mob sell cars on behalf of insurance companies.....

Yeah true...I don't have any photographic documentation of the car in question, nor do I have access to the VIN number anymore, as I have left that particular employer 10 years ago......I also have no hope of obtaining these details, as that employer has since retired....

I would also have difficulty obtaining details of the QLD car, as it happened about 10 years ago to and since then, my brother has been through a few cars, so chances of him remembering those details are very slim at best

 

[shane_3800]

Add to ignore list.

Best thing I ever did.