cat c and cars with low miles

[maxi.man]

there has been a lot of cat c/d cars for sale lately with low miles. im just guessing it took so long to rebuild them all the straight unmolested un twisted chassis cars that retain every nut and bolt etc where being used thus adding mileage. seems when a ordinary straight car comes up for sale not much fuss is made about it. just look at recent posts in for sale section anyoner got any comments

 

[Ali]

I think you're right in some respects. I'm certain that some CAT D cars etc are probably in considerably better condition than some straight cars...But i wouldn't buy a CAT D are and i wouldn't pay more for one than a straight car. (Personal view)

 

[v6clo]

I've bin looking at TVR's for the last year or so and it seams that all the better spec ones or low mileage ones have some sort of odd or bad history with them. I would have never said two years ago that I would buy a cat D car but It looks like I might have to end up with buying one but I wouldn't dream of paying top money for it. I'd much rather buy one that's still needs repair work to it.
I guess that when cars like this and v6 become rarer the nice clean cars with no bad history will be kept and the no so good will be sold? I've always though of cat D/C cars a cheaper way of getting into them. Maybe a bit of a snobbish thing that but that's always the way I've thought.

 

[R5turbo2]

I agree I wouldn't pay more for a cat car than a straight one but there aren't many vees that haven't had panel damage or something repainted and the owners of these cars wouldn't tell you when selling or don't wont people to know

 

[Ali]

Panel damage is one thing...It's the mindset behind the "Recorded on V Car Register" that is off putting for most and indeed me!

I.e. i sconned a fox and need a new bumper, i have no issue with people knowing that. it's no different from replacing a windscreen or correcting warranty issues!

 

[k1ano]

IMHO - quite simply it boils down to one standard thing ... the market forces of 'supply and demand' ... PERIOD.

Doesn't everyone want the 'perfect' car ? ... but what is the definition of this and the spectrum of cars between 'worst' and 'perfect' ... in fact what is 'worst' when even Mk2 escorts (recent post somewhere) are being restored after being burnt out ... What are even the categorisations in the spectrum ?

So everything which deviates a car from 'perfect' has an influence on whether someone will buy it based on their own perspective and circumstances not to mention ultimately the cost and perceived value for money. Consider also the fact that some prospective owners also can't afford the 'perfect' car (even if there is such a thing) and may not want the 'perfect' car. 'Perfection' may mean different things to different people, even simply owning a Vee of any kind could be an owners idea of 'perfection'.

Personally I wouldn't buy a cat C/D car if I didn't have too - that is largely because at the moment I could afford any car available for sale and so could make a wider choice. However if there was something unique/essential about a car which restricted my choice i.e. the technical grey colour of one of the cars currently for sale, then my decision factors may need to be modified to include cat C/D and all of the extra research and impacts associated with that choice.

Martin

 

[Alpineandy]

I'd have no problem buying a cat d provided it was checked over by someone I trust.
I think I'd be ok with a cat c on a similar basis.
BUT they would have to cost less than a non-damaged car.

In 10 years time there won't be any difference in the value of them but for the moment there is, and it will continue until a car gets to a 'classic' age. This stupid 'cat' system needs to be canned.

 

[Ali]

When i binned my old 1.2 Clio, it was a CAT D then, everytime i got a weird rattle or a knock or a funny pull on the road, it made me think CAT D! For that reason alone, i would never buy one!

Then again CAT D can be water damage/Stolen Recovery, which negates my point above!

 

[Brett]

Well after our well looked after 172 was facing cat D status this month, my opinion is that D stands for Dick head insurance companies. To me its a catagory that says the insurance company was too bone idle to fix a perfectly good car. I'm mean what's a "finacial write off"?!! Our repair bill came to £900. £400 of which would have been paid by us. They still said it would have been a write off and unless it was of a certain age they would have no intentions of repairing it. End result would be them paying me £1700 book price and me having to dig out another £1000 for a similar car. Needless to say, I withdrew our claim and will be fixing the paint myself.
In my opinion, if the car has had zero structual damage then no cat of any kind should be given and the insurance companies should be made to pay. If there is no law saying they should be made to pay fully or fix a car that is structually sound, then there should be no law in making me pay for a particular service that offers nothing in return of a year payment.

 

[rabbitstew]

Well after our well looked after 172 was facing cat D status this month, my opinion is that D stands for d*ck head insurance companies. To me its a catagory that says the insurance company was too bone idle to fix a perfectly good car. I'm mean what's a "finacial write off"?!! Our repair bill came to £900. £400 of which would have been paid by us. They still said it would have been a write off and unless it was of a certain age they would have no intentions of repairing it. End result would be them paying me £1700 book price and me having to dig out another £1000 for a similar car. Needless to say, I withdrew our claim and will be fixing the paint myself.
In my opinion, if the car has had zero structual damage then no cat of any kind should be given and the insurance companies should be made to pay. If there is no law saying they should be made to pay fully or fix a car that is structually sound, then there should be no law in making me pay for a particular service that offers nothing in return of a year payment.

Ive had quite a few dealings with insurance companies over the years and they always make my blood boil. With regards to the payout, regardless of what the book says, in my experience they pay you what it would cost you to buy a similar car. So you should not be out of pocket on it. Sure, their first offer is always a bit of a joke as they like to try it on because a lot of people just accept it. But, in all of the cases ive been involved in with written off vehicles, they have paid out the cost of replacing the car based upon what a similar spec / mileage / age car would cost to buy from a dealer on autotrader.

With regards to write off criteria, a lot of it is labour costs and with a car like the clio v6, even if its structurally sound, the cost of replacement panels. Although now I notice a lot of insurance companies dont use new panels and get the body shop to just repair the damaged panels to save costs.

 

[rustedandrotten]

What has been forgotten is that there are thousands of cars running around out there that have been shunted crumped and bashed, then fixed by insurance companies and these do not show on the register or they have been third party write offs that again do not show. Half the time you will never know as the value of a two week old car is considerably more than a six year old banger and so the amount of work to write a car off drops accordingly. There is also the situation where some insurance companies replace new for old in the first 12 months which leads to large numbers of Cat D vehicles which in turn are sold off rapidly to recoup and minimise losses.

As always 'Caveat Emptor'!!