I don't really understand your CAT (insurance?) ratings....

[enzed4]

I was checking out the UK ebay this morning (why not...) when I noticed what looks to be an absolute bargain E89
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2014-BMW-...848433?hash=item1a158f15b1:g:hwEAAOSwjXRXZE1-

I honestly can't fault it - it appears to be in near-perfect condition, with a highly speeced option list.
Don't know about the twin turbo 2.0 though - maybe the straight six is a lot more popular?

But already I hear the tut tuts about to be offered because it is a CAT D (cue screams of horror, and possibly fainting noises... :lol: ).
As far as I can see, it has had a ding on one corner which has been professionally repaired to a high standard. Of course, you'd get it inspected by a panel beater to confirm the integrity and quality of the repair.
So what is the big problem with this car that makes it so cheap - is it because insurance becomes harder to get, or more expensive?
I realise the resale value on it would be poor in the UK becuase of the CAT D status, but if I imported it the market would be completely different. Here, as long as the repair is done properly there doesn't seem to be much effect on the value providing it wasn't a major accident, in which case it would be written off as uneconomical to repair.
As an ignorant foreigner, I would like to understand what it is about these CAT ratings that puts buyers right off what look to be good cars?
Cheers.

 

[techathy]

CAT D means it was written off as a 'total loss' by an an insurance company. This can be because it was stolen & recovered after the insurance paid out or sustained enough damage to be uneconomical to repair. While the car may be repaired to a high standard an early in life CAT D has to sustain a lot of damage to become uneconomic to repair, which means there maybe damage to the vehicle that was not noticed & thus repaired.

 

[85genius]

I've written off a car before bought it back from the insurance and fixed it. And my premium went down the following year so don't think it affects insurance prices, just resale value

 

[un1eash]

Light damage wouldn't cause a CAT D on a car of this value, this is where the unknown comes into play. Your looking at about 30% off in the UK for CAT car. Also it's not a twin turbo, it's a twin scroll turbo BMW like to call Twin Power Turbo, they use the same system with the diesels.

 

[Ducklakeview]

CAT D means it was written off as a 'total loss' by an an insurance company. This can be because it was stolen & recovered after the insurance paid out or sustained enough damage to be uneconomical to repair. While the car may be repaired to a high standard an early in life CAT D has to sustain a lot of damage to become uneconomic to repair, which means there maybe damage to the vehicle that was not noticed & thus repaired.

Cat D isn't a total loss, the definition is that; The vehicle is repairable but repair costs are significant compared to the vehicle value – including time delays to source parts. In cases such as these, the insurers CHOOSE not to repair the vehicle, however they are often repaired perfectly satisfactorily using either non OEM or used parts, and lower cost labour.

A Cat C on the other hand is where again, the vehicle is repairable, BUT the repair cost exceed the value of the vehicle. Again, these can also be properly repaired, although a Cat C car will have a permanent warning on the V5C that cannot be removed.

A lot of newer cars are written off as Cat D's simply because the insurers actually make MORE money by writing it off, even with paying out on the claim. See this article which explains why insurers are writing thousands of newer vehicles off as Cat D every year, even those with minimal damage. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/advice/the-truth-behind-category-d-insurance-write-offs/

Mike

 

[techathy]

Cat D isn't a total loss, the definition is that; The vehicle is repairable but repair costs are significant compared to the vehicle value – including time delays to source parts. In cases such as these, the insurers CHOOSE not to repair the vehicle, however they are often repaired perfectly satisfactorily using either non OEM or used parts, and lower cost labour.

No any insurance write off is the result of a total loss claim against your insurance. Even a car that was stolen & found completely un-damaged after the insurance was paid out is a total loss. The term 'total loss' does not exist within the definitions of the write off categories.

 

[enzed4]

Thanks for the replies, interesting reading. It seems some perfectly good vehicles are written off (although with the definitions of CAT D / C as above, 'written off' isn't really the correct term I guess) when they don't need to be.
I might find that registering a car here that had been 'written off' overseas may not be possible. Not sure of the legalities. I'm sure it would pass the compliance testing that all imports go through, but it could be a grey area if the Cat D is seen as a write off here or not.

Don't think my 'accountant' and better half would let me pursue it anyway

 

[Mr Tidy]

I think it depends on the car in question - I would be very wary of any 2014 Z4 with a marker on it!

I would want to see photos of the damage, photos taken during the repair and full details of what was done.

But for anything 10 or more years older I wouldn't be too worried about a Cat C or D so long as it got categorised recently - it doesn't take much for repair costs on cars that age to approach the value of the car, plus the insurers take into account what they will get for the salvage in their calculations as well as potential courtesy car costs while it is repaired!

Some years back my 1 Series got hit while parked by someone who b*ggered off, and after making some enquiries the best price I could find to supply, paint and fit a new rear bumper was £500, so if you got shunted in an old car and needed both bumpers and minor panel repairs it would soon become uneconomic to repair! (Meaning Cat C I believe), but not much really wrong with it!

If you found one being broken, or for spares or repair, and in the right colour you'd probably get both bumpers for a few hundred quid and if you can fit yourself it suddenly starts to look like an economic repair!

 

[Rialas]

As others have said. This car is only 2 years old, so it's impossible to believe the damage was light because of the value of the car at the time of the accident.

 

[Ducklakeview]

Cat D isn't a total loss, the definition is that; The vehicle is repairable but repair costs are significant compared to the vehicle value – including time delays to source parts. In cases such as these, the insurers CHOOSE not to repair the vehicle, however they are often repaired perfectly satisfactorily using either non OEM or used parts, and lower cost labour.

No any insurance write off is the result of a total loss claim against your insurance. Even a car that was stolen & found completely un-damaged after the insurance was paid out is a total loss. The term 'total loss' does not exist within the definitions of the write off categories.

You are wrong. I worked as an underwriter and senior claims technician for a Lloyd's syndicate for 4 years a while ago.
A brand new car with a light front end, needing bumper, wing repair and headlights would easily be written off as a Cat D these days, even if the airbags had not been triggered. It's not just about the damage to the car, but the whole value of the claim. Chuck in some car hire and it gets silly, so bearing in mind that a decent breaker will pay upto 65% of the cars pre accident value and you can see why it's cheaper for the insurers to Cat D it and mitigate their liability. This also prevents further damage and cost being discovered once repairs commence. It isn't about whether the vehicle is a write off or not, it's about money. That's why engineer's reports often say that "the vehicle is a financial loss based on the cost of repairs."

These are decisions I used to make on a daily basis.

Mike

 

[enzed4]

Cat D isn't a total loss, the definition is that; The vehicle is repairable but repair costs are significant compared to the vehicle value – including time delays to source parts. In cases such as these, the insurers CHOOSE not to repair the vehicle, however they are often repaired perfectly satisfactorily using either non OEM or used parts, and lower cost labour.

No any insurance write off is the result of a total loss claim against your insurance. Even a car that was stolen & found completely un-damaged after the insurance was paid out is a total loss. The term 'total loss' does not exist within the definitions of the write off categories.

You are wrong. I worked as an underwriter and senior claims technician for a Lloyd's syndicate for 4 years a while ago.
A brand new car with a light front end, needing bumper, wing repair and headlights would easily be written off as a Cat D these days, even if the airbags had not been triggered. It's not just about the damage to the car, but the whole value of the claim. Chuck in some car hire and it gets silly, so bearing in mind that a decent breaker will pay upto 65% of the cars pre accident value and you can see why it's cheaper for the insurers to Cat D it and mitigate their liability. This also prevents further damage and cost being discovered once repairs commence. It isn't about whether the vehicle is a write off or not, it's about money. That's why engineer's reports often say that "the vehicle is a financial loss based on the cost of repairs."

These are decisions I used to make on a daily basis.

Mike

That's very interesting, Mike. It makes the Z4 in question a lot more attractive, as it wouldn't be unreasonable to think it has been repaired fine, but the CAT D was due to the cost factors you mentioned.
It's just that these cars are stupid money here, as I've discovered that BMW NZ stopped importing them a couple of years ago (just not selling enough I guess), and about all I can find are overpriced used Jap imports (that cost about $1500 just to get the satnav retrofitted to something that will work here, as the Japanese Satnav uses a land based system in conjunction with the GPS system (due to the built up city areas blocking satellite signals I guess). When I enquired at the local BMW dealer I was told by two salesmen that BMW "stopped making this car a couple of years ago." Wasn't very encouraging, but I can't expect them to know everything about every car BMW makes, especially as it doesn't get imported by BMW NZ anymore, so they wouldn't really need to know about it.

 

[Mr Tidy]

You are wrong. I worked as an underwriter and senior claims technician for a Lloyd's syndicate for 4 years a while ago.
A brand new car with a light front end, needing bumper, wing repair and headlights would easily be written off as a Cat D these days, even if the airbags had not been triggered. It's not just about the damage to the car, but the whole value of the claim. Chuck in some car hire and it gets silly, so bearing in mind that a decent breaker will pay upto 65% of the cars pre accident value and you can see why it's cheaper for the insurers to Cat D it and mitigate their liability. This also prevents further damage and cost being discovered once repairs commence. It isn't about whether the vehicle is a write off or not, it's about money. That's why engineer's reports often say that "the vehicle is a financial loss based on the cost of repairs."

These are decisions I used to make on a daily basis.

Mike

Thanks, it is interesting to get an updated view-point - I stopped dealing with motor claims back in the late 80s when courtesy cars hadn't been invented, so weren't part of the equation. But I can see the logic - weeks of courtesy car use don't come free!

Back then a car was either beyond economical repair, a total-loss or a wreck!

But if I was looking to buy anything as new as 2 years old on a Cat D I would want to see a lot of photos and have loads of information!

 

[Ewazix]

Unfortunately there is a lot of scope for unscrupulous assessments, I've no problem with a properly repaired Cat D providing I've seen the damage, reports and repair/parts schedule. This was recently advertised as Cat D but the assessment is clearly a joke. It certainly wouldn't be one for me!

 

[85genius]

If you are seriously considering a cat d make sure it gas been vic checked and if possible also passed an mot since

 

[un1eash]

If you are seriously considering a cat d make sure it gas been vic checked and if possible also passed an mot since

VIC checks were only needed if a car was CAT C or higher and according to the government website they no longer do VIC checks as of 26th October 2015

 

[Ant]

the main issue is selling it on, it's one thing being able to buy a cat.c/d and being happy to have one yourself

but getting rid of it further down the line will be a ballache

 

[enzed4]

the main issue is selling it on, it's one thing being able to buy a cat.c/d and being happy to have one yourself

but getting rid of it further down the line will be a ballache

That wouldn't really be a problem here. As long as the repairs have been done professionally/correctly it's not considered a big deal. It pays to have a panel beater check out the repairs and if they give it a pass, e.g, no residual structural damage, then there shouldn't be any issues. It seems to be more of a perception thing in the UK, probably brought about by numerous shoddy repairs and scams. I guess we're pretty naive/trusting here, and if told the repairs are good, are inclined to believe it.

 

[mmm-five]

The issue for me, is that you rarely seem to get a straight answer from the seller.

The cars always seem to have been through a few hands before you in a short amount of time and the history of the repair/costs strangely fades from people's documentation/memory. Then the "professionally-repaired, with complete rear, front, O/S" becomes "I can't believe they wrote it off for just a bumper with a couple of scratches".

You take the risk that it's not as straight as you expect and then end up with a lemon. Who in their right mind would pay full retail for a damage/repaired vehicle without extensive proof of the repair, and don't forget that 'professional repair' does not always mean 100% genuine & new parts, as the salvage/repair companies are there to make a profit and will 'save' where they can.

After taking all that into account, what percentage of the value of an undamaged (or unrecorded damage) one would you be prepared to pay?

 

[Ducklakeview]

Unfortunately there is a lot of scope for unscrupulous assessments, I've no problem with a properly repaired Cat D providing I've seen the damage, reports and repair/parts schedule. This was recently advertised as Cat D but the assessment is clearly a joke. It certainly wouldn't be one for me!

That's a C just from that photo!

Mike

 

[Ant]

"UNFORTUNATELY VEHICLE IS LISTED ON V-CAR AS A CAT-D, HAVING LIGHT DAMAGE TO THE PASSENGER SIDE FRONT CORNER, "

new panel and a headlight even at manf costs maybe a couple of grand, hell even if it was 6k that's nowhere near write off for that age/milage/value of car

which makes me think "light damage" is a load of balls