R.I.P. Black beauty :-(

[mjb]

I hate to suggest this, but what about ambulance chasers? It's obvious that you've been severely put out of pocket by someone's negligence and I bet they'd jump at the chance of taking on a case that's not morally dubious for once!

[DaiRees]

On the other hand, a 406 will come up at some point. It might not be as nice as black beauty but there is still bucketloads of good examples flying about the place.

Less than 5 years old?

I feel for you soops, wish there was something we could do to help...

[steve_earwig]

Maybe you can't sue for the balance for the new car but what about loss of earnings?

[eoin27]

eoin27 wrote:
On the other hand, a 406 will come up at some point. It might not be as nice as black beauty but there is still bucketloads of good examples flying about the place.

Less than 5 years old?

Oh ya, That is rough. No such thing as a 406 thats less than 5 years old. But yours was a 03 wasnt it? Does the rule only apply when you're purhasing the car?

[teamster1975]

Does the rule only apply when you're purhasing the car?

It's when it is registered as a taxi.
Keep your chin up Em, I'm there for a chat if you need to bend someones ear!

[supafrisk]

The council states that when a vehicle is offered up for plating purposes, unless it has previously been a taxi (and therefore a standard renew of plate), it has to be under five years of age from the date of manufacture. This means the new vehicle has to be a 55 plate at the very least.
Also, black beauty was exempt from the new regulations brought into force last June whereby any new vehicle put on as a taxi not only has to be under the 5 year age limit, it can only be used as a taxi for 5 years. Mine theoretically could have been run for the next 50 years as long as it was roadworthy, fit for purpose and passed the council test and inspection every year and was MOT'd.
As such, all vehicles currently operating as private hire that are exempt from this new ruling are like gold dust.

I have been on to Citizen's Advice this morning, outlined the situation and they've been great, they told me to dispute it, send them a letter by recorded delivery stating it is being disputed, that I do not wish the assessor to pursue me by telephone whilst it is being disputed, state clearly why and provide proof from the council that it has to be under 5 years old and enclose autotrader inserts of 407s and 607s on a 55 plate (same spec - executive) explaining that this would be the closest like for like and explaining that I will be keeping the hire vehicle until the dispute has been settled and that if they are still unwilling to give me a fair price then the matter will be taken up with the insurance ombudsman who is willing to take the case.
I will point out the original car was exempt, therefore worth a higher premium because it would have been fit for purpose for many years to come with regular repairs and servicing and will offer them that if they insist on not giving me a fair price, as there is no "like for like" available I will insist they repair my vehicle to the tune of £10000 as quoted by their assessor, it is up to them to decide then if they wish to repair it for that or simply pay me out about £6000 for a similar purpose vehicle.
How does that sound to you guys?

P.S. If I want the wheels, speakers etc the assessor says I lose 8% on the amount they value it at.

[teamster1975]

Sounds good to me soops, if you had special insurance to run it as a taxi then you should be entitled to a payout that will alow you to replace the vehicle as a taxi!

[VND]

Sounds like youre getting somewhere now dude.
Very well perciveered!

[DaiRees]

Yup sounds like a plan soops. Can I be cheeky and ask how much you're paying for insurance for a taxi?

[eoin27]

Good for you!! Dont be put off by insurance companies with their jargon text filled letters. My pet hate is with my insurance company, they charge €40 admin charge to do anything, Change of address? €40, Change of car? €40, Replace lost cert?, €40. thats not to mention that the admin charge is on top of everything else. I'd love to give them an admin charge on fancy headed paper for my time spent waiting for them to answer the phone. Imagine the pleasure.

I hope this works out for you. It looks like you might have a case here.

[neildavies]

This must be a huge strain on you, adn all over one careless move by someone else. This is probably the worst situation of a write off (without injury) I have ever come across.

Go for everything you can. You need it, it's your livelyhood.

[Doggy]

The principle of the insurance funding a like-for-like replacement is reasonable as a means of establishing the 406 had a value considerably greater than normal, due to it being a licensed taxi and cost of replacing.

The insurance company are bound to claim the alternatives you suggest are more valuable than you old car was and perceive that agreeing your claim would give you a tangible benefit you would not have received were it not for the accident, (loss of earnings, injury, stress etc notwithstanding), which they would see as unjustified.

Some degree of compromise may be inevitable.

I would pursue the argument as you are doing, but be prepared for a response along the lines above.

Good luck Supa

[Welly]

You might have to think about having some sort of personal insurance for this kind of thing (like gap insurance) because if this is going to happen again it will become very difficult to keep upgrading the car.

I wonder is it possible to afford to lease a car and run it as a taxi? although I suspect the mileage will be prohibitive?