WRITTEN OFF BY CRACKED HEADLAMP!
- Thread starter Keith Calder
- Start date
Perhaps in the future a clearer statement would have been. "This vehicle is cat d registered. I am not privy to the reasons of why the car recieved this catorgorisation. For information we recieved the vehicle with a broken headlamp which has now been replaced." !!!
Shall we put this one to bed now?
The car was priced reasonably for what it was. The seller was never trying to hide anything. He gave the information he had. He may have not given the info that you all wanted but if you were wanting to buy the car and had rung him you could have asked!
If you're going to buy a performance car from a salvage yard you're either confident you can spot lemons or you should pay someone to inspect it for you. Whatever, it is up to you to decide if you are happy to part with the cash.
Let's face it, there are many ropey examples out there for a lot more than that car was advertised for. Give it new wheels, a new rear wiper and a professional polish and I bet it would look much better. You've also got a fair wedge of cash for maintenance.
Let us let this thread finish.
edit for typo
The car was priced reasonably for what it was. The seller was never trying to hide anything. He gave the information he had. He may have not given the info that you all wanted but if you were wanting to buy the car and had rung him you could have asked!
If you're going to buy a performance car from a salvage yard you're either confident you can spot lemons or you should pay someone to inspect it for you. Whatever, it is up to you to decide if you are happy to part with the cash.
Let's face it, there are many ropey examples out there for a lot more than that car was advertised for. Give it new wheels, a new rear wiper and a professional polish and I bet it would look much better. You've also got a fair wedge of cash for maintenance.
Let us let this thread finish.
edit for typo
I'm sorry Laurance, but your reply annoys me somewhat.
I am guessing that you have not read ANY of the previous posts?
Perhaps I should have complained to the insurance company that in YOUR eyes the car was not fit to be repaired (because of the broken headlamp, of course, nothing else......) and that the motoring society should be deprived of a perfectly usable, reasonably priced motor vehicle because of this OBVIOUSLY gross mistake on your behalf by classing this classic piece of motor engineering as a category 'D' vehicle.... How dare you........... Laurance says different!!!!!! Obviously it should have been made a cat 'B' vehicle, ie for parts only, because of this MAJOR defect.... Or maybe a cat 'A', ie straight into the crusher? Would that have solved the arguments?
I am sorry if my reply is over the top Laurance, but your reply is both irrelevant and too late.
The car is what it is, end of. Neither you nor me is going to change anything, Get over it.
Yours,
Richard Bell.
At last, a sensible, leval headed mature response.
Please, please , please lets put this to bed.....
The lucky new owner is a very, very well read, many times over 911 owner.......
He is VERY happy with the car.
He managed to get off his butt and view the car for what it is, make his own mind up, and in the end bag himself a bargain.
The car was a 3 owner, full service history car, on the key with 12 months MOT, ready to go for less than 10k. How many more do you know with this kind of providence?
It is only because of people like me who are willing to stick their necks out, spend not inconsiderable sums of money on a VERY old motorcar that you lot see vehicles such as this back on the road.
If this is the kind of response that I get from people supposedly 'in the know' then next time I see a classic 911 up for auction then I am sorry but I would sooner see it go to the crusher than suffer the kind of innuendo and abuse that I have suffered on this forum.
This will be my last post regarding this matter.
I kindly ask the moderator to lock and delete this thread asap. It serves no purpose to keep it in the public domain.
Disappointedly yours,
Richard Bell.
38F3E1
PCGB Member
It's perfectly reasonable to have a debate without having to lock down this thread.
I think you are over-reacting yourself. Nobody is saying the car is not fit to go back onto the road. Nobody is arguing against the best way to evaluate the car being to talk to you in person and to go and see the car in person. It's proved a good car for someone and good for you for making it possible.
The comment was regarding the wording of your advert which was
"Unfortunately the car is classified as a cat 'D' car, having suffered extremely light damage. The only damage that it had, believe it or not, was a broken headlamp glass. This has now obviously been replaced."
This is an inaccurate description. You don't know that to be true. You have said so in your own posts. What was being pointed out is that this could mislead people into thinking the car is guaranteed to have had very light damage.
The suggestion was to be more transparent and to say something like "when the car came to us it had no damage we could find other than a cracked headlamp". That would be an accurate statement that is not open to debate.
I am not having a pop at your personally. I think salvage yards provide a worthwhile service for us. Sourcing parts, possible track cars and as you have proved in this case as a source of a cheap road car for the experienced buyer.
Ian.
I think you are over-reacting yourself. Nobody is saying the car is not fit to go back onto the road. Nobody is arguing against the best way to evaluate the car being to talk to you in person and to go and see the car in person. It's proved a good car for someone and good for you for making it possible.
The comment was regarding the wording of your advert which was
"Unfortunately the car is classified as a cat 'D' car, having suffered extremely light damage. The only damage that it had, believe it or not, was a broken headlamp glass. This has now obviously been replaced."
This is an inaccurate description. You don't know that to be true. You have said so in your own posts. What was being pointed out is that this could mislead people into thinking the car is guaranteed to have had very light damage.
The suggestion was to be more transparent and to say something like "when the car came to us it had no damage we could find other than a cracked headlamp". That would be an accurate statement that is not open to debate.
I am not having a pop at your personally. I think salvage yards provide a worthwhile service for us. Sourcing parts, possible track cars and as you have proved in this case as a source of a cheap road car for the experienced buyer.
Ian.
[The comment was regarding the wording of your advert which was
"Unfortunately the car is classified as a cat 'D' car, having suffered extremely light damage. The only damage that it had, believe it or not, was a broken headlamp glass. This has now obviously been replaced."
This is an inaccurate description. You don't know that to be true. You have said so in your own posts. What was being pointed out is that this could mislead people into thinking the car is guaranteed to have had very light damage.
The suggestion was to be more transparent and to say something like "when the car came to us it had no damage we could find other than a cracked headlamp". That would be an accurate statement that is not open to debate.
Ian,
The ONLY damage to the car was a broken headlamp......... THATS IT........ Where have I misled anyone by saying what I said???
I'm sorry but I dont see the difference between your wording and mine.
Oh, I forgot, there was something else......
Sorry if I misled anyone, but there was a half eaten lolly-pop in the ashtray..... How amature of me to forget this........ Maybe if it had been a full lolly-pop it wouldnt have been wrote off?
Yours,
Richard Bell.
"Unfortunately the car is classified as a cat 'D' car, having suffered extremely light damage. The only damage that it had, believe it or not, was a broken headlamp glass. This has now obviously been replaced."
This is an inaccurate description. You don't know that to be true. You have said so in your own posts. What was being pointed out is that this could mislead people into thinking the car is guaranteed to have had very light damage.
The suggestion was to be more transparent and to say something like "when the car came to us it had no damage we could find other than a cracked headlamp". That would be an accurate statement that is not open to debate.
Ian,
The ONLY damage to the car was a broken headlamp......... THATS IT........ Where have I misled anyone by saying what I said???
I'm sorry but I dont see the difference between your wording and mine.
Oh, I forgot, there was something else......
Sorry if I misled anyone, but there was a half eaten lolly-pop in the ashtray..... How amature of me to forget this........ Maybe if it had been a full lolly-pop it wouldnt have been wrote off?
Yours,
Richard Bell.
Dave Wilkinson
New member
As a moderator here I completely agree with Ian's post above. There is nothing that has been said here which is detrimental - merely opinions expressed and quite rightly too.
It would seem unfortunate that in cases such as this it appears necessary for insurers to be obliged to assign a catagory to an apparently largely undamaged car and to subsequently consign that car to a blighted future, but, if that's what the industry demands there is little that can be done - except moan about it in forums such as this.
The last time I checked our society thrived on free speech - and long may it continue.
Regards
Dave
It would seem unfortunate that in cases such as this it appears necessary for insurers to be obliged to assign a catagory to an apparently largely undamaged car and to subsequently consign that car to a blighted future, but, if that's what the industry demands there is little that can be done - except moan about it in forums such as this.
The last time I checked our society thrived on free speech - and long may it continue.
Regards
Dave
Hey, no worries.
But that WAS the reason why it was made Cat D, as far as we are aware.
I have had vehicles before with the same sort of damage that were Cat C, and definately NOT stolen recovered.
Like I have had said before, there is absolutely NO reasoning behind classifications. It is what it is.
Yours,
Richard Bell.
Please, please , please lets put this to bed.....
This will be my last post regarding this matter.
I kindly ask the moderator to lock and delete this thread asap. It serves no purpose to keep it in the public domain.
Disappointedly yours,
Richard Bell.
[/quote]
Not quite a last post Richard [8D]
[/quote]
Something to do with freedom of speech, apparently.........
![[sm=kiss.gif]](/forum/styles/default/pcgb/kiss.gif "Kiss [sm=kiss.gif]")
Fred Hindle
New member
Volunteering for the 'Stunt Riders' Zeb? Excellent, just send your annual subscription via Paypal . This will allow you to be a member for eighteen months which is the length of a Yorkshire year. The additional 50% is to prevent tykes from being called slow as it takes them half as long again to keep up.
The next outing of the 'Fred Hindle Stunt Riders' will be at December's R18 Meeting where you can sing Christmas carols to the tune of ' On Ilkley Moor Baht 'at '.
Cheers
The next outing of the 'Fred Hindle Stunt Riders' will be at December's R18 Meeting where you can sing Christmas carols to the tune of ' On Ilkley Moor Baht 'at '.
Cheers
I am sorry my post upset you Richard. It was not intended too. At no point was I questioning what catogory the car should have been in and can't quite see where I infer this. My "reworded ad" was a simpler statement of the facts. Rather than the apparently (conscensus on here) misleading(not deliberate of course) approach in your own ad. Equally you stated within your own posts "that you don't know why the insurance company made the car a cat d" that is a fact! You go on to infer within the ad about why it was made cat d rather than simply stating that you don't actually know and are not privy to know . I have to admit it is a very cleverly written ad as it clearly had the desired effect.
ORIGINAL: smallspeed
ha ha!.. await the barage of abuse []
Some of you don't remember the slate grey C4 I used before I bought the Cup Car then??......Porsche sport suspension, strut brace, aggressive camber, 296bhp courtesy of Jeff Everettt at AMD.......now 'retired' in Scotland with a careful lady owner...[
]
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
