Accident with car: new or used bike?

stevie_b

Senior Member
Location
Hampshire
A car drove into the back of me on my bike a few days ago. The bike is an uneconomical repair according to a written quote by my LBS. If the driver agrees to pay for a replacement bike, should the bike be replaced with a new equivalent model, or a used equivalent model?
 

vickster

Legendary Member
I'd ask for a new equivalent model if it can't be repaired, although presumably it'll depend what his insurance is willing to cover. It'll be a cash payment so ultimately you can buy what you want with it. Don't expect an especially quick resolution and if you think the first offer is unfair, reject it
 

zizou

Veteran
New equivalent model, at least that is what has happened with all the people ive known who have had to have their bike replaced in similar circumstances
 

welsh dragon

Thanks but no thanks. I think I'll pass.
The money offered should be enough to buy a brand new equivalent like for like bike. After all the bike wasn't second hand when you bought it was it ?
 

vickster

Legendary Member
For cars, the payout is always market value. I've had several fights with insurance companies when the offered payout hasn't enabled me to replace the car like for like (second hand)
 

welsh dragon

Thanks but no thanks. I think I'll pass.
For cars, the payout is always market value. I've had several fights with insurance companies when the offered payout hasn't enabled me to replace the car like for like (second hand)

They also take wear and tear into consideration, plus what you could expect to pay for a vehicle of the same age and condition (unfortunately)
 

Drago

Guest
You're entitled to be returned to the position you enjoyed prior to the incident. If they can't provide you with a used cycle of at least equivalent spec AND guarantee its provenance, then they should provide a new one.

Protective gear such as helmets should be replaced with new as a matter of course, as there's no reliable means by which they can guarantee a used item will be in fully working condition. Had the helmet argument when my eldest daughter was knocked off her scooter years ago, and prevailed.
 

vickster

Legendary Member
They also take wear and tear into consideration, plus what you could expect to pay for a vehicle of the same age and condition (unfortunately)
Indeed, I've provided reams of receipts etc. I had a nightmare when my car was stolen last year, as there was not another of the same rare colour and spec for sale. It was a very stressful experience all in which cost me a lot of money in the end :sad:
 

welsh dragon

Thanks but no thanks. I think I'll pass.
Indeed, I've provided reams of receipts etc. I had a nightmare when my car was stolen last year, as there was not another of the same rare colour and spec for sale. It was a very stressful experience all in which cost me a lot of money in the end :sad:


It doesn't matter how much evidence you have. If glasses says XY or Z then that's it.
 

Drago

Guest
It doesn't matter how much evidence you have. If glasses says XY or Z then that's it.

Incorrect. They may attempt to fob off the gullible with a trade value, but you're lawfully entitled to be returned to the position you enjoyed prior to the claim, which means they have to pay actual replacement value. Most people aren't registered car dealers, so replacement value will be what the ordinary person has to pay for one at retail or private prices in your region of the country.

My ex wife very kindly wrote off a car for me some years ago. It was a Tuesday.

On the Saturday, three days prior to the crash, I'd agreed and signed a trade-in-deal which valued the car at far higher than either trade or retail prices. The car at the moment of the smack was therefore of far greater value than the price at which it would normally change hands. The small claims sitting of the County Court agreed, and within 10 minutes of walking in I was awarded the agreed trade in value of the car plus legals costs. You're lawfully entitled to be returned to the position you enjoyed prior to the claim, not simply the 'value' of the vehicle - period, as our American cousins say.
 

welsh dragon

Thanks but no thanks. I think I'll pass.
Incorrect. They may attempt to fob off the gullible with a trade value, but you're lawfully entitled to be returned to the position you enjoyed prior to the claim, which means they have to pay actual replacement value. Most people aren't registered car dealers, so replacement value will be what the ordinary person has to pay for one at retail or private prices in your region of the country.


As I said above, they will take into consideration the amount that you would have to to pay for a replacement at todays value, less any wear and tear that can be reasonably be expected for a car of certain ages and seen. There is some leeway within that, but not much. They won't pay you much more than you can expect to pay for a similar car, similar age and similar condition.
 
Top Bottom