Cat D write off - would you buy one?

[yorkie_chris]

Old bike though, it makes bugger all difference. You buy it as you see it, cos even a squeaky clean HPI check doesn't mean it hasn't been down the road multiple times and put back together with a hammer and a roll of gaffer.

Originally Posted by philbut

I owned a cat C car (I crashed it). no probs at all. VIC test is a bit of a pain, but you don't have to worry about that on a bike. CAT D is nothing to worry about, especially on a 10 year old bike - it won't affect the value much though TBH, as how many 10 year old bikes HAVEN'T been crashed at some point? Not may I'd wager (although my ZZR has never touch the floor in it's 16 years)

He's got wings...

I'm still struggling with this a bit as although the bike is in excellent condition and appears to be very well cared for I've never (knowingly) owned a write off before.

I spoke to three separate insurers who gave me the same advice. Buyer beware.

A Cat C or D vehicle does not come up on their database and as far as they're concerned it's up to the buyer to find out and let them know. I could buy it and insure it without telling them and feign ignorance. However, if you're unlucky enough to have an accident they then investigate, find out it's Cat D and then you're insurance is invalid.

I know it's not likely but it seems like a big gamble to take.

[fastdruid]

Er, its *THEIR* database, I call b*llsh*t on it not coming up and a double count of f*ck off if they were to try and weedle out of paying on that basis with me.

Druid

Have bought one in the past and would again

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by fastdruid

Er, its *THEIR* database, I call b*llsh*t on it not coming up and a double count of f*ck off if they were to try and weedle out of paying on that basis with me.

Druid

Exactly, obviously riding around with a snapped frame would be bad, but cosmetic damage invalidating your insurance? Lolwut?

Completely appreciate the sentiment but the sh1tbag insurers all seem to view it this way. They don't care that it's cosmetic, they just will try and wriggle out of a pay out any way they can it seems.

[yorkie_chris]

Mine doesn't mention owt in small print. It mentions material facts, bike has an MOT and is fit for purpose. That is only material fact. If not they can take me to court, find I've got no assets except a bent bike... and take a running jump

Only thing I can see is if it was nicked they would say a cat'ed bike is worth less... which is fair game.

I agree - and this one's been back on the road for 10 years. I think that putting the emphasis on the owner to find out this info is just ridiculous personally.

insurance isnt a problem mate, my sv1000s was written off by me and i put the bike right, all it needed for my insurance company was a new mot then the same company that paid out on the bike in the first place insured it again, "simples"