917k said:
rigsby99 said:
This is getting bizarre . We have now decided that the car was a total write off with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. What we do know is that the photos only show minor damage. The rear of the car is monocoque any damage to the chasis would be evident externally. The only first hand reports we have is from a witness to the incident and the op who both say that the damage was minor. The car fetched £39k at auction, maybe a bit much for a write off, so ergo it wasn't. Maybe it would be a good idea if before condemning the car and various retailers as fraudsters and cheats that the facts were establlshed.
You are now ignoring the fact the witness suggested there may have been chassis damage at the rear, along with the quoted repair costs which clearly show it was rather more than a scratch
What witness statement are you referring too! There where a few of us at this event and you only get a glance at the vehicle as it goes passed on the lorry any comments from this are just that and not a true representation of cars condition.
The below are comments from previous owner on the condition after the accident and also after he was paid out so nothing to hide.
there are a lot worse out there which are being priced higher.
Pictures look worse than the actual car/damage but make a more sensationalist story.
The PU units were removed for inspection as were the lights. In the above pics the wheels of course are also removed.
Actual damage was just left front wing (superficial) and left rear. Zero damage at dead on front, back, sides, or any other panel. The right rear corner (exposed in the pics) and exhaust bits and valance area are completely untouched / undamaged but with the panels off deceptively look like part of the damage. The bonnet is not shut properly in the pics and was undamaged.
Yes it will be a repaired car but the actual impact was probably not the worst out there (sideways impact and not head on).