Stolen Car Recovered 12 Months Later - No Option to Purchase Back from Insurer?

• 

  chrisie on 10/08/2023 - 21:00

  I feel for you but sorry can not help.

• 

  barge-in hunter on 10/08/2023 - 21:06

  +6

  Sorry to hear it - really frustrating situation.

  Unfortunately you hit the nail on the head though; it's now their property.

  Take solace in the fact that it's no longer the same car - it's been trashed, thrashed and scratched like crazy. Even if it's in "working condition" now, I can guarantee the diff, gearbox and engine aren't in great shape after all the burnouts it's done since you had it.

  You could maybe watch the car sell at auction (for more than your payout I'm guessing), then raise a complaint with the ombudsman about the payout figure?

• 

  hasher22 on 10/08/2023 - 21:23

  +2

  Ask the impound the auction details and maybe strike a deal with them? They may be able to swindle around the auction and try let you buy the car from them as a prospective buyer?

  Also, it's frustrating regarding to go through so many reps cause this is a unique situation and there's no process to deal with such and they're all trained to be in their own policies and processes. The bigger the company the more likely they will not do anything unique to help you if the situation is unique. If this was a smaller insurance company, more likely they could have overlooked their own policies.

  This is a long shot, but go to the ombudsman, the complaint usually goes to a dedicated team in the company and you deal with them directly.

• 

  MrFrugalSpend on 10/08/2023 - 21:41

  +7

  I would have tried to claim the car back, take possession, and re-registered it before telling the insurance. Then contact them to tell them you are sending their money back to avoid it being illegal / penalties. Way harder for them to take it off you that way…. but that ship has sailed…

  I think your main gripe here is you should not have had to accept way lower than the car was worth. If you have evidence you couldn't replace it with like for like, they ripped you off if they were supposed to pay market value. In that regard, I suggest you advise them that you need to speak someone in management.
  Tell them that you didn't receive adequate compensation and were unable to replace the car with a suitable replacement for the money, with evidence / facts of comparables.
  Despite the fact you have been parted from it for some time, you would refund their payout in full to be reunited with the car as fair compensation. If they do not address your loss you intend to lodge a claim to the Insurance Ombudsman. They won't like that. Document in writing where you can.
  (However your main issue here is you are outside the time window though, I think you are supposed to do so in either 1 or 6 months depending on magnitude of claim, but haven't checked).

  Failing that, I would advise them you had personal confidential belongings in the car that were not covered by the insurance payout, so need to inspect it and know of its whereabouts for this purpose and all you ask is they tell you where it is being auctioned and that they should tell you as they can only gain if you outbid the competition. If they sell it with your personal documents and effects inside that is theft and potential breach of privacy (is there any possibility there was any of this? Better if true)

  If you don't get anywhere - I think you should name them - large companies can't be defamed, especially if you tell the truth. Tell them that you plan to do so on review websites.
  Don't be afraid to inform the manager of this.

  However, always be polite and fair in how you speak to everyone.

  Be persistent - you can always wear people down if you try repeatedly. They mainly don't want to answer you because it is too much hassle…. you need to become easier to deal with by giving you what you want, and continually in their face and looking for the next avenue of escalation if they don't. I've won a lot of arguments with large companies this way - 12+ times back and forth contacting them is common.

  Good luck and act fast. If it has been handed over to an auctioneer it will be too late.

  https://www.afca.org.au/make-a-complaint/insurance

  • 

    Crow K on 11/08/2023 - 09:11

    I would have tried to claim the car back, take possession, and re-registered it before telling the insurance. Then contact them to tell them you are sending their money back to avoid it being illegal / penalties.

    "avoid it being illegal" (you've just committed theft and/or fraud to take something that's not yours. offering someone what they paid you for it 12 months ago isn't going to change that)

    • 

      MrFrugalSpend on 12/08/2023 - 09:27

      -1

      That's just a technicality. No one is going to have you charged with theft if the immediate thing you do is call them up and say "hey, I got my car back, I'm sending you the payout back". They have no financial loss and may actually gain. They don't give a flying #$%^ about OP's 2000 SR5 Hilux, the insurance company CEO isn't going to be emotionally attached to it and use it as his company car - it's all about $$$s for the company and minimising effort for the staff.

      I actually know someone that a similar thing happened to. The insurer was thinking about writing off their car after an accident, but the person I know already took it to one of the approved repair shops the insurer had given the option of assessing it and asked them to repair it (it was borderline) in a rare instance they didn't have a backlog and could start repairing it quickly. About the same time as the insurance company sent them the money for the write off value and said they are writing it off, they'd collected the car. They were surprised the money came and intended to keep the car. So they just called up the insurer and said, hey I've actually got my car repaired and so I'll keep that and you can have the write off money and sort out the repair bill instead, and it all worked out. You may find this hard to believe, but in reality they did not get charged or anything just because they did what they want, but also made sure the insurer was not out of pocket. As they had possession of both the money and car it gave them some sort of control they wouldn't have otherwise had to just say "oops sorry, there's been a mistake, I'll send your money back". The normal process wasn't followed, and perhaps the repair shop may have got a please explain for taking instructions from the owner rather than insurer, and someone would have been scratching their head in the insurance company as how they stuffed up, but everyone makes mistakes and more likely everyone just moved on with their life because they got their money back. I wouldn't recommend trying this as more likely you'll end up with the repair bill and no payout if the timing doesn't work out, but sometimes you can just fluke these things if you just beg forgiveness instead of asking permission.

      In OP's case, this has now just become about what is easiest for them and won't cost them time and money sorting out.
      They got given a salvage car and their normal process is to flog it off so they have already embarked on that - so now it is too much effort for the person on the phone to work out where it is even being sold off, if it is too late to stop it, and regardless they probably don't want people to know in case it sells for more than they paid out… so they are ignoring OP. Would have been totally different if all they had to do is take their dollars back.

      The bigger issue here, as I have said above, is the OP deserves to know what it sells for, because if the OP is right and was paid out $3K but it was worth $10K and the insurer profits from the salvage value, that is not acceptable. That would be further evidence they ripped OP off and didn't pay fair market value.

      • 

        Crow K on 13/08/2023 - 13:07

        +1

        That's just a technicality.

        The law is entirely based on technicalities. Did something happen or did it not? Did the contract have this phrase in it or did it not? And so on. I know in your head the law is a loose "vibe" based thing but that's not how laws are made or operate.

        No one is going to have you charged with theft if the immediate thing you do is call them up and say "hey, I got my car back, I'm sending you the payout back"

        Alright, sell a car on Gumtree to someone locally but retain a copy of the key. Two weeks later, go to their place in the middle of the night and take the car back and then call them up the next morning and say "Hey I've taken the car back and I'll wire you your payment back and drop off your stuff that was in it".

        What do you think is going to happen? They'll go "yeah alright, guess I have no other options?" Or will they call the cops up and you'll be done for theft, because you've taken something that wasn't yours?

        • 

          MrFrugalSpend on 15/08/2023 - 23:26

          -1

          @Crow K: No, not really. I have no context for whether you have any legal training or have been involved in legal disputes or insurance settlements, but I'll say this - If the law was that simple there wouldn't be drawn out legal battles all the time. There's a hell of a lot of looking at the realities of whether someone was at a loss and the intentions of the other party including whether that party has attempted to make them right for that loss. The majority of legal disputes are settled well before a court room and I'm not sure I'd even call this one. Most mediators and judges are very good at just cutting through all the sh!t and in this case, the reality is it was OP's car, it was taken from them, they had no intention of disposing of it. As for your second example, it's not relevant accordingly.

          I am talking about the reality of what would happen here. Not what someone might be able to argue even though they have no reason to because it would only waste their time, they gain nothing and have not lost anything…
          The obligation to the insurer in this case is more a contractual one, because the insurer did not have the car, paid out a claim for its theft.
          No doubt you've heard the saying that possession is 9/10ths of the law and for chattels that is true and based on actual case law principles. In this case the other 1/10th would come into play. If the OP takes possession of the car back, it is the insurance policy terms and settlement agreement that dictates what is to happen next, and if the insurer became aware would likely initially issue a letter of demand for the car (and/or insured sum paid). If you reach out first and immediately, it likely wouldn't even get that far.
          Essentially it is initially a civil matter between the two contracting parties, not a criminal case (unless they make a false declaration to retrieve it or the likes).
          The settlement agreement which is a contractual one between the parties would likely state if the car is recovered then you have to disclose and most likely it says you surrender it to them to sell to recover their losses (i.e. you have agreed to surrender your claim to it as a contractual obligation), but reality is they'd not often get their money back out of this scenario, and in fact shouldn't profit out of it at all.
          By the same token, the agreement is about the payment of an insured sum which if you offer to refund you are essentially making a new offer to cancel the original settlement agreement that setup that contractual obligation. They can always say no and you are stuck and would have to give it up, but the parties can agree to whatever suits them here. This is in fact common, when a vehicle returned to you, some insurers depending on the terms agreed in the policy may allow you to reclaim the recovered vehicle if it’s in a drivable or repairable state. However, you’ll likely need to withdraw your claim or reimburse the insurance payout.

          My point key point is that this scenario would have increased the chances of keeping the car, as you've made it very easy for them by making the first step and have possession… Remember what I said about possession being 9/10ths of the law… in that case they'd have the onus of proving it was theirs through settlement documentation and make a claim to get it back that wouldn't be worth their while, so they'd be more likely to take the money back OP is offering. Otherwise they'd have to evidence the payout and stuff around demonstrating that to the authorities before anyone could even think of having you prosecuted, and by the time they are looking into that if you are there saying "I want to give you your money back!" no one is going to have you arrested. In this case, the OP has the reverse problem, it's in the insurer's possession and they have a document saying it is theirs and OP is sh!t out of luck.

          I maintain my belief it would very unlikely if you claimed the car and immediately contacted the insurer and said "hey I want to give you your money back", that they would do take any sort of legal action against you at all - they'd be if anything, grateful. Certainly jumping to have you charged under the criminal code or insurance legislation is an extreme leap. Worst thing that would likely happen is they insist on taking the car, write a threatening letter so you give it up and are no worse off than OP already is. If you refused that next step and tried to keep both… that'd be a different story and you can expect to be charged.

          However the police would most likely check if insurance had paid out and give it to them instead though or ask you to make a declaration… so whether in reality you could get it without making a false declaration is uncertain (which would be likely be perjury if you do make one, which would be illegal and should never be done). However in this case they contacted the OP so may not have been aware of that fact.

          • 

            Crow K on 16/08/2023 - 09:01

            @MrFrugalSpend:

            Most mediators and judges are very good at just cutting through all the sh!t and in this case, the reality is it was OP's car, it was taken from them, they had no intention of disposing of it. As for your second example, it's not relevant accordingly.

            Despite the (considerable remaining) length of your answer, it's just plain wrong from the get-go.

            They sold their car to the insurance company when they accepted the payout. The examples match.

            I don't mind you free associating with what the vibe of the law is, but I think it's irresponsible to be wrong in fact when advising others of what they can do.

            • 

              MrFrugalSpend on 18/08/2023 - 23:37

              -1

              @Crow K: Okay fine, disclaimer re above: "Do Not Try This at Home! This is not advice - seek your own legal advice on matters of law".
              Perhaps I wasn't clear - I 100% understand the insurer is entitled to the car… I've always understood the insurer is entitled to the car - no one is doubting there has been an agreement which says the insurer are entitled to the car. Have I made that clear enough yet?

              OP was already completely f… stuffed "from the get-go" in that regard - the discussion was about how that may have been changed…I'm simply offering a scenario which may have increased the chances, and hope for the best, in a true victimless "crime".

              You can go on about how it is the insurer's car all you like, because technically they are entitled to it…. and that it is unlawful, because it technically is… (hence me saying it is a technicality, i.e. "a point of law or a small detail of a set of rules, as contrasted with the intent or purpose of the rules")… it still does not change anything about what I am saying .. which is the reality of how to push for an outcome you may want, what steps would likely occur if you did, with an extremely tiny element of risk that you clearly are demonstrating you don't have the b…. risk appetite for.

              Your example is still not the same in the sense that your buyer actually wants the car, and stealing it back is malicious and inconvenient, in the OP's scenario the insurer just wants to recover losses (i.e. $$$s), and the person that car was stolen from (a customer) is calling up saying "oh thank goodness my precious family car I'm emotionally attached to is back, I have it back and please let me keep it, please and take your money back so that your losses are fully recovered, please, isn't it great?!)" … Yeah, sure, their first step upon receiving that call is to seek to have OP arrested in your description of reality??? I doubt it, but enjoy your very rigid 'right vs wrong' view of society. Even if they did, OP has tried to pay them back for it and that would be very relevant to the facts of the case - The Castle references aside, I still believe it's relevant to what would happen, and you'd never let it get that far and give up the car if they demanded it.

              Given the whole point of selling it is to recover losses, and they pay commission/costs to sell the car, transport it to sale, etc, and they would normally recover only part of what they paid to OP resulting in a loss, then you are doing the insurer a favour and they should always want to have it refunded easily with no commission nor sale costs if made easy and low cost for them - Alternatively as per my main original point, if the insurer is profiting from the sale, something is wrong with the market value paid to OP. Another leverage point to get what you want…. which is what OP was seeking.

              • 

                Crow K on 19/08/2023 - 12:09

                -1

                @MrFrugalSpend: All this "okay well TECHNICALLY THEY ARE ENTITLED TO IT" is just the weasel's way of acknowledging "it's their property, they own it". They're as "technically entitled to" the car as you are to the wallet you have in your pocket right now. A better question might be why you have to start using long paragraphs and non-standard wording to discuss such a simple concept. Maybe just admit you were wrong? You said a stupid thing (duh just take the car and pay them back) and then you doubled down (who's to say what 'ownership' really means, I am a philosopher, it won't be illegal if they forgive you).

                The worst part is you know you're wrong and it's just flat-out illegal to take a car you don't own, which is why you offer up mealy-mouthed trivialities like

                Essentially it is initially a civil matter between the two contracting parties, not a criminal case (unless they make a false declaration to retrieve it or the likes).

                A false declaration like, I don't know, signing some paperwork to get a car out of an impound lot that's not yours? Or you think you can just nod to the guy on the gate and go "Hey, I have a key that matches a car in there, nevermind who I am, I'm just going to open the car door and drive it off, because we can both assume it's my car if I have the key that fits, it's like Cinderella for cars, right?".

                Or maybe this fantastic bit of legal reasoning

                No doubt you've heard the saying that possession is 9/10ths of the law and for chattels that is true and based on actual case law principles. In this case the other 1/10th would come into play.

                Yeah, the best legal knowledge comes via popular sayings. And "An apple a day keeps the doctor away" is medical advice, while we are at it. I'd love you to stand up in court and say "Your honour, possession is 9/10ths of the law" and see what happens.

                The cherry on the top is the consistently dumb "it's okay if you don't get caught" brainfarts like

                You can go on about how it is the insurer's car all you like, because technically they are entitled to it…. and that it is unlawful, because it technically is… (hence me saying it is a technicality, i.e. "a point of law or a small detail of a set of rules, as contrasted with the intent or purpose of the rules")… it still does not change anything about what I am saying .. which is the reality of how to push for an outcome you may want, what steps would likely occur if you did, with an extremely tiny element of risk that you clearly are demonstrating you don't have the b…. risk appetite for.

                You haven't even got the stones to drop the "balls" line, and you're needling me about my milquetoast attitude? Bad Boy MrFrugalSpend doesn't want to use a suggestive word on an internet forum?

                Your response was wrong, and when challenged on it your defense of that was incapable. Go to Jail, do not pass Go, do not collect car from impound lot.

                • 

                  MrFrugalSpend on 19/08/2023 - 14:11

                  -1

                  @Crow K: Okay, this is word for word out of my Car Insurance PDS:

                  "What happens to your property"
                  Recovered vehicles
                  If we settle your claim under Comprehensive insurance and it is a total loss and the vehicle is later recovered we will usually keep the recovered vehicle. At our discretion (and if safe to do so), you may reclaim the recovered vehicle if you agree to pay the salvage price"

                  So you can go on and on about how it was "sold" to them as much as you like…whereas I'll use terms like they are entitled to it, but really it depends on the legal terms and what they agree at their discretion. This is certainly not indicating you have no hope of being able to keep your car.

                  As I said, it would become a civil matter, and the steps I suggested were to increase the chances of them using their discretion. So, you can demonstrate you lack of understanding of legal terminology by criticising how I talk, but you should know I learned to speak terminology like this WHEN I STUDIED LAW COURSES AT UNIVERSITY AND GRADUATED WITH EXCELLENT GRADES!

                  This is also where we learned about the doctrine of possession as a critical concept in understanding ownership and the right to title, and where the law lecturer specifically talked about possession being 9/10ths of the law expression. It should be acknowledged there are plenty of other areas of law, doctrines, modern statutory laws, case law that overrules this (as I said), which leads me to the other point I have harped on about - much of the law is not such a black and white thing. It was simply a way to explain in simple terms that it is a lot easier to argue you are entitled to something you have (in your possession), then something someone else has - if you have something locked away at your place and I claim it is mine, the onus is on me to prove it is mine…. i.e. it flips it to the insurer's problem. It's also the basis for things like squatters rights. Now as I said, they do have rights to it, but they have to go off and prove that, pull out evidence of the settlement, the PDS terms etc etc…. it all of a sudden becomes a lot easier to accept the bird in the hand being offered the cash for salvage value back, doesn't it?

                  After all, lawyers get paid to find a defence and argue an outcome to defend basically anything, find the counter argument, a different law that may help them, increase their client's chances. Hence a lot of it is just about putting yourself in the best position to argue for what you want. This is why if this happens to me, I'll do what I can to get increase my chances of getting my car back. This is also why in real life I've won multiple legal disputes, been off to court-led mediation and won, settled insurance claims, and all sorts of other things. My colleague, a former police prosecutor, once commented that I win by attrition - i.e. stubbornness and persistence…. and by using really long letters and emails (as you can tell by my comments) until the other side gives up and for example, let's me keep my car cause it is easier. If you don't want to do that, that's fine. I don't care if people think I am wrong and annoying, they still give up eventually and that can only happen if I already have the car!

                  As for not using certain terminology, I didn't want to get a personal attack / comment ban.

                  Have a nice day.

                  • 

                    Crow K on 19/08/2023 - 16:00

                    @MrFrugalSpend:

                    So you can go on and on about how it was "sold" to them as much as you like…whereas I'll use terms like they are entitled to it, but really it depends on the legal terms and what they agree at their discretion

                    Oh, okay, thanks for quoting an example where they said "it entirely is our decision, because we own the car". That's, uh, solid proof of my argument. My argument that says you were wrong. Uh .. why were you so eager to show me this?

                    WHEN I STUDIED LAW COURSES AT UNIVERSITY AND GRADUATED WITH EXCELLENT GRADES!

                    Yeah, fascinating (if true).

                    So you forgot that knowledge when you advocated people to do illegal things?

                    Your position is worse: you knew the things were wrong and out of post-thirst you said "well I reckon take the car back somehow, who's to say of it's actually wrong?"

                    You said stupid wrong things. Disengage. Or better still, follow your own advice and tell the judge "hey I had excellent uni grades and possession is 9/10ths".

                    • 

                      MrFrugalSpend on 19/08/2023 - 19:44

                      @Crow K: I think there needs to be a recap, try to think with a more open mind about what I am saying rather than just assuming I am "wrong" (as though there is such a definitive thing as 100% right or 100% wrong in law). I am not saying you are wrong, you just have a different risk profile and approach and don't understand the subtleties of what I am saying which centres around it not being as plain simple as illegal or legal as most people envisage to simplify things in their heads. There are just a bunch of actions people take, and a bunch of consequences that can be taken by an aggrieved party that has suffered losses as a result, including asking for government intervention where they breach sets of rules known as laws. It can be just as important whether someone has reason to enforce a law or not in deciding whether to take an action, i.e. whether there actually is a loss. Those laws are enforced by the courts and police - let's recap on what they think about this situation from OP's story "I received a call from VicPol informing me that my car had been recovered in working condition and was sitting in an impoundment waiting to be collected"…. So the current status is, the police who believe it is OP's car have called up and said come get it…. I really doubt they are going to be rushing to press criminal charges after that action.

                      In physical reality, for chattels, we either possess them or we don't. There is a made-up concept governed by a series of laws regarding ownership of property (your property, my property), but if I have it and don't just immediately give it up, the insurer needs to take legal action to recover it and I will take defensive action, when the risk gets too great I may give it up. Everybody can have defences.

                      The first statement that you took such offence to is this: "I would have tried to claim the car back / take possession before telling the insurance. Then contact them to tell them you are sending their money back to avoid it being illegal / penalties." I over-simplified that statement because I didn't realise it would require such a lengthy explanation. Firstly, "tried to". Not saying it is a definite thing - I also stated I would not make a false declaration to do so, and clarified I wouldn't try to hang onto it if they insisted, but I figure if the police have contacted OP, they think it is OP's car, so they probably just want to see ID to allow them to take it. There's no declaration in that. So, I would just try it - if the police think it is mine and I really want it back, why wouldn't I? (Oh dear, big bad me, how dare I go get what was stolen from me that the police think is mine).

                      The words I have used here are involve what to do next to avoid illegal penalties - i.e. being convicted of criminality (going to jail or fines). To grasp this concept, you firstly need to understand the different between illegality and unlawful. "Oh wait, there's a difference!?" he says… Yes, I learned this because it is true I studied law. "Hot Tip - The term ‘illegal’ is generally used for behaviour that is contrary to criminal law. An action is described as ‘unlawful’ if it is a breach of civil law" https://legalanswers.sl.nsw.gov.au/hot-topics-australian-leg….

                      I never said it wasn't breaching an agreement made with the insurer under civil law, quite possibly unlawful, but it really doesn't need to get that much air time because at this point me, the police, and insurer, we are all friends. The guy that stole my car is the big baddie and we're both victims. Next thing that comes into play is the agreement with the insurer, who still don't even know about it…I never said I wasn't breaching the agreement I made with the insurer to settle the claim. Instead, I said, once I had claimed possession, I would take corrective action to contact them before I wind up getting a criminal penalty (illegality). Thus, clearly, I already know I can't keep both!

                      I'm not doubting the terms of the policy (this is governed as a civil agreement between you and them) likely says they are entitled to the car as I keep saying, but for a chattel as I said above, it is in my possession, and legal action needs to be taken by them to get it… except they don't even need to do that, because I am the one calling them up and offering a new civil agreement. i.e. I offer them money, they let me keep the car. I am the one in possession, calling up to say I have it, and what I want is to give you your money back. I now have the upper hand that OP does not cause he called the insurer first. This buys me bargaining power to try reach a new agreement with them. It may not be successful, but as I said, I would have tried it.

                      Next I included the statement from the PDS because what it says is

                      "What happens to your property"… "we will usually keep the recovered vehicle" and "At our discretion (and if safe to do so), you may reclaim the recovered vehicle if you agree to pay the salvage price".

                      Have I not repeatedly said they are entitled to the vehicle? Yes I have. What determines that? The terms of the agreement with the insurer…. but largely it doesn't matter because as I said, its a bunch of actions and consequences - this statement says it is their discretion/choice - so given that is what my policy says, I'd ring them up and discuss it.
                      Does that mean anything I have done is "wrong" - get with the programme, there's no such thing as 100% right and 100% wrong, what we have is me ringing them up to sort it out, noting it is at their discretion, and my policy says if they agree I may be able to keep it. What helps me persuade them to use their discretion to keep it? Well one thing I thought of is making it easy for them by it already being in my possession. Another I also brought up is if they underpaid me for its market value, if not already successful, I would then threaten to make an issue of that.

                      Do I have any fear of going to jail at this point? No! Could they take such actions or a civil suit for the tort of conversion… possibly, but I'm the one that just rang my insurer with the good news. So it doesn't matter, the people that can take action regarding it, aren't really going to launch straight into legal action when I have just offered a varied settlement to them, having their $400+/hr lawyers delve into the depths of the PDS T&Cs at way greater expense than the car/dispute is worth. If they really want to be pricks about it and take the car, I'd give it up, but I still believe I would have the upper hand versus OP that does not. So as I said, it's a technicality…. that means technically it is unlawful, but it is not really the purpose of the law, and it doesn't matter because the intention is to call them up and work it out.

• 

  kerfuffle on 10/08/2023 - 22:06

  +1

  It definitely won't be an auction on eBay or Gumtree. Have you tried Googling your insurance company and auctions? Not of any help being a different state, but NRMA use Pickles

  • 

    FoxJump on 10/08/2023 - 23:30

    +5

    My car got written off.
    I checked pickles daily until it came up. One day it was there.

    • 

      EightImmortals on 11/08/2023 - 06:52

      And then what happened?

      • 

        FoxJump on 11/08/2023 - 07:11

        i saw it get sold for $2500

        • 

          EightImmortals on 11/08/2023 - 07:35

          @FoxJump: Bummer. Or yay?

          • 

            FoxJump on 11/08/2023 - 09:08

            +1

            @EightImmortals: i had thought of buying it as a farm car for someone i know but then they didn't want it.

            i considered buying it for family overseas but.. the paperwork was daunting

            damage was flood damage in South Australia but it actually kept working despite some small faults

• 

  Gunnar on 11/08/2023 - 07:28

  +1

  A similar situation happened to a friend of mine but his car was a repairable write off. He just pestered the insurance company and eventually they caved and sold his car back to him

  Written requests/feedback/complaints goes way further than a phone call (for anything)

  Good luck with it all! As someone who gets way too attached to my cars I totally feel your pain and frustration knowing that you can have your car back

• 

  Wiadro on 11/08/2023 - 09:42

  pest them everyday and email them and you'll get it

• 

  Malik Nasser on 11/08/2023 - 09:46

  +1

  I find it strange they wont tell you where it will be auctioned. If you are an interested bidder, it will only increase the bidding price and potentially final sale price (which is in their best interest).
  Maybe give them another call and tell them you want to bid on it at auction, so need to know where it will be auctioned. Let them know you are determined to buy it back, so are willing to pay a higher price, which is to their benefit.
  Not sure what other options you have available.

• 

  brendanm on 11/08/2023 - 10:50

  Just keep an eye on pickles/Manheim. It will go for more than you got paid out.