So here is an independent engineer disagreeing with David Snuddens categorisation as well as 100% of all other people who have seen this vehicle and photos of it!!
I sent this report off along with the following letter:
Your Ref: ???
With reference to the above claim, please find enclosed an independent engineer’s report regarding the vehicle. This report clearly states this car should, if written off, be classed as a category C not B and that I should have the option of repairing the vehicle should you continue to insist you will not repair it under my policy.
Since your engineers David Snudden and David White decided to write my vehicle off as cat B I have sought advice from a number of engineers and car body shops regarding this vehicle, I have also posted details on a specialist forum including estimate details. Not one individual is in agreement with your categorisation of this vehicle. Nor can they understand exactly how you come to reach the exceptionally high cost of repair in your estimates.
I have included a copy of your estimate with several unrequired parts highlighted. It seems as if your estimate has been compiled to look deliberately expensive not to mention, having a number of unnecessary parts and double charged parts, such as paint, which appears twice on the estimate at a cost of £916.00 + VAT each time!
You seem to have virtually ignored the fact that I have a donor vehicle for parts. This vehicle was and still is in perfect roadworthy condition and was used daily by myself for the last ten years until it was replaced with the newer model which sadly, is the subject of this claim.
It is clear that your engineers doubt my ability to both correctly specify which parts are common to both vehicles and also to repair the vehicle safely. This I find extremely insulting, particularly given my experience of these vehicles and the specialist knowledge at my disposal, both of which can be verified.
Turning to the parts you have listed, I can immediately remove £1866.28 in unnecessary new parts, as these are direct “bolt on” parts from the donor vehicle. When speaking to independent engineers and chassis repair shops it’s highly doubtful the chassis legs will need replacing as there are industry standard techniques in place to repair these. This would remove a further £1493.07 from the bill. Add to this the double charged paint cost at £916.00 + VAT each time.
As the vehicle is fully repairable at a reasonable cost, I would seek to have payment made in lieu from yourselves. As indicated in your report, this would be between £6500 - £7000. I would then undertake to have the repairs carried out myself & my insurance cover would continue as per my current schedule.
If, however, you still insist the vehicle is in your opinion, BER, then I would only be willing to accept your offer of £6500 less my excess of £300 and a figure of £250 to buy back the car provided the vehicle is correctly classed as cat C, thereby allowing me to repair the vehicle and my policy to continue as per the current schedule.
I should also like to point out the fact that this vehicle is one of only two in the country and in immaculate condition. For its rarity alone it should be repaired. Furthermore, a great many interested parties including engineers and body shops, have all expressed reservations as to why Groupama are so intent on classing this vehicle as cat B and without exception expressed the opinion “somebody wants the car, it will never reach a scrap yard or be written off if collected”.
This I find extremely worrying and if it should prove necessary am prepared to take this matter further and notify the appropriate regulatory bodies, although I hope this does not prove necessary.
This claim continues to be followed by and is of great interest to the Toyota Supra community particularly given your incomprehensible estimate and seemingly immovable stance with regard to repair.
I await hearing from you.