Hail damaged C5 potential write off - Page 2
  • Register
  • Help
Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last
Results 26 to 50 of 66
Like Tree26Likes

Thread: Hail damaged C5 potential write off

  1. #26
    Administrator GreenBlood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,642

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by garyk View Post
    Its a personal decision. Pre 2005 C5s, whilst being very nice cars, are probably not going to fetch much more than $4,000.
    In effect, you are probably getting "market value" even if undamaged. The 2004 may eventually be prone to expensive gearbox problems (if auto).

    (Having owned a 2002, 2004 and now a 2005) I'd take the money and go for a 2005+ model, even if with high kms.
    I bought mine (2.2HDI) with about 240,000kms for very few dollars. Fab car and the 2.2HDI motor is a joy.

    If you are unconcerned with later resale value of the car, then it is less critical, but I'd say it is a good opportunity to upgrade.
    Sad but true, you can throw money at the damaged car and it will always be a damaged car. . . here's a couple that probably won't fetch much more than current bids, one with the 6 speed box.


    2007 Citroen C5 Hdi Turbo Diesel Sports Automatic Sedan, 153,682 km Auction (0001-3412126) | GraysOnline Australia

    2005 Citroen C5 FWD Sports Automatic Hatchback, 160,199 km indicated Auction (0002-7701927) | GraysOnline Australia

    Advertisement


    Cheers
    Chris
    David M likes this.
    74 D(very Special) >>Rejuvenation Thread<<
    08 C5 X7 HDi very Noir



    "Déesse" Roland Barthes, 'Mythologies', 1957

    The Déesse has all the characteristics of one of those objects fallen from another universe that fed the mania for novelty in the eighteenth century and a similar mania expressed by modern science fiction: the Déesse is first and foremost the new Nautilus.

    (Umberto Eco [Ed], The History of Beauty, Rizzoli, NY, 2004)

  2. #27
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    monbulk
    Posts
    603

    Default

    A little bit of positive progress.

    I chatted with GIO today to assert my ownership of the vehicle.
    The outcomes were;

    Policy value is $6,900. ($900 more than I thought.)

    Rear window to be replaced prior to assessment. This gives driving flexibility to my son and his gf. Can't be done until March 15, so he has my car for the moment.

    Age excess of $400 refunded. Thanks David S for the clear headed pointer. Sorry about the bruise!

    Assessment will not result in confiscation of car at the inspection point. If it is a write off it will be economic not statutory but it will still be listed somewhere but the man at the end of the phone couldn't clarify exactly what that would mean. I didn't tell him it has Vic registration. They will not "nearly" write the car off.

    Whether to attempt a DIY repair is on my mind. If I fail badly, then I have only spent $200 on pullers/kits etc.(thanks Col) And my time of course. The car could then be scrapped or auctioned? without loosing much cash if I'm not happy with the result. (Thanks for the links Chris, the black one looks good but the auction ends before I will be ready to buy - a good indication of where to look and what to expect.)

    So I'm feeling a bit happier that it will all be OK.
    Thanks for all the helpful responses. Your collected thoughts and experience help make more informed decisions. I'll let you know future developments around the middle of March.
    GreenBlood likes this.

  3. #28
    JBN
    JBN is offline
    1000+ Posts JBN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,130

    Default

    I bought a course of Paintless Dent Removal (PDR) on a set of DVDs many years ago. I also looked into the purchase of tools for such (from Qld?). I didn't proceed with PDR,

    Some time later I had one tiny dent, less than a 5c coin, removed from the rear boot lid of my 2CV. by a professional PDR operator. I was present whilst he did it. It was a difficult job due to the very thin metal panel of a 2CV and the fact that the metal was dead flat, although accessibility was perfect and the boot lid could be removed in 10 seconds. I came to the conclusion that it was not nearly as easy as it first appears. A hail damaged car would certainly give you plenty of practice.

    Perhaps after removing the dents on the C5, you could junk the car (or trade it in) and get a ute and go into the PDR business. With all the hail damage this year, there is work for many.

    It will be interesting what price the two C5's bring at their respective auctions. Both look the part. One day when I don't need a Xantia hatchback....

    John

  4. #29
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    monbulk
    Posts
    603

    Default

    Thanks for the heads up John. I don't think it will be easy and I sort of put a caveat on my skills with the "time" and "not happy with the result" comments.

  5. #30
    Fellow Frogger! blahblah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    123

    Default

    With the hail, was there rain as well? In the big storm we had here in Perth a number of years ago it took out the back window of a Toyota we had filling the back of the car with glass and then proceeded to soak the carpet/rear seat with rain. The car stank within a short time.
    Ended up a write off.

    I'd get it cleaned and dried out if it's at all wet...

    Cheers,

    Chris
    David M likes this.

  6. #31
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    monbulk
    Posts
    603

    Default

    Thanks Chris,
    Yes lots of rain too.
    I'll get my son to remove the carpets and dry them.
    Seats are leather so they will have repelled some water, I hope.
    Car is in underground car park so some drying will have taken place. You're right, mildew is not a good look - or smell!
    We're onto it.

  7. #32
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    monbulk
    Posts
    603

    Default

    I've been considering what to do with the C5. It's getting a new rear window in just over a week. So it will be able to be driven short term.
    I went to my local (Victorian) RWC inspector today and had a chat. He told me that as a repairable write off it would need a RWC. He wouldn't give a RWC with any hail pock marks on the turret between the A,B and C pillars. So that, I think, means the car will be scrapped.

    I could of course NOT make a claim and keep driving the car but that creates the twin perils of
    1. not having any insurance
    2. being given a Defect Notice and fine/demerit points for driving an unregistered vehicle.

    Over a barrel springs to mind.

  8. #33
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Armidale
    Posts
    1,670

    Default

    So why proceed with the new rear window? I am surprised that the insurance company is prepared to honour that part of your policy when the rest of the car is in imminent danger of being written off!

    Cheers

    Alec
    dimistyle likes this.

  9. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    sydney, australia
    Posts
    11,356

    Default

    interesting! hail damage on the turret makes it unroadworthy. i wouldnt have thought that made other than cosmetic difference.

  10. #35
    1000+ Posts robmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne / Caulfield
    Posts
    14,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I've been considering what to do with the C5. It's getting a new rear window in just over a week. So it will be able to be driven short term.
    I went to my local (Victorian) RWC inspector today and had a chat. He told me that as a repairable write off it would need a RWC. He wouldn't give a RWC with any hail pock marks on the turret between the A,B and C pillars. So that, I think, means the car will be scrapped.

    I could of course NOT make a claim and keep driving the car but that creates the twin perils of
    1. not having any insurance
    2. being given a Defect Notice and fine/demerit points for driving an unregistered vehicle.

    Over a barrel springs to mind.
    I'd ring Vic Roads and check that statement. If it is unroadworthy due to a broken/ cracked screen, fair enough.

    However minor dents, in no way related to the turret structural components, seems to be "gilding the lily" more than somewhat.

    In fact total BS springs to mind.
    fnqvmuch likes this.
    Mutual Respect is Contagious


  11. #36
    Fellow Frogger! fnqvmuch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    port douglas
    Posts
    542

    Default

    Are we talking about a hailstorm in Vic or NSW?

  12. #37
    1000+ Posts Peter Chisholm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    SWOTR
    Posts
    2,722

    Default

    Hmm, I'd be surprised if the sort of damage you're describing makes it unroadworthy. Got any pics?

  13. #38
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    monbulk
    Posts
    603

    Default

    It gets harder!
    A check of VicRoads talks about cosmetic damage being OK, ie not regarded as interfering with the safety cell. Car must pass RWC.
    But if the car is on an interstate WOVR it HAS to go through a more rigorous inspection and the damage MUST be repaired. Car is Vic regd but in NSW.

    Alec, the car is not safe to drive without a rear screen. The insurance has specific glass cover (no claim) and they won't/can't write it off until the car is driven to an assessment location.

  14. #39
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Armidale
    Posts
    1,670

    Default

    Classic Catch-22! Fortunately, as you say, no cost to you !

  15. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    sydney, australia
    Posts
    11,356

    Default

    Alec, the car is not safe to drive without a rear screen. The insurance has specific glass cover (no claim) and they won't/can't write it off until the car is driven to an assessment location.
    personally i would just drive it there, if that is what is required, though i realise than is a pragmatic response and not necessary a legal one.
    why do you say it isnt safe to drive without a rear screen?

  16. #41
    1000+ Posts Peter Chisholm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    SWOTR
    Posts
    2,722

    Default

    All getting kinda' complicated.

  17. #42
    1000+ Posts robmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne / Caulfield
    Posts
    14,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexander View Post
    why do you say it isnt safe to drive without a rear screen?
    Glass is sometimes part of the turret structural bracing. And without glass installed the roof may no longer be structurally sound.
    David M likes this.
    Mutual Respect is Contagious


  18. #43
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    monbulk
    Posts
    603

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexander View Post
    why do you say it isnt safe to drive without a rear screen?
    The arrangement is that the insurance co will give a time and location. Sydney weather next week looks rubbish,
    with rain.
    Not the ideal conditions for a P plater to experience open top motoring.

  19. #44
    1000+ Posts robmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne / Caulfield
    Posts
    14,965

    Default

    I'd tell them to send an assessor and inspect the car where it is.

    Not a good to look to insist a P plater drive a unroadworthy car to make their life easier.

    As a parent, I would disallow my inexperienced child to drive the car.

    Just sayin.
    Armidillo likes this.
    Mutual Respect is Contagious


  20. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    sydney, australia
    Posts
    11,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robmac View Post
    Glass is sometimes part of the turret structural bracing. And without glass installed the roof may no longer be structurally sound.
    oh come now! aside from any legal aspects, there is no way a car isnt structurally safe to be driven without glass in it! bonded glass or not.

    we arent talking about thrashing round a WRC course. just driving for an inspection.

  21. #46
    1000+ Posts robmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne / Caulfield
    Posts
    14,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexander View Post
    oh come now! aside from any legal aspects, there is no way a car isnt structurally safe to be driven without glass in it! bonded glass or not.

    we arent talking about thrashing round a WRC course. just driving for an inspection.
    The VACC don't agree with you. Nor do I.

    And I know the link only refers to the front, by applying logic it probably applies to the rear as well.
    Mutual Respect is Contagious


  22. #47
    1000+ Posts Peter Chisholm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    SWOTR
    Posts
    2,722

    Default

    Perhaps surprisingly, my mates Holden panel van use to fill up with exhaust fumes in a instant if you drove with the window part of the tail gate up. Maybe the powers-that-be have related concerns.

  23. #48
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Armidale
    Posts
    1,670

    Default

    Did he have front windows down as well? Keep blower fan on full blast and don't open any windows to prevent air being sucked in from the rear...

  24. #49
    Fellow Frogger
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    Why would the C5 end up on the NSW WOVR? It's on Vic plates and it's up to VicRoads to determine if they would continue to register it. The insurer is not state based, so being damaged and assessed in Sydney should not alter its Vic rego status. You are probably supposed to change the state of rego if you move, but I gather the job is not currently regarded as a 'permanent' move to NSW for that purpose. However, the solution might be to accept a payment to cover the damage rather than having it treated a write-off. Then you run it on 3rd party only until you address the hail damage.

    In the older C5, the rear glass is part of the tailgate and it's not going to make a lot of difference to the structure. You'd be surprised how much torsional rigidity is lost when a large hole is added to a turret. It's probably not really 'unsafe' to drive such a car, but the original structural strength is certainly reduced, which may cause concerns. The Panoramic roof glass in something like an older C4 is laminated, so it will retain most of its strength, even if cracked. Not so for a rear screen, which is typically toughened and will shatter.

  25. #50
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    monbulk
    Posts
    603

    Default

    My concern is the definition of cosmetic and structural. that a RWC tester will judge. Certainly there are several golf ball size dimples on the folded sides of the turret, which could be deemed a structural component as opposed to the flat section of the roof which could be judged cosmetic.
    David, my chat with the insurance co. indicated that it couldnt be "mostly"written off. If they judge it as a loss then the car falls to thier hands with an option to buy the wreck and chance my luck with a RWC tester whose definition (above) may not go my way.

    Anyway, this is just an update with further decisions to be made down the road. This is where we are today. "D" day will be some weeks away yet, I would expect.
    I must say that I'm glad I asked for your thoughts, as they have provided a range of possibilities to explore.

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •