Update: VT Audi with VWFS - BCA Report

[stannie203]

Just thought I'd update and also ask a question on VT-ing my Audi with VWFS.

We had the BCA report this morning and they've given the car an A rating, with a charge of £55.20 for a rear bumper scratch. Perfectly reasonable.

With the advice on here to not sign the report, I didn't sign it.

Although, with the report being so good I've been left thinking whether I should have done?!

Have I done the right thing? All the advice was around the 2nd report coming back 3 or 4 times more expensive and not signing puts us in a better position to challenge that... Any words of wisdom R0b !?

[R0b]

Read the small print very carefully and see what it says as it might say that you either agree or accept the damages shown, or that there is a further inspection to be carried out at the auction.

If you are satisfied that the wording doesn't compromise your position then you can sign it, get a copy or at least in either case take a photo of it on your phone as evidence. You cna then point out that at the time of collection there was minimal damage so any other damage assessed would not have been done in your possession.

[stannie203]

Thanks R0b - the BCA inspector didn't show me the small print, despite me raising concerns about what I'm signing my rights away to.

I have a copy of the report in my emails already, detailing the one piece of damage (which we're happy with)

By not signing, he ticked 'customer refused to sign - disputes costings' (there was no other suitable option really).

Inspection results area it says Result: Accepted

We certainly don't want to challenge the 1 area of damage BCA have brought up, not signing was more out of fear of this second report that comes back 3-4 times more expensive...

[R0b]

I find it totally unnecessary to have second inspections and most of the time those inspections are normally carried out prior to the car being sold so it could be that it is left in storage for sometime between the first inspection and the second. The fact that only minor damage is recorded on the car at the time of collection should put you in good stead to argue that it must have been accepted that the only damage recorded was present at the time of colllection and all other damage must have occurred at a later date - you can't be held liable for someone else's negligence.

[stannie203]

I find it totally unnecessary to have second inspections and most of the time those inspections are normally carried out prior to the car being sold so it could be that it is left in storage for sometime between the first inspection and the second. The fact that only minor damage is recorded on the car at the time of collection should put you in good stead to argue that it must have been accepted that the only damage recorded was present at the time of colllection and all other damage must have occurred at a later date - you can't be held liable for someone else's negligence.

Totally agree. Thanks

I presume we can cancel the insurance on it now!?