So, I was involved in an RTC (see my other topic if you're interested) and I want to claim against the other party for the cost of my (commuting) bike. I took the bike to the shop who declared it uneconomical to repair, and recommended a replacement.
This is fair enough, but where does the 'market value prior to accident' come into it? If your car is written off, you'll usually get a cheque from the insurer with which to buy a replacement second hand car, right? The insurer will argue the toss about how much your car was worth, and you'll eventually settle on a figure. Which is easy because of various second hand car price guides, autotrader etc.
Who can estimate the market value prior to accident of a bike?
Can I argue with it? If someone turned round and said it was worth, say, £300 (approx half of the 'replacement' cost), I would find it very difficult to get a replacement bike for that money - certainly not one of the specification that my bike had. It was a typical 'workhorse' bike in that it all functioned well and the upgraded drivetrain / wheels were semi-posh (ideal for commuting) but the frame was old and overall it looked a bit tatty. I certainly wouldn't be happy with a shiny new bike if, at £300, it had nasty shimano 2400 gears that would all wear out within 6 months.
How does one reconcile this?