Is CarProof always right?

[konfusion666]

Has anyone had any experiences with CarProof such that the information it's given to you is totally wrong?

Referring to the "CarProof Claims" product. You pay CAD$27 for a single report, so you'd expect the quality to be higher than the $25 you pay for unlimited CarFax right? We all know that CarFax tends to give inaccurate information but it's an American company and you're paying for unlimited reports, so we kinda expect that...

I just wonder if I should assume CarProof is "right" when it says a particular used car I was looking at had a "partial loss" insurance claim for 14 grand! Well I obviously am not going to buy the damn thing now...

Ugh... this is why I hate used car shopping...

[chicadam]

When I was buying a used car I was super paranoid. I got Carproof, Carfax and all that. But basically all that stuff doesn't really tell you the story of the car. Only major accident would appear on those reports because those will be the only ones reported. Repaints, medium to small accidents and dings will not appear and so at the end of the day you should take the car in for an inspection.

At the end of all the research I was patient and lucky and got a good private sale on a car that was still under the bumper to bumper warranty.

I think the key to finding a used card is to be patient and keep looking. Of course not our situations are the same. Hope this helps.

[konfusion666]

yeah, i know that minor dings and stuff aren't reported to anybody, so i was planning on taking the car to my mechanic tomorrow or next week - after i made them my offer tonight, and gave them a deposit.

but, before leaving the house i thought it would be prudent to do a CarProof check (i had already done a Carfax check which revealed nothing). the CarProof report was pretty explicit. i told the salesperson this and his response was that their "UCDA" check was superior to everything and if that didn't show any accidents then nothing happened... well, screw them then!

[juched]

hmm... I think I am in the same boat.

Carfax and UVIP both show clean records on a Nissan Quest I have signed for but now need to decide on. Car proof shows that it had an accident claim for 19, 000$. That is crazy, wouldn't they have written the car off?

I looked under and around and I couldn't see any damage or issues with the van. The dealer is going to send it to Nissan to be inspected for me and I can make up my mind after that.

Any thoughts?

[Jucius Maximus]

Not at all, they are only as accurate as the information reported. I wouldn't expect false positives, but false negatives come with the territory.

[AGR-1]

There are a multitude of databases that these various reporting services have contracts to access their information regarding collisions, losses, insurance claims.

1- These systems are not perfect since there is no CENTRAL database, and some insurance companies do not report to any database.

2- Carfax does not report collision information, which can be very misleading compared to Autocheck / Car Proof.

3- Autocheck (UCDA) reports only collision information.

4- Car Proof reports anything and everything that is possibly related to an insurance claim.

A dealer should have either Autocheck (UCDA) or Car Proof or even both on every used vehicle they are offering for sale, and should willingly show you the report.

Over 30% of recent model used vehicles have "something" that appears on one of these reports.

Ideally on any recent model 2-5 year old used vehicle you would want an ownership history which any dealer can quickly access, you want to see either or both Autocheck and Car Proof.

As an example if there are 10 databases one service deals with 5 the other service deals with the other 5 and the information is not the same, the fine print mentions that these services are merely reporting what they find from the databases they deal with, they are not responsible for the information that they report.

If you are considering a recent model vehicle above $ 20,000 from a dealer you want to see a Car Proof and Autochek.

The worst horror stories of all these reports you can buy a used vehicle with one report (clean), 12 months later you want to trade the vehicle the dealer pulls a different report and suddenly there is a collision or partial loss that appears on your vehicle with a clean report from one reporting service.

[juched]

Thanks for the advice. Anyone with an autocheck account willing to do me a favour?

I already have the UVIP, carfax and carproof, and only carproof shows this.

Will an insurance company be able to find if there is previous accidents? Will they do a background check before I insure?

Thanks,
David

[Mayoo]

Carproof is the best .. when i mention about carproof, I noticed used car dealers getting pissed at me .. they even show me a bulletin how UCDA is suing Carproof !!!! lol ..cause it tells the truth .. lol

[canadiantofu]

It's almost looking like you need to run both reports. A while back I did the same thing as you and found that only the CarFax report showed that the car I was looking at had about 140k of milage that was rolled back. If I went alone with the CarProof report and brought the car, I would have been screwed.

This was my comment from a thread way back in 2005.

[Bullseye]

Not sure about CarProof, but CarFax seems useless. My last vehicle had two accidents, both reported to the Collision Reporting Centre, and both went through insurance, yet the CarFax report I pulled (2+ years after accidents) showed no accidents! I'll certainly never trust CarFax for anything after that.

[BartBandy]

Yes, CarFax (and the CarFax thread here) are pretty much useless, or at least they aren't very complete.

The final bit of due diligence is a thorough pre-purchase inspection by a mechanic who can spot non-factory welds. Reports can omit repairs, but major bodywork is hard to hide from trained eyes.