Reference · ABI Code

ABI Salvage Code V11 (November 2019) vs V12 (May 2025). The Definitive Comparison

This page is structured in two parts. Part One is the consumer-friendly summary, what changed, what it means for you as a car owner, buyer, or seller. Part Two is the technical reference, section-by-section comparison of the two codes for insurers, salvage operators, Appropriately Qualified Persons (AQPs), motor traders, and anyone needing the detail.

Skip to whichever part fits your needs. The two parts cover the same ground at different levels of depth, you don’t need to read both.

PART ONE: Consumer Summary

What is the ABI Salvage Code, and why does this matter?

When a car is damaged badly enough that an insurance company decides not to repair it, the insurer categorises it as either Cat A, Cat B, Cat S, or Cat N. Those four letters determine whether the car can ever go back on the road, what value it has, and whether anyone buying it later will know about its history.

The rules for which damage gets which letter are set by the Association of British Insurers (ABI) in a document called the Salvage Code of Practice. The ABI updated the Code in May 2025, replacing the previous version from November 2019. This was the first significant update in over five years, and it changed enough that buyers, sellers, and owners of written-off vehicles need to know what’s different.

Most of the consumer-facing change is about EVs. The old Code was written for petrol and diesel cars and bolted EVs on afterwards. V12 unbolts them and treats them on their own terms.

The eight things that changed (consumer version)

1. Electric and hybrid vehicles are now properly covered

Before May 2025, the rules were written for petrol and diesel cars. EVs and hybrids got fitted into the same framework with some informal adjustments by the engineer doing the assessment. From May 2025, there’s a dedicated set of rules for EVs that recognises the high-voltage battery as a separate consideration.

What this means for you: If you own an EV or hybrid, or you’re thinking of buying one with a Cat S or Cat N marker, the reasoning behind the category is now clearer. EVs with battery damage are more likely to be properly classified, which protects buyers from surprises and gives sellers a stronger basis for valuation.

2. Battery damage can make an EV “structural”

In some electric cars (Tesla Model 3, many newer models), the battery forms part of the car’s actual structure, it’s not just bolted on, it IS the floor. The new Code says: if a structural battery is damaged, the car is Cat S. Damage that would be Cat N on a petrol car can be Cat S on an EV with a structural battery.

What this means for you: EV write-offs are not directly comparable to petrol/diesel write-offs. Two cars with similar-looking damage can end up in very different categories depending on how the battery is built into the chassis.

3. “Megacasting” is now part of the structural definition

Some newer cars (Tesla Model Y and others starting to follow) use single huge aluminium castings instead of dozens of welded panels. The new Code explicitly lists these megacastings as structural components.

What this means for you: If you’re buying a Tesla Model Y or any car using megacast construction with a Cat S marker, you now have a clear basis for understanding why. Damage to a megacast component is structural by definition.

4. Motorcycle frame rules are clearer

The old rules treated all motorcycle frames the same. The new rules separate them: alloy or composite frames go straight to Cat B if damaged (they can’t be safely repaired structurally), while mild steel frames can be Cat S and properly repaired.

What this means for you: If you own or are buying a motorcycle write-off, the category now better reflects what’s actually safe to put back on the road.

5. Heavy Goods Vehicles get proper coverage

HGV cabs are now explicitly listed as structural components. The old Code didn’t name them specifically.

What this means for you: Mostly affects commercial operators rather than private motorists, but the rule that a Cat B HGV’s cab can sometimes be reused on another chassis (with VIN procedures) is retained.

6. “Usable” became “reusable”: and the warranty standard changed

The old Code said a salvage part was “usable” if its operation could be “guaranteed”. The new Code says a part is “reusable” if its performance “can be assessed and confirmed” and “warranty can be applied”. This is a softer, more practical industry standard.

What this means for you: Less directly relevant to most consumers, but if you’re buying second-hand parts from salvage, the parts trade now operates on a clearer reusable/non-reusable framework. Airbags, seat belts, and seat belt parts remain on a “never reuse” list.

7. The historic/classic vehicle exemption is gone

The old Code had a section that said historic and classic vehicles could be repaired regardless of damage extent, provided it was safe to do so, they fell outside the Code’s strict rules. That exemption has been removed.

What this means for you: If you own a classic car that suffers significant damage, your insurer will now apply the standard categorisation rules. You no longer have an automatic exemption to fall back on. Get specialist advice for any significant classic restoration where Cat A/B/S categorisation might apply.

8. The Code’s name changed

Small thing, but worth noting: the title moved from “Disposal of Motor Vehicle Salvage” to “Categorisation of Motorised Vehicle Salvage”. The shift from “Motor” to “Motorised” widens the scope to clearly include motorcycles, quadbikes, ATVs, and anything else mechanically propelled.

What hasn’t changed (the good news)

If you already understand how Cat A, B, S, and N work, your understanding still applies. The four categories are still the four categories. The basic principles are intact:

• Cat A, vehicle must be crushed entirely, no parts may be salvaged
• Cat B, body shell must be crushed; usable parts may be salvaged and reused
• Cat S, repairable structural damage; can return to road after proper repair
• Cat N, repairable non-structural damage; can return to road after proper repair
• Once a Cat marker is on a vehicle, it stays there permanently
• The £1,000 fine for failing to tell DVLA about a write-off is unchanged
• Buy-back rules for keeping your written-off car are unchanged
• The 97% of UK insurers who subscribe to MIAFTR (now VS&TD) continue to follow the Code

Should I worry about an older Cat S or Cat N marker?

No. Categorisations made under the old V11 Code remain valid. The marker on your V5C or on a vehicle history check doesn’t need re-validation. The V12 changes apply to new write-off decisions made from May 2025 onwards.

Where does this leave EV write-offs in particular?

EVs are getting written off at higher rates than equivalent petrol/diesel cars, primarily because battery replacement is so expensive (£5,000-£15,000+, sometimes more than the vehicle’s used value). The May 2025 update doesn’t directly solve this, but it gives the industry a proper framework for assessing EV damage. Combined with Thatcham Research’s separate EV Blueprint (March 2026), there’s now a coordinated industry push to reduce unnecessary EV write-offs.

If you’re buying a written-off EV, the V12 framework helps you understand WHY it was written off, which gives you a stronger basis to assess whether the repair was sensible and whether the asking price is fair.

PART TWO: Technical Reference

This part of the page is for insurers, AQPs, salvage operators, motor traders, and anyone needing line-by-line detail on what changed between V11 (November 2019) and V12 (May 2025).

Quick reference table: the ten substantive changes

1. EV/Hybrid Section 8: the structural change

Under V11

V11 mentioned “hybrid drivetrain” only once, in Section 3.3 (the AQP definition) as one of several damage types an AQP should be qualified to assess. No categorisation rules existed for EVs or hybrids specifically. The standard categorisation logic for combustion vehicles applied by default.

Under V12

V12 introduces an entirely new framework: Section 8 “Salvage Categorisation Matrix – High Voltage (HV) Battery Electric Vehicles (Over 60 Volts)”. This is a parallel matrix running alongside the standard categorisation rules.

Key V12 rules for EVs:

• Cat A (EV): If HV battery can be safely removed, it must be removed and separately recycled. If not (e.g. severe fire damage), it must be recycled as part of the complete vehicle.
• Cat B (EV): Functional parts can be reused. HV batteries must be assessed for recycling or reuse if warranty can be applied to them.
• Cat S (EV): If a structural HV battery is damaged, the vehicle MUST be classed as Cat S, even if other damage looks superficial.
• Cat N (EV): Available only if the damaged HV battery is non-structural.

V12 also requires:

• Controlled-environment storage for all HV vehicles and removed batteries
• Clear safety labelling indicating electrical shock risk
• Recognition that some manufacturer batteries are deemed non-repairable
• HV battery repairs to be undertaken only by qualified HV technicians
• Reference to the Euro Rescue app and CTIF (International Association of Fire Services) for first-responder guidance

2. Illustration 1: structural vs non-structural HV battery

V12 introduces a new diagram (Illustration 1, p14 of the published Code) showing three vehicle architectures:

• Diagram A: Body structure has no floor panel; HV battery acts as floor + structural crossmembers; seats fixed directly to HV battery. → Structural battery.
• Diagram B: Body structure has flat floor panel without underside crossmembers; battery removal impacts floor structure. → Structural battery.
• Diagram C: Body structure has crossmembers independent of battery; battery removal doesn’t affect structure. → Non-structural battery.

The AQP is required to check manufacturer information to determine which architecture applies before categorising.

Operational consequence: A vehicle assessed as Cat N before V12 could now be Cat S under V12 if its battery is structural and damaged. AQPs working post-May 2025 need to apply this test on every EV.

3. Megacasting added to structural component list

V11 (Section 8.3): 14 structural components

1. Fire wall / front bulk head
2. Front header rail
3. Side cant rail
4. Rear header rail
5. Rear cross member
6. Rear inner wing
7. Rear wheel housing extension
8. B post
9. Sill
10. A post
11. Front upper wing support
12. Front inner wing
13. Front chassis leg / welded cross member
14. Rear chassis leg

V12 (Illustration 2): 20 structural components

1. Fire Wall / Front Bulkhead
2. Front Header Rail
3. Roof Side Cant Rail
4. Rear Header Rail
5. Rear Inner Wing
6. Rear Wheel Housing Extension
7. Inner B Post / Pillar Reinforcement
8. Inner Sill Reinforcement
9. Front Chassis Leg
10. Front 1-piece Mega/Giga Casting (NEW)
11. Rear 1-piece Mega/Giga Casting (NEW)
12. Rear Back Panel Assembly
13. Inner A Post / Pillar Reinforcement
14. Front Upper Wing Support
15. Front Inner Wing Wheelhouse
16. Body Structure for Chassis frame
17. Welded Chassis Frame
18. Body Side Outer (minus quarter panel)
19. HGV Passenger Cab (NEW, explicit)
20. Rear Chassis Leg

Net change: +6 items. Three are conceptually new (front megacast, rear megacast, HGV cab). Three reorganise existing concepts (e.g. “Rear Back Panel Assembly” separated out, “Body Side Outer” explicit). Some V11 items renamed for clarity (e.g. “B post” → “Inner B Post / Pillar Reinforcement”).

Industry context: Thatcham mega cast research

A Thatcham Research study published 25 September 2025 tested Tesla Model Y mega cast structures:

• Low severity (15 km/h): No structural damage; full vehicle repair without touching megacast
• Medium severity (25 km/h): Full megacast replacement required due to crack propagation and structural misalignment
• Overall: Model Y repair costs were consistently lower than comparable traditional-construction vehicles when manufacturer provides spare megacast components and documented repair methods

This research informed the V12 inclusion of megacasting and contradicted earlier industry assumptions that megacast vehicles would be unrecoverable at low-severity impacts.

4. Motorcycle Section 13.3: frame material distinction

Under V11 (Section 9.3)

V11 had four motorcycle categorisation rules:

• Cat A: Not repairable, no useable parts
• Cat B: Various criteria including frame non-cosmetic damage (no material distinction), VIN tampering, or two-plus major assemblies (fork, power unit, swinging arm) unrepairable
• Cat S: NOT APPLICABLE to motorcycles or quadbikes (blanket exclusion)
• Cat N: Cosmetic frame damage only; paint repair only

Under V12 (Section 13.3)

V12 reverses the blanket Cat S exclusion and introduces a material distinction:

• Cat S applies when frame/chassis construction is mild steel AND can be safely repaired per manufacturer specification and repair method
• Cat S does NOT apply to alloy or composite frames (these go to Cat B if frame-damaged because alloy/composite frames cannot be safely structurally repaired)
• Cat B applies when any of: serious unrepairable damage, frame non-cosmetic damage on alloy/composite, VIN tampering, or two-plus major assemblies unrepairable
• Cat N allows cosmetic frame damage paint-only repair on any frame material

Engineering logic: Aluminium alloy and carbon-fibre composite motorcycle frames cannot be safely welded or structurally repaired, they are designed to be replaced. Mild steel frames have established safe repair methods. V12 codifies this material reality.

5. HGV passenger cab: explicit structural listing

Under V11

Section 10.3 covered “Commercial vehicles with separate cabs and chassis” with rules about Cat B cabs being reusable subject to VIN over-stamping. The cab itself wasn’t named in the structural component list (Section 8.3).

Under V12

The HGV passenger cab is now explicitly item 19 in the structural component list (Illustration 2). Damage to it constitutes structural damage. The Cat B cab reuse provision (V12 Section 14.2) is retained for vehicles 7.5 tonnes and above with separate cab and chassis: the cab can be safely reused if VIN plate is removed and stamped VIN is over-stamped with crosses, with the purchasing operator stamping the new chassis VIN adjacent.

6. Code title change

Under V11

Document title: “Code of Practice for the Categorisation of Motor Vehicle Salvage” Cover page header: “Code of Practice for the Disposal of Motor Vehicle Salvage” (inconsistent within the document) PDF filename: code-of-practice-for-the-disposal-of-motor-vehicle-salvagenov2019.pdf

Under V12

Document title (consistent): “Code of Practice for the Categorisation of Motorised Vehicle Salvage”

Two intentional shifts:

1. “Disposal” framing dropped entirely. Code positions itself unambiguously as a categorisation framework, not a disposal procedure
2. “Motor Vehicle” → “Motorised Vehicle”, scope expanded to clearly include motorcycles, quadbikes, ATVs, and anything within the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.185(1) definition of “mechanically propelled vehicle, intended or adapted for use on roads”

7. Flow chart restructure

V11 flow chart (Section 7.0)

Decision order:

• Q1: Does the vehicle have minimal/no damage, or is it stolen-recovered with minimal damage? → If yes, Code doesn’t apply
• Q2: Is the vehicle salvage suitable for repair?
• Q3: Has the vehicle sustained structural damage?
• Q4: Should any parts be removed?

Path logic: 1 → 2 → 3 (if repairable) → S or N; or 1 → 2 → 4 (if not repairable) → A or B.

V12 flow chart (Section 10.0 Part 1)

Decision order:

• Q1: Is the damage sufficiently severe to warrant application of this CoP?
• Q2: Is the salvage vehicle suitable for repair?
• Q3: Should any parts be reused?
• Q4: Has the salvage vehicle sustained structural damage (including structural HV battery)?

Two substantive changes:

1. Q3/Q4 logically reordered, the parts-reuse question now comes before the structural assessment in the not-suitable-for-repair branch. This is logically cleaner: an AQP determines reusability before sorting into A vs B.
2. Q4 expanded to “structural damage including structural HV battery”, codifies the EV consideration in the decision flow.

Also: “should any parts be removed” became “should any parts be reused”, verbal shift from disposal-orientation to reuse-orientation, matching the broader Code change in framing.

8. “Usable part” definition: V11 to V12

Under V11 (Section 3.1)

“A usable part is one whose future operational performance has not been compromised or contaminated and the correct operation can be guaranteed.”

Key word: “guaranteed”.

Under V12 (Sections 4.1 and 4.2)

V12 splits this into two definitions:

4.1 Reusable part:

“A reusable part is one that has not been contaminated and/or whose future operational performance can be assessed and confirmed as not being compromised. Warranty over its correct future operation can therefore be applied.”

4.2 Non-reusable part:

“A non-reusable part is one whose future operational performance cannot be assessed or confirmed as not being compromised or contaminated, therefore warranty against the part’s correct future operation cannot be applied.”

Material shift: From “guaranteed” to “assessed and confirmed, warranty can be applied”. This is industry-aligned terminology, salvage parts trade has long operated on a warranty basis, and “guaranteed” carried implicit absolute liability the trade couldn’t actually deliver.

V12 also lists never-reuse safety components

V12 makes explicit that these must NEVER be re-sold or reused:

• Airbags
• Seat belts
• Seat belt pre-tensioners
• Seat belt stalks
• Seat belt buckles and associated fixings

V11 had similar provisions but less explicitly enumerated.

V12 adds responsibility wording: “It is the salvage disposers’/agents’ responsibility to refer to vehicle manufacturers repair information when making decisions on the re-use of safety critical/performance related components.”

9. Historic/Classic vehicles: Section 9.4 removed

Under V11 (Section 9.4)

“It is recognised that some historic/ classic vehicles or vehicles of special interest may be repaired irrespective of extent of damage, providing it is safe to do so. In these cases the vehicle will fall outside the Code of Practice, which will not apply. However careful consideration must be taken to justify this action and if required escalation sought to make sure the correct decision has been made.”

Under V12

The historic/classic exemption is removed entirely. No dedicated section, no carve-out from the standard categorisation rules.

Why this matters

The 2020 ATF Professional industry review of V11 noted the historic vehicle clause was “open to interpretation and allowed vehicles to be uncategorised that were outside the scope and interpretation intended”. V12’s removal closes that interpretation gap.

Practical consequences:

• Classic cars suffering significant structural damage no longer have an automatic safe harbour
• The standard four-category logic applies regardless of vehicle age
• AQP discretion remains, but it now operates within the standard framework
• Classic car restoration projects involving severe damage will need to navigate Cat S/B categorisation
• Specialist insurance for classic vehicles may need to be reviewed for cover continuity

10. Regulatory citation update

Under V11 (Section 5.0)

“Completing a MIAFTR entry meets the regulatory requirements for insurers/ self-insured to notify DVLA under the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002.”

Under V12 (Section 6.0)

Citation updated to reference the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.

This is a housekeeping update, the 2018 amendments updated the 2002 framework for write-off notification. The substantive obligation (MIAFTR entry satisfies DVLA notification requirement) is unchanged.

What didn’t change between V11 and V12

For completeness, here are the substantive elements that remain identical between the two versions:

• The four categories (A, B, S, N) and their structural-vs-non-structural definitional logic
• The AQP role and IAEA-administered competency assessment
• Two-working-day MIAFTR notification window from final categorisation decision
• V5C handling rules (no reissue for A/B; literal comment for S; clean V5C reissue for N)
• MIAFTR data permanence, entries cannot be deleted, only corrected for clerical error
• Dispute escalation path to AQP for final decision
• Where two MIAFTR entries conflict, the settling insurer’s entry takes precedence
• End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) rules and Authorised Treatment Facility (ATF) requirement
• Certificate of Destruction (V860) issued for Cat A/B
• Six-year retention of CoD records; three-year retention of hazardous waste consignment records
• Hazardous waste consignment procedure
• International Waste Shipment rules for exports
• Voluntary nature of the Code, not statute
• “Mechanically propelled vehicle” definition per Road Traffic Act 1988 s.185(1)
• Recovered stolen vehicle rules. MIAFTR entry required even if no damage
• Vehicle owner’s responsibility to notify DVLA when transferring to insurer
• £1,000 fine for failure to notify DVLA (sourced from GOV.UK, not the Code itself)

Full version timeline of the Code

What V12 did NOT address (the open issues for V13)

Several long-standing industry concerns were not resolved in V12:

1. Statutory status: The Code remains voluntary. The ABI has called for statutory footing for years. Government confirmed in February 2026 (Hansard Written Question 113196) it has “no plans” to make it statutory.

2. MIAFTR/VS&TD data gaps: The 168,000-vehicle gap between insurance industry records and DVLA records identified in 2019 has not been resolved. The November 2025 migration of MIAFTR data to MIB Navigate’s Vehicle Salvage & Theft Data (VS&TD) platform may help over time, but V12 itself doesn’t tackle the underlying data flow problem.

3. Third-party-only loophole: Vehicles damaged but only insured TPFT don’t trigger an insurance payout, so often aren’t entered on MIAFTR. V12 leaves this gap intact.

4. Self-insured fleet vehicles: Police, councils, and large fleet operators are not compelled to enter their write-offs on MIAFTR/VS&TD. V12 doesn’t change this.

5. Cross-border imports: Foreign-market write-offs imported to the UK may not appear on any UK register. V12 doesn’t address this.

6. Autonomous and software-defined vehicles: Vehicle systems increasingly comprise software components whose damage assessment isn’t well covered by hardware-based structural rules. V12 doesn’t yet address this.

How to cite this comparison

If you are referencing this analysis as a source, please cite as:

WriteOffCars.co.uk, ‘ABI Salvage Code V11 (November 2019) vs V12 (May 2025): The Definitive Comparison’, accessed [date], https://www.writeoffcars.co.uk/v11-v12-comparison/

This page is updated on the following cycle:

• Quarterly: Re-verification check; date stamp updated
• Annually: Full review against current ABI Code status
• Immediate revision: On any new ABI Code amendment, ABI press release, or major regulatory change

Page last verified: 13 May 2026.

FAQ

When did V12 come into force?

The Code is dated March 2025 and was published 28 May 2025. ABI member insurers began aligning practice on publication. IAEA introduced V12-aligned exam content from 31 July 2025.

Do existing Cat S and Cat N markers need re-validation under V12?

No. V11-era categorisations remain valid. MIAFTR/VS&TD markers stay permanently. V12 applies to new decisions made after publication.

Can an EV categorised before V12 have been miscategorised?

Not legally miscategorised. V11 didn't have specific EV rules, so AQPs applied combustion-vehicle structural logic. V12 codifies what many AQPs were doing in practice. If you believe a categorisation was wrong, the dispute escalation path (AQP → ultimately Financial Ombudsman) remains available.

What's the practical implication of the V12 structural battery rule for EV resale?

A growing number of EVs assessed post-May 2025 will be classified Cat S where they might previously have been borderline Cat N. This affects resale value (Cat S typically discounts 30-50% vs clean equivalent; Cat N 20-40%), insurance availability, and buy-back logistics.

Does V12 affect EV insurance premiums directly?

Not directly, the Code governs categorisation, not pricing. But clearer rules may reduce conservative write-off decisions on borderline cases, which over time could moderate the EV insurance loss ratio and consequently EV premiums.

Where can I check whether a used vehicle has a V11- or V12-era marker?

MIAFTR/VS&TD doesn't expose the categorisation date directly to consumers. Vehicle history check providers (HPI, Experian AutoCheck) show the marker category and date of entry. For vehicles categorised after May 2025, V12 rules applied.

How does V12 interact with the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012?

V12 changes categorisation rules but not disclosure obligations. Buyers of Cat S/N vehicles remain bound by the 2012 Act's duty to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation when asked about write-off history by an insurer. Categories are categories. Cat N is Cat N regardless of which Code version generated it.

Is V12 binding on non-ABI-member insurers?

No. The Code is voluntary. The six UK motor insurers not subscribing to MIAFTR/VS&TD (out of 203 authorised) are not bound. However, they remain bound by the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 to notify DVLA of total losses by other means.

What's likely in V13?

The Code is on a two-year review cycle per Section 15 Terms of Reference, so V13 is expected around 2027. Likely topics include further EV/battery refinements (incorporating Thatcham EV Blueprint learnings), autonomous vehicle considerations, software-defined vehicle architectures, possible statutory status, and MIAFTR/VS&TD data coverage extension.

Where is the official V12 document?

https://www.abi.org.uk/globalassets/files/publications/public/motor/2025/codepracticecategorisationmotorisedvehiclesalvagemay2025.pdf, the V11 (November 2019) document is no longer hosted by the ABI but remains accessible via industry archives.