Insurance claim

[(RIP) PLANK]

I have come to this late but you could offer to pay and have it fixed directly (via chips away or whoever as you say) when the insurance company get in touch tell them you have offered to pay and that he has refused (if he has)
This happened to a friend of mine recently and as the other party had refused his offer his insurance did not persue the claim.

but do remember i'm not a proper lawyer :doh

 

[Deleted account DD]

This happened to a friend of mine recently and as the other party had refused his offer his insurance did not persue the claim.

Thats very interesting, thanks :thumb2

 

[ocelot]

was the car park council or private land? ie, supermarket car park, there is a distinction in law..........
access rights don't always confer legal status to sue for insurance claims unless personal loss or injury over a certain threshold..........

 

[Liam]

such as?

Such as somebody throwing something from the vehicle and hitting somebody, passenger opening door when unsafe. Ultimately, from what I have knowledge of and have heard, the driver/insured person is responsible for anything that is the subject of an insurance claim. Isn't it the case that if I was driving your car with your consent and under your policy, and had an accident, the insurance company are less interested in me because it is your name on the policy, they may come after me for some costs but ultimately , it is you who will suffer, even though you could not be responsible for my actions while driving. Of course, in the event of something similar to your son's case, obviously if the insurance pay up to the injured party, they or your son can pursue the individual actually responsible, i.e. your son's mate. Think of it like a three car pile up, the person you hit claims from you, although you were shoved from behind, so you claim from the guy who hit you for your damage and also the cost of repairing the car belong to the guy in front. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

[Deleted account DD]

Such as somebody throwing something from the vehicle and hitting somebody

definitely absolutely not the driver or the insurance. Youth squirts water from bottle then throws bottle at ip from within car causing injury. Youth arrested NOT the responsibility of the driver or their insurance. Dealt with that one myself.

passenger opening door when unsafe.

Person opening door is responsible and can be pursued for all costs, irrespective if where payment to ip originates from. As ive said earlier I just want the quickest easiest way to do just that.


point i'm making here is its not always as clear as the first snapshot view suggests :thumb2

 

[Deleted account DD]

was the car park council or private land? ie, supermarket car park, there is a distinction in law..........
access rights don't always confer legal status to sue for insurance claims unless personal loss or injury over a certain threshold..........

absolutely correct as i understand it too :thumb2

it was a private car park, entry by permission (implied or direct ) or payment of fee.

 

[lacroupade]

absolutely correct as i understand it too :thumb2

it was a private car park, entry by permission (implied or direct ) or payment of fee.

Oh come on, not that old wives tale again....

So when your car gets nicked off your private driveway, or from your private garage, you expect not to be claiming for it then?

And in any event, most private car parks will have a notice disclaiming responsibility for anything, which you accept as a condition of parking there.

 

[felixthelogchopper]

Surely the passenger has his own duty of care to not cause damage to your son's vehicle or any other vehicle and, in hitting the other car with the door of your son's car, has been negligent in that duty of care? If the passenger had been standing in the street independent of your son's vehicle and dented the other vehicle in some way then he would be liable to pay for the damage.

 

[BIGSEAN]

The law regarding car parks was changed several years ago regarding this sort of thing, your point has no relevence now.

 

[Deleted account DD]

Oh come on, not that old wives tale again....

So when your car gets nicked off your private driveway, or from your private garage, you expect not to be claiming for it then?

And in any event, most private car parks will have a notice disclaiming responsibility for anything, which you accept as a condition of parking there.

youll find (and im out of date so its no doubt been amended again) that only a few years ago that was not an old wives tale. Only some elements of the road traffic act which included insurance matters were applicable to incidents that occurred in a private car park.

For example I could not stick you on for no insurance in Tescos car park. I had to wait and observe you drive in or out on the public road. Presence in the car park did not (and does not) imply you have driven there.

I have seen custody refused on a sect 4rta driver who was locked up in a car park.

the theft comparison is and always has been completely irrelevant in this context as it is not subject to the road traffic act.

In fact for definite when I did my basic traffic law which wasn't that long ago about the only time you could nick someone in a private car park was certain elements of an rtc or pursuing someone for a road traffic offence. (no doubt there were others I cant recall )

The only old wives tale is that his wasnt the case ....fact

No ones suggesting that the car park owners are responsible in any way. The disclaimer is part of the conditions of entry same as searching upon entering a footie ground etc etc

 

[Deleted account DD]

The law regarding car parks was changed several years ago regarding this sort of thing, your point has no relevence now.

it was ammended but not to cover all unadopted roads and areas as public highway. Not sure to what extent it does/did do but the point was a very good one.

 

[Deleted account DD]

Surely the passenger has his own duty of care to not cause damage to your son's vehicle or any other vehicle and, in hitting the other car with the door of your son's car, has been negligent in that duty of care? If the passenger had been standing in the street independent of your son's vehicle and dented the other vehicle in some way then he would be liable to pay for the damage.

As always , spot on, that is exactly what we've been told :thumb2

 

[Terranoman]

I would say your son has a duty of care to position the vehicle in a manner that any passenger can exit without injury or damage and should a obstetrical be in the the way point this out to such passengers.:nenau

Like I say to the kids as they exit in a car park "watch the other cars" having said that they are only 10 years old.

However if you can pass the claim on try it!

 

[lacroupade]

youll find (and im out of date so its no doubt been amended again) that only a few years ago that was not an old wives tale. Only some elements of the road traffic act which included insurance matters were applicable to incidents that occurred in a private car park.

For example I could not stick you on for no insurance in Tescos car park. I had to wait and observe you drive in or out on the public road. Presence in the car park did not (and does not) imply you have driven there.

I have seen custody refused on a sect 4rta driver who was locked up in a car park.

the theft comparison is and always has been completely irrelevant in this context as it is not subject to the road traffic act.

In fact for definite when I did my basic traffic law which wasn't that long ago about the only time you could nick someone in a private car park was certain elements of an rtc or pursuing someone for a road traffic offence. (no doubt there were others I cant recall )

The only old wives tale is that his wasnt the case ....fact

No ones suggesting that the car park owners are responsible in any way. The disclaimer is part of the conditions of entry same as searching upon entering a footie ground etc etc

LOL you kill me, all that to admit that I'm right! Never mind telling me how it USED to be, that ISN'T how it is now is it, as you have carefully explained. PLUS you've argued the point like a woman, take and twist bit 180 degrees:doh - I was talking specifically about insurance, not legal niceties about how the RT Act might not apply on a Wednesday in a wet pub skittle alley - and in that context your vehicle insurance is valid whenever and wherever it might be, except for specific exclusions like offroading or hire and reward.....even then, I suspect it still has to provide third party cover.....you're sounding more like my missus every day LMAO! :lol

And re your last point to FTLC, again you are not wrong, but it ignores the fact that, as an innocent party who's door got dented by another vehicle, my primary point of claim is against that vehicles insurers is it not? Yes there are other avenues but I'm not obligated to pursue them.....

 

[Deleted account DD]

lets get a few things straight here. Your last post is a crock of shite. Not quite sure what youre rambling on about being right or wrong There ARE different rules for car parks. Im just big enough to admit i dont know what they all are.

What I said if you bother reading it properly is that I am not bang up to date but i know for a fact you are completely wrong to dismiss the nuances out of hand.

Differences do still apply.

At no point has it been completely dismissed that the insured is the spoc, in fact if you read wayyyyyyyy back my question is how we reclaim from the person ultimately responsible, simple answer is of course we can.

You are 100% wrong that its an old wives tale. Never was and isnt, thats why prosecutions fall through and tickets are rescinded.

 

[Deleted account DD]

cant be asrsed to argue it because there isnt an argument.

Do a bit of research.

If the RTA does not require ins , use of it can not be enforced. Fact.

It becomes a civil claim and the PERSON pursued

Such nuances do apply to car parks. Fact.

Where youve got mixed up and enter self congratulatory mode is where you miss the point where i say i dont know what still does and doesnt apply.

Certainly wasnt and isnt an old wives tale. Fact.

 

[Deleted account DD]

ahhhhh.......................posted both due to running out of time updating . repeats a bit but both posts correct.

 

[Deleted account DD]

I would say your son has a duty of care to position the vehicle in a manner that any passenger can exit without injury or damage and should a obstetrical be in the the way point this out to such passengers.:nenau

He did :thumb2

 

[TONUP]

and this is why insurance companies employ lawyers...

Frankly I'm a bit shocked by the lack of empathy for the aggrieved party (Mr Cock, as you so eloquently call him).

Not sure what to do. What does yor Sons moral compass tell him?

Regards

Alan

 

[felixthelogchopper]

and this is why insurance companies employ lawyers...

Frankly I'm a bit shocked by the lack of empathy for the aggrieved party (Mr Cock, as you so eloquently call him).

Not sure what to do. What does yor Sons moral compass tell him?

Regards

Alan

I didn't think that DaveD's son intends that the aggrieved party should be left out of pocket. The question is more who should pay for the damage. I would think the other driver has earned the title of Mr Cock due to his behaviour which is to say the least difficult and calculated to cause maximum trouble over a very minor incident.