HELP!! Been in a prang with a provisional licence holder!

Conor_3

If she ran into the back of you, there's a chance the rear quarter panels could be out of shape. That could cost £1000's.

Her insurance is still legally obliged to pay out even though she was unaccompanied. They then can sue her for the cost of the payout but you still get your car fixed.

Stuff her. Shouldn't have been driving anyway.

onedaymyfriend

emmy05 wrote: »

which seems odd that shes not asking OP to say she had a driver with her doesnt it? shes saying not to make a claim, not to involve the police, but she will pay cash - sounding pretty dodgy now

emmy,

She hasn't even mentioned the police as of yet.

D#

steveo3002

onedaymyfriend wrote: »

I would say I'm going to need a new front bumper and drivers side wing.

My insurance company asked if there were anymore witnesses, I said no.

D#

so realisticly its gona be over £500 (maybe way over if its a flash car) plus loan car for a few days

id go with the insurance , they might find more damage once its striped down and the costs could spiral

chances are shes thinking its gona be £50

onedaymyfriend

Conor wrote: »

If she ran into the back of you, there's a chance the rear quarter panels could be out of shape. That could cost £1000's.

Her insurance is still legally obliged to pay out even though she was unaccompanied. They then can sue her for the cost of the payout but you still get your car fixed.

Stuff her. Shouldn't have been driving anyway.

Thanks for that Conor,

How sure are you that the insurance company are legally abliged to pay out?

If this is the case I will keep the claim going.

D#

Rikki

onedaymyfriend wrote: »

I would say I'm going to need a new front bumper and drivers side wing.

My insurance company asked if there were anymore witnesses, I said no.

D#

How did the accident happen?

I'm confused as the damage it to your front bumper and off side wing.

vikingaero

onedaymyfriend wrote: »

Thanks for that Conor,

How sure are you that the insurance company are legally abliged to pay out?

If this is the case I will keep the claim going.

D#

If she has insurance then her actions in voiding her part of the Policy do not affect your right as a third party to make a claim on her or her insurance policy. So if she was drunk and ran into the back of you, her criminal behaviour means that her insurers still have to pay for your costs and damages. Her insurers will probably void her policy (not pay out for her damaged car if she were insured fully comp) and they would have to recover their costs in paying you from her throught the courts).

jeannieblue

onedaymyfriend wrote: »

At the end of the day, I want my car fixed.

That may seem selfish, but it's my only asset.

D#

Then grab the cash - if she is a learner and had no one with her - then basically she was uninsured - so if you went via insurance, you would probably get nothing...

raskazz

If the the third party's insurance policy is otherwise valid then the third party's insurer cannot avoid a third party liability on the grounds of their driver not driving in accordance with their licence, this is confirmed in section 151(3) of the Road Traffic Act. They would have to indemnify you, then they could look to recover their outlay from the third party.

Theoretically if the third party is discovered to have misrepresented the risk or not disclosed some material information the third party insurer could look to avoid the policy from inception, and reduce their potential liability (it gets complicated here but basically they become an insurer under the MIB's agreements), but for a claim such as this the cost of doing so would probably outweigh the benefit.

onedaymyfriend

raskazz wrote: »

If the the third party's insurance policy is otherwise valid then the third party's insurer cannot avoid a third party liability on the grounds of their driver not driving in accordance with their licence, this is confirmed in section 151(3) of the Road Traffic Act. They would have to indemnify you, then they could look to recover their outlay from the third party.

Theoretically if the third party is discovered to have misrepresented the risk or not disclosed some material information the third party insurer could look to avoid the policy from inception, and reduce their potential liability (it gets complicated here but basically they become an insurer under the MIB's agreements), but for a claim such as this the cost of doing so would probably outweigh the benefit.

Sorry Raskazz, could you explain that in layman's terms?

D#

onedaymyfriend

Rikki wrote: »

How did the accident happen?

I'm confused as the damage it to your front bumper and off side wing.

Hi Rikki,

I gave way, allowing her to go round a parked car (she was coming towards me), and she drove straight in to me!!

She had plenty of room too!

D#