Who is liable for this crash

rose28454

Firstly DD has heard nothing from police or the insurance company and is driving the car with the dent in it. She went to see a friend who is a mechanic last night so he is looking for prices to fix the door. She got paid this week and has been much more responsible by paying her bills straight away. She has to have a mot and tax her car but not till end of October so she will arrange it for the week before and has put 1/2 money away and is selling stuff on E-Bay to make up the rest. ( If not she will ask for more shifts at work). I didnt even ask her much she was paid this month as it is not really my business.
Re my Dad I took him to hospital this week and drove his car and on the dashboard were his glasses with driving glasses written on the box by the optician. So maybe my Mum is right and he can see well enough to drive. However it was in the paper this week that the EEC are getting the rules changed re driving and sight and it looks like there will be more intensive eye tests to come. That can only be a good thing.

neas

I stand with alot of others on here that the DD is meant to be a responsible adult, responsible for herself and others when driving.

Lets face it issue 1:

We have only heard half the story but it does seem like OPs daughter was the 'victim' in the situation of the car crash (and because of it opened a can of worms regarding issue 2 below. This on its own would mean DD would not pay anything and would not lose no claims discount. Also were there not any witnessess to this crash?

Issue 2 (the gotcha): Because OPs DD was not insured she is in very deep water... drowning. She hasn't got much of a leg to stand and is over a barrel. Prudent, clever action from the start would've been to be non-aggressive friendly and pragmatic about solution ,not think about suing, claiming just offer to recover one anothers costs seperately as both had high excesses. I get the feeling DD prob because it wasn't her fault didnt think at the time and wanted to procure the other guys details and blame him and pushed it down the 'insurance route'.


Now... If I was the other driver... and Im sorry you dont want to hear it. But I would be pretty !!!!ed off that the other driver was driving without insurance, when I a law abiding citizen would pay 700 quid a year to protect her and other drivers on the road if I had bumped then. She would need to learn a harsh lesson regarding responsibility.

I would've reported her to my insurance as a non-insuraed driver. I would report her to police and let her get what legally she deseves... and next time when she would crash into someone for real she would hopefully have learnt... to be insured.

I have no sympathy for uninsured drivers, because if she had totalled a 20k car or. had killed a child where does the money come from to repair or compensate soemone come from?


Finally like to add that DD is a 22 year old adult, who has been qualified to be responsibile and sensible to drive (i assume she has a driving license) so she should have enough responsibility and sense to ensure her car meets the standards set out to drive it i.e insured, maintained, MOTed....

Surely this is the bottom line?

If she assumes now, she is going to get a criminal record, fine, insurance premium go up because she drove un-insured and have to cover your and his car repairs.. then she will at least be prepared for the worst... because morally this is probably what should happen (albeit maybe cover his repairs).

rose28454

neas wrote: »

I stand with alot of others on here that the DD is meant to be a responsible adult, responsible for herself and others when driving.

Lets face it issue 1:

We have only heard half the story but it does seem like OPs daughter was the 'victim' in the situation of the car crash (and because of it opened a can of worms regarding issue 2 below. This on its own would mean DD would not pay anything and would not lose no claims discount. Also were there not any witnessess to this crash?

Issue 2 (the gotcha): Because OPs DD was not insured she is in very deep water... drowning. She hasn't got much of a leg to stand and is over a barrel. Prudent, clever action from the start would've been to be non-aggressive friendly and pragmatic about solution ,not think about suing, claiming just offer to recover one anothers costs seperately as both had high excesses. I get the feeling DD prob because it wasn't her fault didnt think at the time and wanted to procure the other guys details and blame him and pushed it down the 'insurance route'.


Now... If I was the other driver... and Im sorry you dont want to hear it. But I would be pretty !!!!ed off that the other driver was driving without insurance, when I a law abiding citizen would pay 700 quid a year to protect her and other drivers on the road if I had bumped then. She would need to learn a harsh lesson regarding responsibility.

I would've reported her to my insurance as a non-insuraed driver. I would report her to police and let her get what legally she deseves... and next time when she would crash into someone for real she would hopefully have learnt... to be insured.

I have no sympathy for uninsured drivers, because if she had totalled a 20k car or. had killed a child where does the money come from to repair or compensate soemone come from?


Finally like to add that DD is a 22 year old adult, who has been qualified to be responsibile and sensible to drive (i assume she has a driving license) so she should have enough responsibility and sense to ensure her car meets the standards set out to drive it i.e insured, maintained, MOTed....

Surely this is the bottom line?

If she assumes now, she is going to get a criminal record, fine, insurance premium go up because she drove un-insured and have to cover your and his car repairs.. then she will at least be prepared for the worst... because morally this is probably what should happen (albeit maybe cover his repairs).

You have made a few assumptions here that are wrong.
Firstly the other driver and her swapped details voluntarily. It was not a case of her deciding to go down the insurance route. When she realised about her insurance she called him and offered to sort it out without insurers he sadi no as his wife is a policewoman. She has heard nothing since.
Secondly she has a licence, mot tax and insurance on the car.
Thirdly it is her car not mine.

neas

I didnt say she didnt have a license you misunderstand my reasoning.

She has been qualified...... by law to drive a car it is her responsibility to ensure it is insured, mot'ed and maintained... as it has the ability to kill/destroy if driven or maintained incorrectly.

I'm not saying she doesn't MOT it, doesnt maintain it... BUT we know she didnt have it insured... she ignored the letter as she is skint and couldn't afford to pay it right? so she buried her head in the sand and now has got burnt for it.

It is thankful that it was only a minor accident.. for if she had crashed into my car... My no-claims would've been destroyed and my premium rise up because of her negligence.

Why should we have sympathy from that angle?

Its like your asking me to give sympathy for a criminal who gets shot with his own gun.... You cant expect lawful, morally correct protection if you aren't lawful i.e paying your insurance. If it was turned around on her head... she was insured and the other driver wasn't insured you would now be complaining that your daughter will have to pay via her insurance premium when it wasnt her fault, you cant have logic both ways.

It is a criminal offence to drive without insurance. She, while driving the car was commiting a criminal act.

rose28454

neas wrote: »

I didnt say she didnt have a license you misunderstand my reasoning.

You said I assume she has a driving licence so yes you did say it!

neas

That doesn't mean im questioning if she has a licence or not...

assumumptions are made if information hasn;t been provided. In this case information i was saying i believed she had a licence... not the opposite.

cogito

The holier than thou attitude from some of the posters on this thread is truly sickening.

Quentin

Would you feel the same if an uninsured motorist knocked down, injured and maimed a loved one of yours, and then tried to excuse the "oversight" on the grounds posted in this thread?

Olly1_2

My OH car was had dented wing, scratched down one side and front bumber hanging off due to an uninsured driver - he to pay £100's to fix it rather than lose several years no claims bonus. I can see someone saying a letter was lost in the post etc but OP daughter admits she received a letter and did not open it and for something as important as insurance I am sure the company may have written to say direct debit was not paid and then again to say they were cancelling the policy - cant see them losing money and a customer by just closing the policy so I would assume there would have been more than one letter. Also when your on a low budget you tend to know if you have extra cash in your bank so surely she would have realised she had £x more to spend than normal.

I completely understand the OP sticking up for her daughter and am sure many others on here would do the same, but the daughter should still get her points/fine for not being insured as otherwise we can all let insurance lapse and say we forgot to open letter - we can then do the same with council tax, tv licence etc.

With the uninsured driver who hit OH car we provided police with cctv from our property showing the collision etc and I have to admit I wanted the book thrown at him, although as he was 16 we were not allowed to know what happened but can assume it was a 'bad boy dont do it again' kind of thing.

Its a hard lesson for your daughter to learn but at least now she should open her post and check into things if she has more cash than she was expecting in her account.

rose28454

cogito wrote: »

The holier than thou attitude from some of the posters on this thread is truly sickening.

I quite agree. Thanks