Question about car insurance accident related

cooki2222

Ok here's what it is, the other week my GF was in a car accident, basically what happened was a lorry braked suddenly and the car behind it braked so he wouldnt go into the lorry and my gf braked too but unfortunately she hit the back of the guys car was minor paint damage at the time, so she gets a phone call from him today saying that there was a crack in the rear bumper and its gonna cost £750 to get repaired. There was no damage to her car.

She never got his details at the time of the accident, so i got them off him today.
The car that was involved belonged to the guys Father, for which he was not insured for but the guy tells me he has fully comp insurance for his company van im not 100% sure if the insurance is in his company name or his name.
If my gf was to go through her insurance company to pay for it what would the likely outcome be?

Is she for fault of the accident?

mattymoo

Yes, she is at fault for the accident.
Yes, her insurance company will deal with the matter for her.
Yes, a bumper can cost £750 plus VAT and paint / labour costs. Nobody repairs bumpers these days.

The other fella may not be insured to drive the car and his company van policy is of no relevance whatsoever. However, his lack of insurance does not take away the fact your GF is to blame.

For the opposite situation, take a look at this thread here -
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1174133

cooki2222

mattymoo wrote: »

Yes, she is at fault for the accident.
Yes, her insurance company will deal with the matter for her.
Yes, a bumper can cost £750 plus VAT and paint / labour costs. Nobody repairs bumpers these days.

The other fella may not be insured to drive the car and his company van policy is of no relevance whatsoever. However, his lack of insurance does not take away the fact your GF is to blame.

For the opposite situation, take a look at this thread here -
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1174133

i have this situation posted elsewhere and here is the reply i got from another person

Sounds like you're in luck to me and that the guy is digging himself a hole! Van insurance rarely has an extension to drive other vehicles so I would persue this on the grounds that he was not insured at the time of the loss. I could be wrong here but the chances are that his insurance wouldn't extend to driving his father's car. I would personally ask him if he could provide proof that he is insured to drive another vehicle. If it goes through to his insurance company, and because it is your GF's negligence, they may 'neglect' to notice that he was not driving in accordance with the law. At the end of the day, they get to recover monies from the other side! Get my drift?
I'm 80% sure that he will end up with 6 points and an IN10 if he persists... and you do!
Good luck and PLEASE let me know the outcome!!

mattymoo

The lack of insurance is a criminal matter dealt with by the Police and magistrates courts.

The claim for accident damage, injuries etc is a civil matter dealt with in the county courts. The two things have no direct bearing on each other in this case although of course, you could report the chap for driving with no insurance for some pay back. The fact still remains your GF drove into the back of him and will be found liable in a civil action.

Millie's_Mum

Mattymoo is correct the fact he wasn't insured has no direct bearing on the fact that the accident was your GF's fault and she is liable to pay for his repairs.

Quentin

cooki2222 wrote: »

If my gf was to go through her insurance company to pay for it what would the likely outcome be?

Is she for fault of the accident?

From what you say, she is at fault.

If she uses her insurance she will lose some/all ncb (unless it's protected) and will see an increase in her premiums.

There will be no excess to pay.

Dependending on her age/premium/ncb she might want to work out whether or not she will be better off paying the £750 herself to preserve the NCB, though as always, even if she doesn't make a claim, she needs to inform her insurer of the incident.

cooki2222

the guy did say at the time it was the lorries fault.
He braked suddenly so did she surely she did what she was supposed too to stop the road was greasy due to it being between two fields and mud going onto the road etc

grogdog

cooki2222 wrote: »

the guy did say at the time it was the lorries fault.
He braked suddenly so did she surely she did what she was supposed too to stop the road was greasy due to it being between two fields and mud going onto the road etc

sorry dont agree if she noticed the road was greasy and muddy she would have been a safe distance behind and going at a speed which meant she would not have collided, she is to blame!!!

Quentin

She should have been driving in line with the road conditions.

She was too close to the car in front, and invariably these rear end shunts are blamed on the driver at the rear.

RabbitMad

the obvious thing to do is suggest to the other guy that as he wasn't insured she'll offer to pay half and they call it quits.

I think if I was him I'd take it.

Quentin

Why would he want to do a deal with a blackmailer?