Car is a right off - still have 4years to pay......help me get out of it please.

garthdp

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Off topic but what really bugs me is that the OP will probably NOT receive a fine or penalty points on his license.

When I got done for speeding at 35mph I was fined £60 and awarded 3 penalty points. That was after driving for 17 years without an accident and having covered over 200,000 miles.

GG

don't speed then.

OP is getting hammered for a lot more than 60 quid and 3 measly points

Aspiring

aj2703 wrote: »

I TOTALLY AGREE. !!!!!! you lot seriously need to READ and take in what has been said. There you all go as usual putting the person down saying they should have got this and should have got that etc. DID ANY OF YOU CTUALLY READ THEIR !!!!!!!G POSTS...?.

- - - - - - - -- .

How rude! :eek:
"you lot"????
"you all go -- - - - putting the person down" ????????

Yes, I did read the OP's post. The essence of the OP's post was in the title: "....... help me get out of it please".

At no stage did the OP suggest, or offer up the fact, that the Police were in any way involved, or, what discussion (if any) took place. That would appear to be secondary to the OP's primary concern: "help me get out of (paying the remainder owing on the car) please".

The facts remain thus:-

OP took out finance on a vehicle.
OP neglected to read the full T&C's regarding insurance requirements
OP (for whatever reason) has "totalled" the car.
OP has 4 years payments remaining on the vehicle
OP wants advice on how to "get out of it" - the payments he is committed to.
Some posters may have adopted an attitude that is neither helpful, or endearing.
Some posters have offered advice, which the OP has decided neither to refer to, or acknowledge.

How easy it is to make sweeping statements aimed at all responses and type your "!!!!!!" opinions and labels. I say: how rude!!!

Your advice regarding the scene, may or may not be pertinent, because despite reading the OP's posts, you are none the wiser as to whether there was a "scene" involving the Police or not; you are merely assuming.

By reading the words the OP wrote (yes, I also read them), you might notice that he stated:
"The fault lies with me as I went into the back of a bus! The bus's lights weren't working but even so they will claim that I was too close to break in time. " (future tense: implies that it was not claimed at that time)

Do, please follow your own advice before making sweeping statements of condemnation to all replies and - - - - - - read?

Proving that the bus lights were defective will ultimately come down to a OP vs bus depot dispute. On the law of averages, do consider: 1 OP vs bus driver/bus mechanics.

While you do make a valid point, regarding the lights or defectiveness thereof, the likelihood of it being substantiated are extremely slim.

Plus, the insurance obtained by the OP will still act as a hinderance to him because of the T&C's of the original agreement concerning the HP on the vehicle.

I do understand the passion of your response, but I also feel that to quote one person and then tar everyone with the same brush is not only shortsighted, but also very rude, ignorant (because you clearly have ignored those who have been advisory) but very judgemental and wrongly so.

If you would like your opinion to be respected, do at least have the courtesy of acknowledging that others should also have their opinions respected.

Aspiring

3. Two second rule - say one one thousand, two one thousand at an object a car infront is currently at. If you get to the object before you finish.. you are most likely too close. I usually have about a 3 second approach.

Reminds me of that big ad campaign years ago:

"Only a fool, breaks the two second rule!"

aj2703

Aspiring wrote: »

How rude! :eek:
"you lot"????
"you all go -- - - - putting the person down" ????????

Yes, I did read the OP's post. The essence of the OP's post was in the title: "....... help me get out of it please".

At no stage did the OP suggest, or offer up the fact, that the Police were in any way involved, or, what discussion (if any) took place. That would appear to be secondary to the OP's primary concern: "help me get out of (paying the remainder owing on the car) please".

The facts remain thus:-

OP took out finance on a vehicle.
OP neglected to read the full T&C's regarding insurance requirements
OP (for whatever reason) has "totalled" the car.
OP has 4 years payments remaining on the vehicle
OP wants advice on how to "get out of it" - the payments he is committed to.
Some posters may have adopted an attitude that is neither helpful, or endearing.
Some posters have offered advice, which the OP has decided neither to refer to, or acknowledge.

How easy it is to make sweeping statements aimed at all responses and type your "!!!!!!" opinions and labels. I say: how rude!!!

Your advice regarding the scene, may or may not be pertinent, because despite reading the OP's posts, you are none the wiser as to whether there was a "scene" involving the Police or not; you are merely assuming.

By reading the words the OP wrote (yes, I also read them), you might notice that he stated:
"The fault lies with me as I went into the back of a bus! The bus's lights weren't working but even so they will claim that I was too close to break in time. " (future tense: implies that it was not claimed at that time)

Do, please follow your own advice before making sweeping statements of condemnation to all replies and - - - - - - read?

Proving that the bus lights were defective will ultimately come down to a OP vs bus depot dispute. On the law of averages, do consider: 1 OP vs bus driver/bus mechanics.

While you do make a valid point, regarding the lights or defectiveness thereof, the likelihood of it being substantiated are extremely slim.

Plus, the insurance obtained by the OP will still act as a hinderance to him because of the T&C's of the original agreement concerning the HP on the vehicle.

I do understand the passion of your response, but I also feel that to quote one person and then tar everyone with the same brush is not only shortsighted, but also very rude, ignorant (because you clearly have ignored those who have been advisory) but very judgemental and wrongly so.

If you would like your opinion to be respected, do at least have the courtesy of acknowledging that others should also have their opinions respected.

I read exactly what he said.

"The fault lies with me as I went into the back of a bus! The bus's lights weren't working but even so they will claim that I was too close to break in time. " (future tense: implies that it was not claimed at that time)

Do, please follow your own advice before making sweeping statements of condemnation to all replies and - - - - - - read?

The only reason he made that statement is because he is thinks that if he actually claimed the lights wern't working he'd get laughed out of court. Can you not see that..?.

And also take a look at the VERY FIRST line the OP wrote...

"Please some helpful advice."

Not oh you should have done this you should have done that rubbish that of course was bound to have been posted by the usual non thinking morons on here. Do people not realise he dosen't already know that..? Hence why he is posting on here. You see people like Apples2 must need glasses, as the OP said, where did he say the bus was stationary..?. Just an immediate assumption whithout reading and actually having the brain power not to take in and compute what was said. Then look at the comment after.
"Them buses can be very difficult to see at times". Hmmmm i guess this person also read what the OP said . I don't think so.

Aspiring i have no gripe with you but you say i am rude..?. I think it's more rude to not even read someone's comments and give advice based on what was actually written.

prowla

Elize wrote: »

Please some helpful advice.

1. The car is a write off, not a right off.
2. You bought it on hire purchase, not higher purchase.
3. You were too close to brake in time before hitting the bus, not break.

In terms of your financial position, I wish you well, but I think you are stuffed:
a. You committed to a HP agreement, and it's not their fault you totalled the car.
b. You broke the terms of you HP agreement by not getting fully comp insurance (it's not the insurance company's fault).
c. Your insurance may go up if/when you get your next car.

aj2703

prowla wrote: »

1. The car is a write off, not a right off.
2. You bought it on hire purchase, not higher purchase.
3. You were too close to brake in time before hitting the bus, not break.

In terms of your financial position, I wish you well, but I think you are stuffed:
a. You committed to a HP agreement, and it's not their fault you totalled the car.
b. You broke the terms of you HP agreement by not getting fully comp insurance (it's not the insurance company's fault).
c. Your insurance may go up if/when you get your next car.

bus not buss

gomer

If the OP was too close to brake in time then it doesn't really matter if the light worked or not, and bare in mind we do only have thier word for it that the bus lights didn't work & if they were that close that they were practically up the bus's backside then could they even see the lights if they did work?

It's all speculation unfortunately. None of us were there & if i were in the OP's current position then i'd probably say the bus lights didn't work as well.

Of course none of this has taken into account the fact that busses do not even leave the depot in the morning until all the lights have been fully checked anyway.

daveboy

GAP insurance....that's me sorted and not in a mess if this happens to me.

Cheers.

Sorry but this situation is a 'serves yourself right' situation for me.

aj2703

gomer wrote: »

If the OP was too close to brake in time then it doesn't really matter if the light worked or not, and bare in mind we do only have thier word for it that the bus lights didn't work & if they were that close that they were practically up the bus's backside then could they even see the lights if they did work?

It's all speculation unfortunately. None of us were there & if i were in the OP's current position then i'd probably say the bus lights didn't work as well.

Of course none of this has taken into account the fact that busses do not even leave the depot in the morning until all the lights have been fully checked anyway.

Yep good points. But then if we took that stance then we'd be calling the OP a liar wouldn't we..?. So in giving someone who posted on here advice i would think it fair for us to take the person's words as truth wouldn't you..?.

gomer

aj2703 wrote: »

Yep good points. But then if we took that stance then we'd be calling the OP a liar wouldn't we..?. So in giving someone who posted on here advice i would think it fair for us to take the person's words as truth wouldn't you..?.

Not until all the valid factors have been established, no.