DD had an accident today

brazilianwax

barncopxx wrote: »

MrsE, if your DD was injured to the extent you say, why wasn't an ambulance deployed to the accident? If it's an injury RTA, the police have to be involved - did they attend? As your DD is now sore (i.e. injured), have you informed the police?

Surely if it was that bad the car wouldn't be driveable, but you say it still is?

Doesn't have to be a severe crash to cause whiplash. Most people tense when they realise they're about to crash. Any level of accident can cause your head to move forward, and if your muscles are tensed, you risk damage. I have permanent damage to my neck muscles despite relatively minor accidents.

But this thread isn't about that.

MrsE, it is highly likely that the renewal price will increase on renewal following a non-fault claim. Stats show that drivers with a no-fault claim are more likely to have a fault accident, and that applies more so to new drivers. A post on the insurance board is a good idea.

Your daughter should probably start saving now

jeannieblue

Has anyone actually read the original post? It is an insurance inquiry - but MrsE does mention her daugher was hurt and a bit sore - and everyone goes nuts!!

mumps

I was always told to remember its a no claims bonus not a no blame bonus. However, as I have said it didn't make that much difference to my daughters insurance.

MrsE_2

barncopxx wrote: »

MrsE, if your DD was injured to the extent you say, why wasn't an ambulance deployed to the accident? If it's an injury RTA, the police have to be involved - did they attend? As your DD is now sore (i.e. injured), have you informed the police?

Surely if it was that bad the car wouldn't be driveable, but you say it still is?

If your insistent on going down the compensation road, take a deep breath before you open the next insurance renewal - they will get their money back somehow!

I would guess most people involved in a crash would be pretty sore.
The garage said it was ok to drive during daylight.
On a two month old car having all that scuffed & cracked looks pretty bad, it was immaculate.
They secured the light unit with cable ties, as they were loose.

I think you will find, I am one of the few people on this thread who HAS NOT mentioned compensation.

Inactive

MrsE wrote: »

I would guess most people involved in a crash would be pretty sore.
The garage said it was ok to drive during daylight.
On a two month old car having all that scuffed & cracked looks pretty bad, it was immaculate.
They secured the light unit with cable ties, as they were loose.

I think you will find, I am one of the few people on this thread who HAS NOT mentioned compensation.

I would get that checked out before your Daughter gets nicked, a car can never be legal to just drive " during daylight ", it is either legally roadworthy, or it isn't.

anewman

Inactive wrote: »

I would get that checked out before your Daughter gets nicked, a car can never be legal to just drive " during daylight ", it is either legally roadworthy, or it isn't.

This is true. Although as only alignment is mentioned I would drive it up to face a wall or put a wheelie bin in front and check that the alignment is reasonable (NS should point slightly higher than OS).

MrsE_2

BallandChain wrote: »

No MrsE I was driving straight on just like your DD, I wasn't turning. The other driver drove across my path so she could turn into a side road.

I just read that other thread (the one that you accuse me of being horrible).

I said nothing out of order to you, I even painted two scenarios, one where it would be your fault, one theirs depending on what you & they were doing

I was trying to give you objective advice on how the insurance co might see it & the questions you are likely to face.


You however have come on here & practically jumped up & down with glee that my daughter has had a car accident
You've said as much

You've enjoyed the silly troll posts too & milked them for all they are worth.
I know you said you couldn't afford to repair your car, but can you not afford a TV for a bit of drama & entertainment, are you trying to create that on here

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=785927&highlight=ballandchain

I said nothing out of order to you, & you are one twisted nutter if you've been stewing watching for me or my family to have a car accident:rolleyes:

MrsE_2

scubaangel wrote: »

I think the posts making that accusation are among those deleted, along with a handful of asbokids which were adding nothing useful to the discussion and read (to me at least) as attacks on the OP's character after a similar accident happened to themselves and the OP stated they thought it was entirely ak's fault.

Liability for the accident will be decided by the insurance co's, and as for OP being accused of skirting issues - she wasnt in the car, she didnt witness the accident and can only go off the word of her DD and DD's bf who may not have been present when these things were asked!

Actually I was trying to be realistic & painted them two senarios.

I very much doubt I will remember the trolls & nasty posters in over a years time, but some people don't have much entertainment:rolleyes:

gaz_jones

MrsE wrote: »

Abusive posts re drugs, probably stone/drunk, workshy, your sort, liar, etc have been removed by abuse.

Mrse, How many times? I have shown you before no one said she was probably stoned or drunk. It was just an example as to why the case may not be as clear cut as made out. I'll ask you again, please find the post where someone says she was probably stoned or drunk. I have a feeling I'll be waiting a while.


I'm grateful my DD is OK, but The fault for this lies squarely with the lady who turned right into on comming traffic.

Anyone that said Mrse accepted her daughter was partly liable might like to read the above sentence.

My DD is very sore & she is car-less because someone couldn't be bothered to look.

Or because your daughter was going too fast?

My DD may also face an insurance increase because of the other ladys carelessness.

The other lady was going so fast, she actually went quite some way down the road before she stopped, she sat in the car staring straight ahead totally in shock at what happened, possible because she didn't even see on coming traffic.

But up until now you have been saying the road was too busy to get any real speed. Now I'm confused. Earlier you also said their was enough gap for 2 cars to safely cross yoru daughters path. That tied in with the above quote sounds like there was plenty of room for your daughter to venture over 30mph.


She hasn't bothered to inform her insurance she was in a crash either (as of this evening) , but I suspose the fact that she didn't want her hubby to know she'd crashed his company car may have something to do with that.

The reason people are getting annoyed is because your story keeps changing to accomodate your daughters story.



As said before, I can't wait to see the result from the insurance company.

scubaangel

MrsE wrote: »

Actually I was trying to be realistic & painted them two senarios.

I very much doubt I will remember the trolls & nasty posters in over a years time, but some people don't have much entertainment:rolleyes:

Apologies MrsE I havent read that thread - but it was the picture ak was painting.