Car and wife hit by another car!

Ivrytwr3

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

No but I wouldnt stand in the road in traffic with my most valued possesion in my arms:mad:

It must be so great been perfect; you have really given me someone to look up to. Damn the real world and it's inconveniances.

Ivrytwr3

Quentin wrote: »

Presumably the distant "approved repairer" is if you claimed via your own insurance.

If you want the third party to pay for the repairs, (without using your own insurer), you should get a quote for the job, send it to them and ask them to pay, giving them a chance to inspect your car before the repairs are done.

If you are confident you will win the liability argument, and intend to claim directly off the third party, then you don't need to use the approved repairer. Just send them a quote from your chosen garage.

This is what i would have done, got them a quote, but straight away they wanted to go through the insurers.

Quentin

It makes no difference who pays you!

Either way you will need to submit a quote for the repairs AND get their agreement that they were responsible and will pay the bill.

(They correctly have decided to let their insurer sort this out - there may be liability issues, and thats what you pay your insurer to do!)

Ivrytwr3

I see where you're coming from, but i'm honestly not bothered about getting the rpair done, we're talking about a small chip and a couple of small scratches. I can live with that if it saves the inconveniance of sorting out hire cars etc.....

Quentin

In that case just drop the claim against the third party, and repair it yourself.

cyclonebri1

Ivrytwr3 wrote: »

It must be so great been perfect; you have really given me someone to look up to. Damn the real world and it's inconveniances.

You had the accident not me:rotfl:If you had loaded from the kerbside it wouldn't have happened, would it?

Inactive

Ivrytwr3 wrote: »

2 kids, both in the back, rainy day. 1 don't climb over the passenger seat to get into the driver's seat.

Ideal world, yes she should have leaned over and strapped her in, but it was raining and meant 1 kid standing on the pavement waiting.

Better for the little darling to get wet than put his/her life at risk by putting him/her in the road and putting their life at risk.

What a stupid thing to do.

Some parents amaze me.

Ivrytwr3

Quentin wrote: »

In that case just drop the claim against the third party, and repair it yourself.

I didn't start the claim, they did.

Ivrytwr3

Inactive wrote: »

What a stupid thing to do.

Some parents amaze me.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and for the record. i did not have the accident, my wife did and i see no problem with her actions.

For her to get into the car herself, she would need to enter by the roadside, what's the differemce in putting a child in the back roadside? And btw we're talking a cul-de-sac here not the A1 motorway!!

Inactive

Ivrytwr3 wrote: »

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and for the record. i did not have the accident, my wife did and i see no problem with her actions.

For her to get into the car herself, she would need to enter by the roadside, what's the differemce in putting a child in the back roadside? And btw we're talking a cul-de-sac here not the A1 motorway!!

Well you are as bad as she is then, if you think that it is OK to put children in a car "roadside", how very stupid.

Cul-de-Sac or not, it is still a road with traffic passing, as you now know.:rolleyes: