We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Possible vandalism claim after renewal
Comments
-
So, applying that reasoning, a 'ding' in the door from a supermarket trolly shoud be disclosed?
You have asked for advice and been given it.
Why put up an argument with the messenger!
It isn't a "reasoning" - read your policy conditions about what you must notify your insurers.
As far as winning your county court case, bear in mind you have to pay the costs of the case which will be added to the amount awarded to you.
If you then send in bailiffs that will also be at your cost, and the culprit may have no assets to seize.
Thus you will lose more.
You have paid for insurance, so why not use it?0 -
You have asked for advice and been given it.
Why put up an argument with the messenger!
It isn't a "reasoning" - read your policy conditions about what you must notify your insurers.
Quentin, firstly thank you for taking the trouble to reply. Please be assured that I'm not trying to argue with you, I just don't agree and so am attempting to reason out the point. That is why I asked a question in response to your post. Your advice clashes with Huckster's and so in the absence of other reasoning, I'm more inclined to go along with that.
The point I'm trying to make is that if one takes the line "strictly speaking the vandalism should be disclosed"... then why and on what grounds? How is that any different from a stonechip, small scratch or trolley ding etc? Those are all examples of losses / incidents / events that could physically be claimed for but typically aren't.As far as winning your county court case, bear in mind you have to pay the costs of the case which will be added to the amount awarded to you.
I'm confident I will win the case and that the costs will be recovered from the other party. It’s unusual to have part or none of the cost recovered from the defendant unless the claimant has acted in an unreasonable manner or not afforded sufficient time for the claimed sum to be paid. This is not the case in this instance.
Enforcing the order with baliffs does not add to my costs, it is court appointed and adds £100 to the defendants costs... and yes, they do have assets.If you then send in bailiffs that will also be at your cost, and the culprit may have no assets to seize.
Actually, I will lose more by claiming on my insurance. I will have to pay the excess, I will have to disclose the claim on future cover for 5 years to come resulting in higher premiums and I think (but may be wrong on this point) an accident repair through insurance will show up on certain reports on the car at resale, which would devalue it.Thus you will lose more.You have paid for insurance, so why not use it?
Seriously...why should I!? The only one to benefit from that course of action is the bloke who vandalised my car. He was arrested and charged so I would much rather have my day in court, and make him pay. Isn't that more like justice?
Please don’t read an argumentative tone into my reply, it’s certainly not intended. Whatever happens I won’t be winning out of this situation, I just want to lose as little as possible.If a man speaks in a forest, but there is no woman there to hear him... is he still wrong?0 -
Your advice clashes with Huckster's and so in the absence of other reasoning, I'm more inclined to go along with that..........................Enforcing the order with baliffs does not add to my costs, it is court appointed and adds £100 to the defendants costs... and yes, they do have assets.
My advice was for you to read your policy conditions, where you will see for yourself what you have agreed to do regarding keeping your insurer informed! It's up to you whether or not you are prepared to risk the consequences of breaching your policy conditions!
If Huckster has advised you you don't need to report this incident to your insurer then that advice is incorrect! (And the four others who have answered your query in this thread all say the opposite!)
If you need to enforce a court order, then it is at your expense (the cost of getting the enforcement order must be paid by the claimant in advance, and if the order is granted, the cost gets added onto the amount being claimed off the defendant - and only recovered if the enforcement is subsequently 100% successful)0 -
This is a vandalism incident. Cuff has decided foolishly(IMHO) to take court action against the vandal to recovery money to pay for the repair. By doing so they have decided not to use their Insurance and will not be able to go back to them at a later date. This is Cuff's choice, but I think they will struggle to obtain the money.
In regard to policy conditions, I understand this. But as we all know policy conditons are there to make sure all sides are informed, should a claim be received. It is not as if the vandal is going to make a claim against the policy, unless they injured themselves vandalising the car. I can see the headline in the Daily Scandal, "Vandal wins action against car owner for sharp paint work" !!!The comments I post are personal opinion. Always refer to official information sources before relying on internet forums. If you have a problem with any organisation, enter into their official complaints process at the earliest opportunity, as sometimes complaints have to be started within a certain time frame.0 -
If you need to enforce a court order, then it is at your expense (the cost of getting the enforcement order must be paid by the claimant in advance, and if the order is granted, the cost gets added onto the amount being claimed off the defendant - and only recovered if the enforcement is subsequently 100% successful)
i'm talking about obtaining a warrant of execution after the successful judgement. I'm not concened about that.If a man speaks in a forest, but there is no woman there to hear him... is he still wrong?0 -
I realise it may seem a bit foolish given the limited information I have provided. Suffice to say that without going into all the details, my case is cast iron and about as open-and-shut as it could get. I see no advantage in using my insurance. However, just to cover all my bases, I have been told twice that I can retrospectively use my insurance if needed. I've requested this in writing, just to be on the safe side.This is a vandalism incident. Cuff has decided foolishly(IMHO) to take court action against the vandal to recovery money to pay for the repair. By doing so they have decided not to use their Insurance and will not be able to go back to them at a later date. This is Cuff's choice, but I think they will struggle to obtain the money.
In regard to policy conditions, I understand this. But as we all know policy conditons are there to make sure all sides are informed, should a claim be received. It is not as if the vandal is going to make a claim against the policy, unless they injured themselves vandalising the car. I can see the headline in the Daily Scandal, "Vandal wins action against car owner for sharp paint work" !!!If a man speaks in a forest, but there is no woman there to hear him... is he still wrong?0 -
So you have advised them of the 'incident'??0
-
Just thought I'd give an update with what happened seeing as it was almost a year ago I last posted here.
Well I had my day in court, and won the total sum a claimed for and the other party was ordered to pay all the costs. I didn't need to enforce the order as the guilty party coughed up the cash there and then. And the added bonus was I managed to get the dent repaired for a fraction of the awarded money :T
I enjoyed the debate though
If a man speaks in a forest, but there is no woman there to hear him... is he still wrong?0 -
Good result.
Small claims court is a good system, usually it works well enough.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards