Involved in a car accident with a pedestrian

janninew

globalds wrote: »

They out of pocket because they chose a £500 excess.

They would be even more out of pocket if they had chosen 3rd party.

They would be in the same position if a deer had run into their car.

It is a shame but it is the way it is.

I was annoyed when someone stole my car and rammed a police car with it and I was told to pay my own excess as the guy who stole it had nothing and no way of paying even if I took him to small claims to get it back.

Makes me think hard now about what I am really happy to pay as an excess should it happen again , rather than just seeing it as something to get my premiums down.

An animal running into a car isn't the same situation. The OP's car is damaged though a stupid decision made by a person who at 14 years old should know better. What would happen if she damaged his car when it was parked up on the road or their drive? What would the difference be? Would the parents be expected to pay for the damage then?

Gene_Hunt_2

janninew wrote: »

An animal running into a car isn't the same situation. The OP's car is damaged though a stupid decision made by a child who at 14 years old should know better. What would happen if she damaged his car when it was parked up on the road or their drive? What would the difference be? Criminal Damage? therefore a crime. Would the parents be expected to pay for the damage then?

You're making this hard work aren't you?

janninew

Inactive wrote: »

I had visions of the OP being a female.. I may be wrong.;)

I had visions of the OP being a male. Having such a large excess was a clue. Men pay more for their insurance as they are higher risk, the OP might have had to choose a high excess to make their insurance more affordable?

You poor men, having to pay so much more insurance than us (safer, less risky) lady drivers!!

Quentin

janninew wrote: »

An animal running into a car isn't the same situation. The OP's car is damaged though a stupid decision made by a person who at 14 years old should know better. ....

The £500 the OP cannot afford is of her own making!

When agreeing to that excess she must have had her fingers crossed that she'd never be involved in any damage! And happily taken advantage of paying a lower premium!

janninew

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

You're making this hard work aren't you?

Surely criminal damage would only apply it the damage was done on purpose? I saw just yesterday a young child push her dolls pram into a car over the road, not on purpose, no damage done, but you can see what I'm getting at?

Inactive

janninew wrote: »

You poor men, having to pay so much more insurance than us (safer, less risky) lady drivers!!

I can almost guarantee that you pay more for your insurance than I do, and I don't use a cheapskate company.

Gene_Hunt_2

janninew wrote: »

Surely criminal damage would only apply it the damage was done on purpose? I saw just yesterday a young child push her dolls pram into a car over the road, not on purpose, no damage done, but you can see what I'm getting at? No so stick to something you know about

Read the criminal damage act.

janninew

Inactive wrote: »

I can almost guarantee that you pay more for your insurance than I do, and I don't use a cheapskate company.

How can you "almost guarantee" that?! You know nothing about me!! Very odd thing to say! But generally you will agree men have higher insurance premiums than women.

Gene_Hunt_2

janninew wrote: »

How can you "almost guarantee" that?! You know nothing about me!! Very odd thing to say! But generally you will agree men have higher insurance premiums than women.

I bet you the OP's excess he won't.

globalds

janninew wrote: »

Surely criminal damage would only apply it the damage was done on purpose? I saw just yesterday a young child push her dolls pram into a car over the road, not on purpose, no damage done, but you can see what I'm getting at?

I don't see what your getting at ?

are you saying the kid crashed the car and broke a bone on purpose ?