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
Car Accident Advice
Comments
-
You would have a lot more credibility if you actually understood the correct terminology.
The other party to the accident is NOT a third party. She is one of the principals.
While it may be true that an NWNF outfit might take on an accident case there is VERY little likelihood of them doing so in this case because, as someone stated above, there is no real way to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage was actually caused by the OP's son.
A very credible defence would be that the original damage was so minor that the plaintiff did not consider it worth repairing (if, indeed, there was any original damage) and only started action when further damage occured.
Whatever....YOU knew i ment"Dream World" by The B Sharps....describes a lot of the posts in the Loans and Mortgage sections !!!0 -
The driver will no doubt explain the delay to her insurance company as "He admitted liability. He said he wanted to pay me cash to settle the claim. I accepted and provided numerous quotes but he has used delaying tactics to avoid paying. I now wish to claim from his insurance."
Son will be in a very bad position considering he's admitted he bumped her, he exchanged details, received quotes and telephone calls from her. It'll be apparent that the incident happened, so even trying to deny it (lie) is unlikely to work.
Pay the money or risk the wrath of the insurance IMO. If he stilll drives then it's going to be cheaper to pay for the damage. If he's given up driving and won't be starting again for 5 years or so, let the insurance pay.
All wrong.
She would have to explain why she waited THREE MONTHS to get a quote.
Do you really think insurance companies are not wise to this?
Trying to get an insurance payout months after an event and loading it up with further damage is very common and people who try it quickly find that the insurers are not a gullible as they thought.
Her insurers will simply tell her to take a hike as she did not inform them of the incident in a timely fashion.
If things really operated as you and a couple of others here seem to imagine the insurance companies would be inundated with dodgy claims.
In addition no one seems to have asked why she DID wait three months to get a quote. That is not the action of someone behaving in a straightforward and honest manner and her insurers are going to be WELL aware of that.0 -
Foxy-Stoat wrote: »Whatever....YOU knew i ment
Of course I did but you were laying down the law in a very dogmatic manner while simultaneously demonstrating that you didn't even understand basic terminology.0 -
No, he's correct.
It's the usual problem of people using terminology they don't properly understand.
If you are discussing something between yourself and your insurance company then, yes, the other driver is the third party.
If, on the other hand, you are discussing something between yourself and the other driver, you and she are the principals and anyone else; police, insurance company, etc, are third parties.
Third party simply means someone other than the protagonists under discussion.
e.g. If I pay you by cheque, you and I are the principals to the transaction and the bank(s) are third parties. If, on the other hand I query the handling of the cheque with the bank then the bank and I are principals and you are the third party.
In some sort of tautological parallel universe you might be right.
In the real world of a thread about an at fault diver, an innocent driver and one or two insurance companies the meaning of TP is perfectly clear and universally understood and the suggestion that the means of TP changes depending who uses it seems nonsensical and would be terribly confusing0 -
Just your opinion. Not worth much TBH.All wrong.
Plenty of plausible explanations.She would have to explain why she waited THREE MONTHS to get a quote.
There's no evidence she has loaded the cost up, and this is not a fraudulent claim. It actually happened. As her vehicle has been damaged by their insured, the insurance company has to take her claim seriously.Do you really think insurance companies are not wise to this?
Trying to get an insurance payout months after an event and loading it up with further damage is very common and people who try it quickly find that the insurers are not a gullible as they thought.
She's not claiming from her insurers, she's claiming from his.Her insurers will simply tell her to take a hike as she did not inform them of the incident in a timely fashion.
Insurance companies are inundated with dodgy claims. But this one isn't dodgy because it took place.If things really operated as you and a couple of others here seem to imagine the insurance companies would be inundated with dodgy claims.
She will claim that the son kept delaying the payment he promised her. That could easily be true and must be quite common. She'll say the son only demanded a written quote towards the end - the ones she got previously were verbal.In addition no one seems to have asked why she DID wait three months to get a quote. That is not the action of someone behaving in a straightforward and honest manner and her insurers are going to be WELL aware of that.
This is a standard insurance claim, but for the fact there was a delay in reporting it to the insurance companies.0 -
In some sort of tautological parallel universe you might be right.
LOL, you seem to make a habit of using terms you don't understand.
How does 'redundant use of words' (which is what 'tautology' means ) relate to 'third party'?There are two types of people in the world: Those that can extrapolate information.0 -
Well, it seems to be a lot more logical than some of the other opinions here which appear to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how car insurance works.Just your opinion. Not worth much TBH.
Really?There's no evidence she has loaded the cost up, and this is not a fraudulent claim. It actually happened. As her vehicle has been damaged by their insured, the insurance company has to take her claim seriously.
She's not claiming from her insurers, she's claiming from his.
The naivety in that remark is almost unbelievable.Insurance companies are inundated with dodgy claims. But this one isn't dodgy because it took place.She will claim that the son kept delaying the payment he promised her. That could easily be true and must be quite common. She'll say the son only demanded a written quote towards the end - the ones she got previously were verbal.
You really do seem to think insurers were born yesterday, don't you?
Of course this is a dodgy claim.
Yes, and incident took place but:
1) She didn't report it to the police.
2) She didn't report it to her insurers.
3) She did not get a contemporaneous quote for the damage and thus has no way of proving that it was done at the time of the incident in question.This is a standard insurance claim, but for the fact there was a delay in reporting it to the insurance companies.
Utter nonsense.
The fact that she did not report it for three months, has never reported it to the police, and has not got any evidence that the damage she is claiming for was caused by the incident in question make it far from standard.
In fact, it's about as far from standard as you could get.
She has completely flouted the rules and they are certainly not going top risk spending money digging her out of a hole of her own making.There are two types of people in the world: Those that can extrapolate information.0 -
It doesn’t strictly mean “redundant use of words”, I prefer “repetition but without adding clarity” see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology although the second bit about “self-reinforcing statements” also has much to commend itLOL, you seem to make a habit of using terms you don't understand.
How does 'redundant use of words' (which is what 'tautology' means ) relate to 'third party'?
see posts #9 & 18 for classic examples0 -
There was no requirement to as no injury was caused and they exchanged details at the scene.Of course this is a dodgy claim.
Yes, and incident took place but:
1) She didn't report it to the police.
She should have done, but as is common, she expected to settle privately.2) She didn't report it to her insurers.
The driver who bumped her car admits doing it and causing damage. That reduces her requirement to provide proof substantially.3) She did not get a contemporaneous quote for the damage and thus has no way of proving that it was done at the time of the incident in question.
When the bill arrives for £400 or so, which is a relatively small amount, and the son's insurer investigates and finds out that YES, there was an accident, and he did cause damage, then rather than argue over the pennies, they will simply strip his NCB, record a fault claim and pay up. They can't do much else since their insured has admitted the bump was his fault; it is not worth the hassle, staff time, legal costs and so on to argue about a £400 claim where their insured has admitted fault.
I hope the OP takes your advice with a pinch of salt otherwise there might well be a pretty big shock come renewal, after their insurer at the time gets wind of this.0 -
Wow thank you all so much for your thoughts and advice. I would just like to confirm that the reason my son no longer has the car and, hence, insurance is insurance ran out at end August and the car was old so he had it scraped. He now has a another car and insurance. Also it was the 'lady' who asked not to go through insurance and, of course, my son didn't complain. I think the first step maybe is to go and get picture and details and go with her to garage for quote. He still isn't 100 per cent sure he caused the damage she claims. But he has leant a valuable lesson, take photos and as much detail as possible at the time. Thanks again0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards