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!
OK, so today I may have reversed into a car
Comments
-
forgotmyname wrote:
With prices for younger drivers it maybe possible she is not properly insured.How do you work that one out?
Because my daughter is learning and i know a lot of her friends have insured their cars in the parents name and not declared them as the main driver.Censorship Reigns Supreme in Troll City...0 -
forgotmyname wrote: »Because my daughter is learning and i know a lot of her friends have insured their cars in the parents name and not declared them as the main driver.
Doing this no longer makes any difference to the cost of the insurance and hasn't done for some time now!“You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time.”0 -
You obviously did not read my post. I will explain again....mrbrightside842 wrote: »What is the OP doing to him? OP has offered to sort it through the insurance, that's what insurance is for. If he has declined this,
The OP is most likely going to be found at fault, (reversing without looking, and hitting a stationary vehicle).
HOWEVER, The third party is sensible enough to realise that if a claim is made even if he gets a "no fault" result, his premium will still increase for the next 5 years. He would rather repair the light scratch himself and forget about it. If it goes 50/50 the situation is worse as he will also lose his excess and his no claims bonus. He cannot claim from OP for the increased premiums that he will have to pay.
The OP has a scratch on a bumper, (big deal) the OP is probably 100% at fault possibly 99%. The OP has said they feel bad about what happened, and rightly so, the OP reversed without looking. I would want the OP to respect the the wishes of the wronged party and not do anything that will increase both peoples premiums.then what more do you want OP to do?
The OP is also a fool for going ahead with a claim here that will increase their own premium irrespective of who is found at fault- for the next 5 years. When they have been given an opportunity to forget it and get on with life. The OP will also lose her "first strike" on NCB protection, another necessity claim later on will wipe out her protection, how silly will she feel then about insisting on making this insignificant claim?
IMO this is not what insurance is for, Insurance companies love this, because they can now rack up the premiums and make loads of money off everyone, far more than the actual cost of the claim. IMO insurance is there for that catastrophic event when severe damage has been caused and your cost of repair will be much more than the loss of excess and the loss of increased premiums for 5 years.
Why should a wronged 3rd party be left worse off and unable to get recompense for their losses just because someone has a blinkered view of "what insurance is for"?0 -
If it goes 50/50 the situation is worse as he will also lose his excess and his no claims bonus. He cannot claim from OP for the increased premiums that he will have to pay...........
The OP is also a fool for going ahead with a claim here....
Some misinfo here.
eg the third party won't "lose" his excess in the event of a 50/50 outcome. (He won't pay any excess at all unless he claims for his own damage, which apparently he will not do)
(FYI though, with 50/50 outcomes, both parties are able to claim back 50% of their excess from the other side!)
The OP cannot be called a "fool" for (sensibly) letting their insurer sort this out.
Policyholders are bound by their policy conditions to disclose incidents like this to their insurers!
And can reimburse their insurer any outlay to get their NCD back if it's cost effective - though no need if you have paid for protection - it's exactly why you buy "protection"!0 -
You obviously did not read my post. I will explain again....
The OP is most likely going to be found at fault, (reversing without looking, and hitting a stationary vehicle).
HOWEVER, The third party is sensible enough to realise that if a claim is made even if he gets a "no fault" result, his premium will still increase for the next 5 years. He would rather repair the light scratch himself and forget about it. If it goes 50/50 the situation is worse as he will also lose his excess and his no claims bonus. He cannot claim from OP for the increased premiums that he will have to pay.
The OP has a scratch on a bumper, (big deal) the OP is probably 100% at fault possibly 99%. The OP has said they feel bad about what happened, and rightly so, the OP reversed without looking. I would want the OP to respect the the wishes of the wronged party and not do anything that will increase both peoples premiums.
The OP is also a fool for going ahead with a claim here that will increase their own premium irrespective of who is found at fault- for the next 5 years. When they have been given an opportunity to forget it and get on with life. The OP will also lose her "first strike" on NCB protection, another necessity claim later on will wipe out her protection, how silly will she feel then about insisting on making this insignificant claim?
IMO this is not what insurance is for, Insurance companies love this, because they can now rack up the premiums and make loads of money off everyone, far more than the actual cost of the claim. IMO insurance is there for that catastrophic event when severe damage has been caused and your cost of repair will be much more than the loss of excess and the loss of increased premiums for 5 years.
Why should a wronged 3rd party be left worse off and unable to get recompense for their losses just because someone has a blinkered view of "what insurance is for"?
How did I 'obviously not read your post', did I reply telling you the capital of Thailand was Bangkok? No, I read your post and disagreed. Whilst you may not like my disagreement, I did indeed read your post!
He's not a directly involved party, he's someone who's been brought in to fight his daughters battle. Nothing really to do with him. I understand how the claim effects the premium, and I wouldn't expect the OP to actually claim through her insurance. But OP has offered to, that's all he needs to know. Whether it's calling his bluff or not, knowing that he won't accept it, it still has been offered. And insurance IS there to cover accidents and to help sort situations out, so they were right to offer it. Again, his problem if he doesn't want to accept it on behalf of his daughter. You can't say the OP was probably 100% or possibly 99% to blame. If a witness (who happened to be a solicitor) told me the other driver was to blame, then I wouldn't be accepting liability.0 -
mrbrightside842 wrote: »................. Nothing really to do with him...
It's a family thing.
I do that for my family. They do it for me.0 -
Because you couldn't see what the OP was "going to do" to the 3rd party..... this could be because you have misunderstood (see below) the OPs intentions. Either that, or I have.mrbrightside842 wrote: »How did I 'obviously not read your post', did I reply telling you the capital of Thailand was Bangkok? No, I read your post and disagreed. Whilst you may not like my disagreement, I did indeed read your post!
How do you know it's not his car and she is a named driver? Even so, he is her father and to make an argument about whether he can be correctly referred to as the 3rd party is a bit silly now isn't it? Especially as he obviously wears the trousers in the house.He's not a directly involved party, he's someone who's been brought in to fight his daughters battle. Nothing really to do with him. I understand how the claim effects the premium, and I wouldn't expect the OP to actually claim through her insurance. But OP has offered to, that's all he needs to know. Whether it been offered. And insurance IS there to cover accidents and to help sort situations out, so they were right to offer it. Again, his problem if he doesn't want to accept it on behalf of his daughter. You can't say the OP was probably 100% or possibly 99% to blame. If a witness (who happened to be a solicitor) told me the other driver was to blame, then I wouldn't be accepting liability.
I don't think you understand the OPs intentions, she is going to stubbornly make a claim, and her insurers, probably (with the solicitors warped version of events), will write to the 3rd party to make a claim against his insurance, thus the OP is going to affect the 3rd parties premiums when it is in reality -not knowing which planet the solicitor lives on- the OPs fault.0 -
Lesson for the future - look behind you before starting to reverse, even if you have previously reversed and it was clear. What if a child or an old lady had walked behind your car because they thought you were driving away and you went over them?
I drive an estate car with no reversing sensors and I have never hit anything. I also drive a 3.5 tonne van for work which has no rear window and I've never hit anything with that either.0 -
Wait, so you had successfully exited the space and were on the "road" part of the car park, but you were unable to actually get around the corner due to unfortunate positioning.
You then just reversed down the road a bit in order to get a better angle at the corner only to find someone had snuck in behind you due to being too impatient and in a hurry to get your space.
Is this what happened because most people are posting as if you were still shuffling back and forth trying to exit the space.
A diagram would help here.0 -
andrew-the-cat wrote: ».......... What if a child or an old lady had walked behind your car because they thought you were driving away and you went over them?....................
Or a nun in a wheelchair collecting for the local orphans?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards