car got scratched by someone who took 30 minutes to paralell park and scratched my

Quentin

londonTiger wrote: »

yeah the excess is 350 so it makes no sense. I will speak to insureance about my options.

Before paying the excess can I find out if the third party insruer accepts blame or do I have to take a gamble pay the excess and hope it comes in my favour?

With an excess of £350 there is no point making a claim over £200 even if the third party admits liability. (You won't get any contribution off your insurer)


And your insurer won't pursue the third party to admit liability as they have nothing to pursue them for!


If you have legal cover then see if they will help you get the costs of your repair reimbursed as an uninsured loss

londonTiger

rs65 wrote: »

You originally said that it was your word and against theirs. Now you are talking about evidence which is obviously better. Do you have photographs of the damage on their car and yours.



What exactly do you expect a counterclaim to be? Your car was parked and unattended wasn't it?

1) yes everything on post 7 I have. I used a long 60cm ruler and dropped it to the ground and measured the height of scratches on both cars. and taken photographs of the scratches with the ruler on to demonstrate.

2) they can claim I wasn't parked and I bumped into them. Now that they have my details they will most likely go that way.

I also have video footage of me rubbing off some of my paint [transferred paint] on the third parties car showing that it was fresh damage.

londonTiger

Can I find out the third party insruer through my insruer and calim directly off them?

Quentin

You can get the third party insurance details yourself off askmid.

InsideInsurance

If the TP is denying hitting your vehicle it is not going to go 50/50 as clearly you have no liability towards damage to their car. Insurers tend to either cough up or maintain denial in these cases.

You could withdraw the claim from your insurance leaving you with what should be recorded as a non-fault incident on your records (insurers wont probe these things if no claim is being made). Impact of one single unclaimed for non-fault incident is going to be none to small with MOST insurers. There are a few that aim at the perfect driver (or the sub prime market) that dont want to see any incidents and they will load premiums more.

londonTiger

InsideInsurance wrote: »

If the TP is denying hitting your vehicle it is not going to go 50/50 as clearly you have no liability towards damage to their car. Insurers tend to either cough up or maintain denial in these cases.

You could withdraw the claim from your insurance leaving you with what should be recorded as a non-fault incident on your records (insurers wont probe these things if no claim is being made). Impact of one single unclaimed for non-fault incident is going to be none to small with MOST insurers. There are a few that aim at the perfect driver (or the sub prime market) that dont want to see any incidents and they will load premiums more.

Spoke to insurer, mentioned the third party traded paint with 8 other vehicles, claims handler was interested in seeing pictures of the other damage. These are all definately damage from bad parking as they're just paint transfer and no dents. So very slow speed collision on the corner of his car.

On the balance of probability I think his insurer is going to be reasonable and admit liability.

I reckon the third party is going to be ****** after his insurer sees the damage he's been causing and cancel his policy. Driver's stupidity in not admitting fault at the scene and just coughing up my repair costs. Now his insurer is going to see the photographic evidence of the state of his vehicle.

topdaddy_2

londonTiger wrote: »

Spoke to insurer, mentioned the third party traded paint with 8 other vehicles, claims handler was interested in seeing pictures of the other damage. These are all definately damage from bad parking as they're just paint transfer and no dents. So very slow speed collision on the corner of his car.

On the balance of probability I think his insurer is going to be reasonable and admit liability.

I reckon the third party is going to be ****** after his insurer sees the damage he's been causing and cancel his policy. Driver's stupidity in not admitting fault at the scene and just coughing up my repair costs. Now his insurer is going to see the photographic evidence of the state of his vehicle.

8 dings in one manoeuvre? Maybe the police should be contacted about this "driver"

londonTiger

no 8 dings with 8 different cars. 7 were prior.

Why do you always twist my words and make silly remarks?

very unhelpful. My insurer understood what I said, most people on the board understoof what I said. But you always interpret it to silly levels.

Quentin

londonTiger wrote: »

no 8 dings with 8 different cars. 7 were prior........

What is the relevance of this and if it is relevant, how you gonna prove it was all done by the driver you accuse of damaging your car?

topdaddy_2

londonTiger wrote: »

no 8 dings with 8 different cars. 7 were prior.

Why do you always twist my words and make silly remarks?

very unhelpful. My insurer understood what I said, most people on the board understoof what I said. But you always interpret it to silly levels.

Listen you muppet, you said the car "traded paint with eight other cars" when you spoke to the insurance about this one incident. Therefore its a simple implicaption that this is relevant. Now you say the vehicle has existing scrapes well thats is not relevant to the driver, (its them that are the risk for insurers after all), but thy could be pre-existing and/or caused by others with no fault at all from the driver that may or may not have collided with your vehicle. So no I didnt understoof what you said because it wasnt clear, the remark isnt silly, if the driver is that bad maybe popo need to know, you yourself said they were very defensive and not willing to accept blame. Maybe, just maybe theres a reason behind that?