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

londonTiger

Quentin wrote: »

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?

That's up to the insurance to decide. It proves that third party is a bad driver and cannot park. Also his insurer needs to be informed of all 8 of these clashes. If his insurer finds this information [of previous 7 clases] out now it's going to be bad news for him. It means he's been involved in other collisions and not disclosed.

it tips the balance of likelihood to my favour.

I assume the insurer asks when you first get the policy whether there is any damage to the car. If my assumption is correct - he started driving a clean car and now there's 8 accidents on it all of a sudden. Next, he'll have to inform his insurer of all these collisions - which he failed to do. They are pretty significant. Some of them are the size of a football.

it adds weight to my case that in all probability that he did collide with my car given his "history".

Quentin

londonTiger wrote: »

That's up to the insurance to decide. It proves that third party is a bad driver and cannot park. Also his insurer needs to be informed of all 8 of these clashes. If his insurer finds this information out now it's going to be bad news for him.

it adds weight to my case that in all probability that he did collide with my car given his "history".

It doesn't add any "weight" whatsoever.


It certainly doesn't prove the driver you accuse is "bad"


Why is it "bad news" for the driver?

londonTiger

topdaddy wrote: »

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?

Ok I read the previous post and I can see the ambiguity of how you might have interepret it. Why not ask for clarification?

But in future use some common sense it's illogical for a car to collide with 8 cars in a parallel park - max 2 involved. Maybe a 3rd car on the opposite side of the road.

Also read 7. There's I did say there's 3/4 collision from other accidents [from that corner]. The other two corners had more paint damage.

londonTiger

ph christ... here we go again, let the interrogation begin. I'm off

cajef

londonTiger wrote: »

But in future use some common sense it's illogical for a car to collide with 8 cars in a parallel park - max 2 involved. Maybe a 3rd car on the opposite side of the road.

Erm! how do you know it has collided with 8 cars when parallel parking, have you proof and actual witnesses to this or is this another of your irrelevant assumptions.

londonTiger wrote: »

it adds weight to my case that in all probability that he did collide with my car given his "history".

So once again an assumption no fact or proof, what do you actually know about the other drivers history apart from the fact the vehicle has a few scrapes which you are guessing how they were obtained.

Nodding_Donkey

This thread is great

Two posters who usually post crap on other people threads arguing about who posts the most crap.

You couldn't make it up

atrixblue.-MFR-.

OK lets tidy it up a bit.


LT see's traded paint on TP car, in 8 separate locations NOT that TP has hit 8 cars in this one collision, his being one so leaves 7 traded paint locations that may have resulted in past collisions, he informed the insurers of the state of the car and the insurers has said they would deal with this issue as an when they need to, LT is now assuming the insurers is going to do something about it, LT I very much doubt they will, they will inspect his car at the very least and query them but even I could say I bought it with those in it and the insurers would have to take that explanation, as they have no proof otherwise TP has had collisions with other vehicles.


it doesn't prove to his insurers nothing, other than his car is a POS.

londonTiger

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

OK lets tidy it up a bit.


LT see's traded paint on TP car, in 8 separate locations NOT that TP has hit 8 cars in this one collision, his being one so leaves 7 traded paint locations that may have resulted in past collisions, he informed the insurers of the state of the car and the insurers has said they would deal with this issue as an when they need to, LT is now assuming the insurers is going to do something about it, LT I very much doubt they will, they will inspect his car at the very least and query them but even I could say I bought it with those in it and the insurers would have to take that explanation, as they have no proof otherwise TP has had collisions with other vehicles.


it doesn't prove to his insurers nothing, other than his car is a POS.

Thanks for clarifying without being condescending.

jimjames

londonTiger wrote: »

I assume the insurer asks when you first get the policy whether there is any damage to the car.

You assume wrong.

I've never, ever been asked the condition of a car when taking out a policy. Which company asked you that question when you took one out?

InsideInsurance

At most they ask for vehicle valuation and if there is pre-existing damage you should reflect that in your vehicle valuation.

Of cause 90% of people over value their own car anyway hence why most policy documents come through saying "market value" rather than the number you gave.