Car damaged in airport carpark

regency_man

My car was severely scratched and dented right along the drivers side from bumper to bumper while parked in Heathrow T3 short-stay. It basically looks like someone dragged an airport baggage trolley down the entire length of it. The dealer quote for repair to 4 panels is £900 :eek:

This is first time I've been in the situation of having bad damage done to my vehicle by an 'unknown' person.

If I claim on my insurance, will this go down as a 'fault' claim? Would I lose my no-claims bonus?

I have asked the carpark for CCTV footage, if it shows the other person doing the damage, would that then be a no-fault claim?

Are there any other avenues to pursue?

eddddy

It will be a fault claim if your insurer ends up 'out-of-pocket'.

So to avoid it being treated as a fault claim, either you or 'the culprit' will have to pay the cost of repairs.

Finding CCTV images of the culprit will not be enough. You (or your insurer) would need to track down 'the culprit' and get them to pay the repair costs.

regency_man

I see, so if I get the footage it would make sense to report it as a crime to identify the 'culprit'?

eddddy

It would only be a crime if the damage was done intentionally - i.e. then it would be criminal damage.

But if it was just done by accident (negligently) it is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

If the 'trolley pusher' was negligent, they would be liable for any damage they caused, but they would not be guilty of any criminal offence.


For example, they might have been negligent if they misjudged a gap between cars and scraped your car, or if they overloaded a trolley and were unable to control it.

lisyloo

regency_man wrote: »

I see, so if I get the footage it would make sense to report it as a crime to identify the 'culprit'?

The police are not going to be that interested in damage to your car (unfortunately).

There's a major issue here though

Finding CCTV images of the culprit will not be enough. You (or your insurer) would need to track down 'the culprit' and get them to pay the repair costs.

It may not be that easy or cheap to get the culprit to pay up (even if you can identify them).
Your insurer probably isn't willing to take this person to court for £900 and will probably just deal with it as a "fault" claim.
Note this is not a motor accident so the person may well not be insured, so there is no motor insurer to deal with.
My FIL had an accient with a pedestrian and the insurers did not pursue.

It would be a risk to take a stranger to court (even if you can identify them if they have a coat/hood on) as you won't know if they have the means to pay.

There is a gap between proving someone is liable (which in itself isn't necessarily easy) and getting them to pay.

What will you do if you contact the registered keeper and they simply don't reply?
You cannot prove who it is as it may not be the registered keeper, it could be a family member or a friend and nothing at all to do with the registered keeper of the vehicle they got into.

I'm sympathetic, but there are real issues with getting your dues here.

I wish you the best of luck but I think you are stuck are with paying this yourself or making a fault claim.

Could you get a cheaper repair? panels from a scrap yard?
Treat the rust and just put up with the cosmetic issue?
Obviously depends on whether it's an old banger or a nearly new pride and joy.
My car is 20 years old and I would just leave it.

radoslaff

Just a thought here. The OP has paid the parking to keep their car safe, isn't that so? So in that case isn't the parking liable for the damages, provided the OP can prove that they were not pre-existing (the video footage of the scene)? What if the car was stolen?

lisyloo

So in that case isn't the parking liable for the damages

In general no (and I think it's a racing certainty that their terms and conditions say so).
The car park will not be liable for accidental or malicious damage by another client or the weather.
They'd only be liable if it was one of their staff or their bus (good luck with them handing over the footage for that !!)

The OP has (possibly) paid for CCTV and high fencing. That isn't a guarantee that another person will not open a car door or a rogue trolley moves in a gust.
Not sure where you'd stand on the balance of probabilities in a civil case e.g. car park claim CCTV footage is "not available".

Not sure whether I'd risk a civil case or not. Depends on what the CCTV produces.

What if the car was stolen?

Again depends on circumstances.
If an employee stole the keys or the barriers didn't work, then I'd say they were liable.
If armed gunman came in and took the keys then I'd say they weren't liable.
In this case I'd say the onus is on the car park on the balance of probabilities (armed gunman being at the unlikely end of the spectrum).

provided the OP can prove that they were not pre-existing (the video footage of the scene)?

But the OP doesn't have the footage and I doubt it's guaranteed.
What if it implicates the car park. Do you think they will provide it?
Or do you think they will say it's not available? or indeed just not respond.
I think they won't provide it and I don't think the OP can force them to.

would be good to have an update from the OP.

I am sympathetic towards the OP but I see the big issue is that the OP cannot force the carpark to produce footage and cannot force the registered keeper of any identified car to do anything either.