Money Moral Dilemma: Should we pay to repair our neighbours' car?

MSE_Sarah

This week's MoneySaver who wants advice asks...

Our van caught fire and damaged our neighbours' car. Our insurer won't do anything about their car as the fire wasn't caused by negligence, and our neighbours don't want to lose their no-claims bonus going through their own insurance. Should we offer to take their car for repairs, even though the fire wasn't our fault?

Unfortunately the MSE team can't always answer money moral dilemma questions as contributions are often emailed in or suggested in person. They are intended to be enjoyed as a point of debate and discussed at face value.

If you haven't already, join the forum to reply!

Got a money moral dilemma of your own? [URL="mailto: mmd@moneysavingexpert.com"]Suggest an MMD[/URL].

[purplesignup][/purplesignup]

Carrot007

No. The end. Next dilemma with not enough information please!

tacpot12

If the Insurance company is not paying out because the fire wasn't caused by negligence, then they believe that someone is responsible for the fire. If that person is you, then yes you should pay, if not, then you should ask the person responsible to pay (and claim on their insurance for the damage to your van and neighbour's car), if they won't pay then you could, as a goodwill gesture, suggest that you and your neighbour split the bill. They probably won't do this if the bill is going to be more than a couple of hundred pounds and so will decide to claim on their insurance.

TBagpuss

tacpot12 wrote: »

If the Insurance company is not paying out because the fire wasn't caused by negligence, then they believe that someone is responsible for the fire. If that person is you, then yes you should pay, if not, then you should ask the person responsible to pay (and claim on their insurance for the damage to your van and neighbour's car), if they won't pay then you could, as a goodwill gesture, suggest that you and your neighbour split the bill. They probably won't do this if the bill is going to be more than a couple of hundred pounds and so will decide to claim on their insurance.

Er, no. It means that they think no one was negligent. If someone was responsible then that person would either be negligent, or criminal. If the insurance are satisfied that OP wasn't negligent, it is more likely that either it's due to accident or that it is down to an unidentified criminal, in which case OP and their neighbours are both unlucky.

Either way, if OP wasn't negligent, then they were not at fault and don't have to pay, the neighbours can chose to pay and keep their no claims, or claim on their insurance.

Herbalus

tacpot12 wrote: »

If the Insurance company is not paying out because the fire wasn't caused by negligence, then they believe that someone is responsible for the fire. If that person is you, then yes you should pay, if not, then you should ask the person responsible to pay (and claim on their insurance for the damage to your van and neighbour's car), if they won't pay then you could, as a goodwill gesture, suggest that you and your neighbour split the bill. They probably won't do this if the bill is going to be more than a couple of hundred pounds and so will decide to claim on their insurance.

I am going to assume this is an ironic attempt to be as mad as the actual question itself this week

REJP

No. That is why they have insurance.

matchplayer

And why they should have protected no claims bonus too! With that you can usually make two claims before it lapses.

gareththered

Spontaneously combustible vehicles? Really? Vehicles don't catch fire for no reason.

Someone is responsible for that vehicle going up in flames, regardless of what the insurers say. It's either a defect, or more likely, poor maintenance. If you can prove a defect, then you could try to claim against the manufacturer (good luck!); otherwise it defaults to poor maintenance, in which case it's your problem.

If I were the owners of the damaged car, I'd be looking at taking you to court if you didn't offer to pay for the damage.

I wouldn't be looking at claiming on my insurance as we all know that even with so-called no claims protection, the premium would go up next year.

wondermouse

Surely your van damaged their car, therefore you - or your insurer - are responsible. That's what third party insurance is for.

niceguysi666

Your insurer does not simply have to insure you for negligent events. It must provide insurance that complies with Section 145 of the RTA Act 1988. It is not uncommon for insurers to attempt to avoid liability for situations which they are, legally, not allowed to avoid. Have a look at Section 145 (google it), raise a complaint with your insurer if you think you should be covered, and take matters to the insurance ombudsman if you don't get the answer you want.


Good luck.

jbug

Depending on how the fire spread and caused damage you may be liable in nuisance, as occupier, for spread of fire. Your Insurers -either motor or home- should cover you for your liability.