How to claim from uninsured cyclist

Nasqueron

katejo wrote: »

Here is a free link to the case (not sure why it has inserted emojis)


http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2018/2031.html&query=(title:(+ellis+))+AND+(title:(+v+))+AND+(title:(+kelly+))

The forum automatically converts : ( into even when it's part of a URL

It's probably better to use forum code to link the URL so it doesn't paste as text on the forum to avoid this happening using the [ url= url here ] text here [ / url ] - remove the spaces in the brackets

link here

Nasqueron

RichardParry wrote: »

Thanks for all your replies, It seems that as it is a child cyclist involved then he has no insurance and no income either. The insurance company have contacted the mother and she is refusing to pay anything and it seems she is not liable for her child whilst on his bike!!! I am really annoyed that I have to pay out £300 for a non fault accident!!! and probably my insurance will increase next year because of it. Just a word of warning to everyone - KEEP AWAY FOR CYCLISTS!!!!

It's nothing to do with cyclists, it's to do with a kid. A kid could have thrown something at another kid and accidentally hit your car, a kid could have fallen from a tree into your car etc etc. The fact he's on a bike is irrelevant to this, all that's relevant is that he's a kid. Unless he was negligent and his parents allowed him to continue knowing this then you have to pay the excess yes and look into perhaps a court case to try and reclaim it which will be far more expensive.

brewthebear

please enlighten us as to what damage came to £3k

RichardParry

Just for those who are interested. The £3500 damage came about from damage to the front and rear near side doors on a brand new car worth nearly £50000.

AstroTurtle

The question of "Fault" isn't why you have to pay an excess. It's because the costs are deemed non-recoverable by the Insurer is why you have to pay.

Being hit by Uninsured drivers/Hit & Runs/Theft/Vandalism/Fire etc

A lot of these circumstances aren't the policyholders "Fault" but they take the brunt of the cost as that's why you pay for your Insurance.

If you skid on ice and crash your car do you sue the ice? cause it was at fault?

Some times you have to pick and choose your battles. And for the sake of £300 let alone £3,000 I don't fancy your chances at re-claiming the costs of a child on a bike hitting your car and I'm not sure I like the idea of a world where it's possible to sue kids having fun outside.

trailingspouse

Long ago when I worked in insurance, one of my clients had an accident when a child who was playing chicken ran out in front of his car. He hit the child, the child bounced, but damaged his bumper, and once he'd recovered from the trauma of actually hitting a child (and learnt that they'd been playing chicken) he wondered if he could claim from the parents. A case could certainly be made for them being negligent if they are allowing their child to do this.


But no - no chance.

surreysaver

If you can afford a £50k car, you can afford a £300 excess. Although maybe the reason you can afford a £50k car is because you look after the pennies!

Blibble

AstroTurtle wrote: »

The question of "Fault" isn't why you have to pay an excess. It's because the costs are deemed non-recoverable by the Insurer is why you have to pay.

Being hit by Uninsured drivers/Hit & Runs/Theft/Vandalism/Fire etc

A lot of these circumstances aren't the policyholders "Fault" but they take the brunt of the cost as that's why you pay for your Insurance.

If you skid on ice and crash your car do you sue the ice? cause it was at fault?

Some times you have to pick and choose your battles. And for the sake of £300 let alone £3,000 I don't fancy your chances at re-claiming the costs of a child on a bike hitting your car and I'm not sure I like the idea of a world where it's possible to sue kids having fun outside.

This +100000. In what world is it fair to be pursuing a child or his parents for what seems to have been a genuine accident, i.e., there is no forethought or deliberate act, and no negligence? It's an accident, and accidents happen. I feel extremely sorry for the family you're pursuing for the money, as they may be in a far less fortunate position than you, where £300 is a big deal.

Aretnap

Tammykitty wrote: »

I wouldn't just be looking to claim the excess though - I would be looking to claim it all - why should your insurance (and future premiums) have to pay out for something that wasn't his fault.


However, the cyclist was a child, as as such probably has no assets to pay with - but the householder may have house insurance which might cover it - but its only a possibility

It's quite possible that the child's parents have some sort of Hoke insurance which would cover their and/or the child's liabilities. But it won't help the OP, because they almost certainly have no liability to him.

The child would be liable only if he was negligent,. Negligence means failing to take the standard of care expected of a reasonable person. In the case of a 10 year old child that means the standard of care expected of a reasonable 10 year old - which is obviously much lower than that expected of a reasonable adult. So while in theory it's possible for a child to be held liable for an accident, in practice it's very rare (particularly for a young child) - even without getting into the questiom of whether a child would have the means to pay for any damage.

Meanwhile the parents would only be liable if they themselves were negligent. Again that means failing to act in the way reasonable parents would be expected to act... and it is not in any way, shape or form unreasonable to let your kids play outside. I'm with Astroturtle - I do not want to live in a country where people are held to be bad parents and held liable for bills of thousands of pounds for letting children ride their bikes, and thankfully it seems that the judges in the Kelly case above agree.

No liability means no payout, with or without insurance. Bit of a pain for the OP, but ultimately one of those things - you cannot demand that someone else pays for every bit of misfortune that befalls you in life.

Aretnap

RichardParry wrote: »

Just a word of warning to everyone - KEEP AWAY FOR CYCLISTS!!!!

Wise advice. If you're driving a ton of metal which can easily squash people, please do exercise extreme caution around cyclists, children and other vulnerable people.