my car damaged (intentionally) by a van while parked in TESCO car park,is there anything I can do?

couriervanman

OP Tesco wont give you the CCTV footage......and unless your dashcam was permanently on how do you know another vehicle didn't park next to you after the van left

lisyloo

xplod wrote: »

some people here don't know that even if I they had no right to hit and damage my car like that and that's a criminal offence.

This is simply not true.
My brother broke a car window once because there was someone inside the car with the exhaust pipe blocked. He was trying to save someone’s life (he didn’t). That is not criminal damage and of course he was thanked instead of prosecuted.

If someone had no alternative but to do damage to get/in or out to save a life that is not criminal damage.

So you do NOT know that it was criminal.

I was in very high winds once and despite my caution the door flew out of my hand with some considerable force. That was not criminal either.

if a car parks in your driveway are you allowed to pick a hammer and smash their car window?

In certain circumstances yes you are (although you don’t know it was deliberate).
Firefighter sometimes take the roofs off cars to get people out.
A normal person with reasonable justification (as in my brothers case) will similarly not be prosecuted even if damage is deliberate.

If you don’t declare this and it later comes to light then you could have insurance cancelled for deliberate non-disclosure I.e. lying by omission in not declaring it.

Once you are marked as a liar you’ll have a very difficult and expensive job getting insurance.

warby68

There is such a thing as 'asking for trouble' and you asked for trouble OP.

Common sense (and perhaps a bit of experience) would say don't aggravate a van driver who probably doesn't personally bear the costs associated with that vehicle.

Nor can you successfully wriggle around trying to use their insurance but not your own.

Even if you prove it was that van, you will probably be directed to your insurer to resolve.

Being technically 'in the right' may be true but isn't always a wise or practical decision tool. You knew when you parked what the issue could be.

Your best chance is that the company agree to pay you something to 'go away' but there are plenty of chancers out there so wouldn't rely on this.

Barny1979

OP - How do you know it was the van in question's door that caused the damage, could it have been a different vehicle? As if the vehicle was still there when you saw the damage, why didn't you wait and speak to the driver of the vehicle?

lisyloo

warby68 wrote: »

Even if you prove it was that van, you will probably be directed to your insurer to resolve.

I’m not sure this is the case (although depends on view of 3rd party insurer).
If it’s clear cut from CCTV then most insurers have innocent 3rd party departments. They are keen to deal direct with 3rd parties so that they can control costs and not (for example) have accident management companies adding high hire care charges.
This can work well for the claimant as they don’t pay their excess and don’t have a pending claim on their record (but will have to declare an accident).
They might not have choice of repairer or access to a complaints scheme such as the ombudsman but on balance it’s a good idea for claimants.
It does depend on the 3rd party insurer accepting liability though and not being in dispute about liability.

In this case a lot depends on what the CCTV shows if available.

lisyloo

Barny1979 wrote: »

OP - How do you know it was the van in question's door that caused the damage, could it have been a different vehicle? As if the vehicle was still there when you saw the damage, why didn't you wait and speak to the driver of the vehicle?

Personally I would not approach someone I suspected was very aggressive.
Approaching deranged people can get you stabbed.

If there is any residual paint that might be a clue, but unless the OP has some evidence they haven’t mentioned then they don’t know.

Opening a door however hard only causes a ding, so I am wondering if this could be trolley damage. Maybe some kids playing with trolleys did it?

Barny1979

lisyloo wrote: »

Personally I would not approach someone I suspected was very aggressive.
Approaching deranged people can get you stabbed.

If there is any residual paint that might be a clue, but unless the OP has some evidence they haven’t mentioned then they don’t know.

Opening a door however hard only causes a ding, so I am wondering if this could be trolley damage. Maybe some kids playing with trolleys did it?

The OP has made the assumption they were angry.

Rainbowgirl84

Weighty1 wrote: »

Did you take a leaf out of the OP's book and request the supermarkets CCTV and blame deliberate damage by anyone parked to the side of you, even if that wasn't provable?

Did you also park in a position which could have made it highly difficult for the other car's driver to get back in their car and thus claim criminal damage, even if you brought it on yourself?

In not, you need to get on the OP's train.

Actually, DON'T you sound far more reasonable!

I did ask them about the CCTV but they told me I personally couldn't view it. They said they would but it would be fairly pointless as the CCTV resolution was poor and that the number plate would be unreadable so I left it there.

lisyloo

Barny1979 wrote: »

The OP has made the assumption they were angry.

I totally agree and Im not saying that is correct but I am saying any ordinary sensible person with that assumption would not approach.

Would you approach someone you thought was strong, physically aggressive and in a rage? People get stabbed for much less.

warby68

lisyloo wrote: »

I’m not sure this is the case (although depends on view of 3rd party insurer).
If it’s clear cut from CCTV then most insurers have innocent 3rd party departments. They are keen to deal direct with 3rd parties so that they can control costs and not (for example) have accident management companies adding high hire care charges.
This can work well for the claimant as they don’t pay their excess and don’t have a pending claim on their record (but will have to declare an accident).
They might not have choice of repairer or access to a complaints scheme such as the ombudsman but on balance it’s a good idea for claimants.
It does depend on the 3rd party insurer accepting liability though and not being in dispute about liability.

In this case a lot depends on what the CCTV shows if available.

I was assuming that the 3rd party wouldn't just say 'fair cop, pay the man'. It doesn't seem to work like that very often, well not in out experience with a small fleet of vans. Its NEVER anyone's fault lol.