Vehicle damaged at the College

Car_54

Scrapit wrote: »

If you've reported it to the rozzers I expect youve reported it to your insurers? Expect a premium jump. I would have kept it quiet personally.

So to be clear, are you inciting the OP to commit fraud?

Aretnap

neilmcl wrote: »

And they generally wont deal with you if you already have comprehensive insurance in place. Makes you wonder what use they are these days.

They provide the rather important service of ensuring that people who are seriously injured by uninsured/untraced drivers aren't left destitute if they are unable to work.

They don't provide the rather less important service of letting people claim for minor damage to their own cars without losing their no claims bonuses.

TooManyPoints

College offered no assistance at all, what so ever.

I don't quite understand why you believe the college has any responsibility in this matter. How many other car parks do you know where the owners would admit liability in such circumstances? The real lesson to be learned is that on occasions where you cannot trace the person who is really liable, you cannot simply shift the liability on to somebody else.

foxy-stoat

Car_54 wrote: »

So to be clear, are you inciting the OP to commit fraud?

Of course he isn't - he was merely stating what HE would do in the same position.

I hit a pot hole a few years ago - cost me a few hundred pounds and never reported it to my insurers and I can remember in 2005 I scraped my front bumper on a low wall.....kept quiet about that as well.....put the cuffs on. GEEZE

mattyprice4004

Why would it be the colleges fault? They're right giving you the cold shoulder - they didn't crash into your car, it's an issue between you and the other driver.
Not the college's problem if you can't identify them, and it's not their job to help you pin them down either.

DoaM

On a separate note ... are you sure those cameras were CCTV anyway? They may have been ANPR, to record entrance and exit of vehicles.

Scrapit

Car_54 wrote: »

So to be clear, are you inciting the OP to commit fraud?

To be clear, how could that be possible retrospectively?;)

Car_54

Scrapit wrote: »

To be clear, how could that be possible retrospectively?;)

The implication of your post seemed to be that if the the OP had not reported it, he should not do so.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

Car_54 wrote: »

The implication of your post seemed to be that if the the OP had not reported it, he should not do so.

Thing is it has been reported, you chose to interpret his comment wrongly.

Scrapit

Car_54 wrote: »

The implication of your post seemed to be that if the the OP had not reported it, he should not do so.

There was no implication. I don't think he should have reported it. I wouldn't have reported it. Is this crystal so far? How ever the report has already been made.