We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Okay
![[Deleted User]](https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/defaultavatar/nFA7H6UNOO0N5.jpg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 0 Newbie

All sorted
0
Comments
-
fayeabbott1234 said:Hi I was wondering if anyone could help me I’m a carer who attended a client property which has a car park when I attended a clients property blocking the entrance to a line of car parking spaces was a delivery van the, delivery van was parked on double yellow lines in an ambulance only bay with its tailgate about 40 cm above the ground if that which was obviously out of visibility the vehicle was also on unattended when trying to turn round as this vehicle was obviously blocking the car park the side of my lower vehicle was scratched on the tailgate I waited around for a moment to see if I could see the driver anywhere which I did not and I also left no damage on the vehicle and the corner of the tailgate just scratched my vehicle. This vehicle had a company logo on it so straight after the incident I contacted the company which was on Friday the 22nd of April 2021 obviously I did not contact insurance as I had no details and I just wanted to have a chat when they got back to me they said they had contacted the driver that day and he would be in contact with me immediately he then contacted me exactly a week later and he has been quite rude and is claiming he will claim and hit and run which obviously I think this is incorrect with all of the information I have given above can anyone help me as this incident would not of happened if this man did not leave his vehicle on a double yellows ambulance only bay which he clearly was not an ambulance so he should not of been there but he also left his tailgate lowdown out of visibility as I said about 40 cm off the ground which nobody would’ve seen and I don’t think this would be classed as a hit and run as straight off at that the incident I contacted the company which was on the side of his vehicle to which then they contacted him immediately but he took a week to contact me can anyone help me with what I could say to him to what to do thanks everyone.
I presume you mean a tail-lift?
Hard to see how that could not be clearly visible.0 -
fayeabbott1234 said:Hi thanks for getting back to me. The vehicle was a lot smaller then that one in-fact half the size obviously meaning the tail-lift was smaller and lower down making it not visible as I’ve already stated previously. I wasn’t looking for any rude remarks back I was looking for advice and obviously the vehicle was not meant to be there and I had no room to move which is why the double yellows are there for a reason this is why the side of the tail-lift scratched my vehicle I did not hit the vehicle as you have said.
Doesn't matter if the van was on double yellows,it was stationary.
You could have damaged the tail lift,
Yes you could not see anyone but could have left a note ?,the tail lift could be damaged ?0 -
fayeabbott1234 said:Hi thanks for getting back to me. The vehicle was a lot smaller then that one in-fact half the size obviously meaning the tail-lift was smaller and lower down making it not visible as I’ve already stated previously. I wasn’t looking for any rude remarks back I was looking for advice and obviously the vehicle was not meant to be there and I had no room to move which is why the double yellows are there for a reason this is why the side of the tail-lift scratched my vehicle I did not hit the vehicle as you have said.
Ignore the rest of the vehicle - that's only a 7.5t. You rarely see tail-lifts on anything but Luton-bodied (and they'd usually come with barn-doors, even more visible), but here's a small tail-lift on a 3.5t van, with the rear doors folded open...
Whatever... The important details here are:
The other vehicle was stationary.
Your vehicle was moving.
They came into contact and your vehicle was damaged.
You can argue that wasn't "hitting" if you like, but it's fairly academic.
You aren't allowed one free hit on vehicles you think shouldn't be parked somewhere, as some kind of vigilante traffic warden. If you didn't have room to do the manoeuvre there, you should have reversed to where it was safe to turn.
What if it'd been a box on the ground, instead of a tail lift attached to the vehicle? Would that have been invisible, too?0 -
The solid block of text is hard to read and not exactly sure what your question is?
You hit a static object and so the accident is your fault. The owner of the static object is entitled to claim from you, or your insurers, any damage you have done to their property. If the item should be there or not is irrelevant0 -
Unfortunately for you, delivery drivers are allowed to load/unload on double yellow lines so he was legally parked.
You hit his vehicle and although you may not have seen damage to the tail lift you may have damaged the hinge/lifting mechanism.0 -
fayeabbott1234 said:
I was asking where I stand as he was on a double yellow ambulance only bay where he should not of been parked for a reason.
Civil law (the damage) and criminal law (laws, safety regulations etc) are independent. Civil law says this is your fault as you hit a static object. The fact they may have been committing some form of criminal activity or breaching safety regulations doesn't change anything. If you can report the driver to an authority for parking on double yellows or leaving a tail lift down etc I'd say its not worth your time.
One of my most irritating customers, back in my claims days, was a chap who went into the back of a car that was stationary at traffic lights and stayed stationary when the lights went green because the driver had passed out drunk. The third party was arrested at the scene and charged with drink driving but we were still liable for the damage we did to the back of his car
0 -
fayeabbott1234 said:
I never said to was invisible I said you could not see it0 -
the comments are not rude, they are correct.
You drove into a stationary object and the fault lies 100% with you.
You need to look all around your car when doing a manoeuvre, It could of been a small child or animal that you didn't see that was not supposed to be there.1 -
fayeabbott1234 said:I completely understand I’m partly reliable for what happened as I have stated but the point I am getting at is that it was an accident at both parties fault as I have stated on my behalf for not seeing the tail lift which I did not hit or damage but on his behalf for being parked on double yellow lines in an ambulance only bay with the tail lift so low down. As regards to him being able to park on double yellows the law states “ If you're on double yellow lines and can't see any signs, you need to assume the restrictions apply 24/7, meaning you can't park your vanthere. ... It's OK to stop briefly on double yellow lines to do so, but you must be continuously loading or unloading the whole time you're parked.” which he was not continuously unloading or loading my point was that this was caused by both parties.
London councils for example allow up to 40 minutes stopping on lines0 -
fayeabbott1234 said:I completely understand I’m partly reliable for what happened as I have stated but the point I am getting at is that it was an accident at both parties fault as I have stated on my behalf for not seeing the tail lift which I did not hit or damage but on his behalf for being parked on double yellow lines in an ambulance only bay with the tail lift so low down. As regards to him being able to park on double yellows the law states “ If you're on double yellow lines and can't see any signs, you need to assume the restrictions apply 24/7, meaning you can't park your vanthere. ... It's OK to stop briefly on double yellow lines to do so, but you must be continuously loading or unloading the whole time you're parked.” which he was not continuously unloading or loading my point was that this was caused by both parties.
Its understandable how you hit an unexpected, out of view tail lift but regardless of the legalities of where its parked you are still responsible. Ignore the hit and run nonsense, you contacted them and are co-operating.
1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards