Okay

neilmcl

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. 

You're not "partly" responsible, you are totally responsible for the accident. You are in charge of your own vehicle and you hit a stationary object. The whys and wherefores of the other party's parking is irrelevant. Also, if this was on a private car park then the rules regarding yellow lines and parking may well be different.

sheramber

His parking is a matter for the  relevant authorities. It is  not the concern of the insurance company.

Do you not  see the tail gate when you approached your car?

We always reverse park to avoid having to reverse out of a  parking space as vision is limited when reversing.

I hope you have notified your own insurance company as you  are required to advise them of  ANY accident. whether you are claiming or not.

boobyd

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. 

You are 100% liable,it does not matter if the "van" was parked illegally or not.
You hit it,by misjudgment or not.
Yes report it,you don't know what delivery was being made(could have been a temporary ambulance without markings?,patient transport ? Etc etc.
If somebody parks over 2 bays in a car park you can't scrape along it because of that.
If somebody parks on zig zag yellows you can't scrape along it .

lemondrops69

Ha ha the insurance claim will read like the Jasper Carrot sketch, 

I collided with a stationary tree.

I collided with a stationary truck coming the other way

I consider that neither vehicle was to blame but if either were to blame it was the other one.

A lamp-post bumped into my car, damaging it in two places.

Car had to turn sharper than was necessary owing to an invisible lorry.

I bumped into a lamp-post which was obscured by human beings.

I left for work this morning at 7am as usual when I collided straight into a bus. The bus was 5 minutes early.

I had been out shopping for the garden all morning. I was driving home and as I approached the junction a hedge sprang up, obscuring my vision so I could not see the other vehicle.

Coming home I drove into the wrong house and collided with a tree I haven’t got.

photome

This has to be a wind up.

OP you hit a stationary object.  If it had been a tree who’s fault would it have been?

You knew the van was there you should have checked to make sure your access was clear before driving off

if someone hit you while your car was stationary would you think it was your fault ? Ignore the double yellow etc

marlot

A specialist solicitor might be able to argue that the driver of the van has some contributory negligence.  You'd probably need a photo or similar to show that it had been left in a dangerous state.

But it'll probably cost more than the claim is worth.

My advice is to just pass it over to your insurer and be glad that nobody was hurt.

Sandtree

marlot said:

A specialist solicitor might be able to argue that the driver of the van has some contributory negligence.  You'd probably need a photo or similar to show that it had been left in a dangerous state.

Are you sure you mean contributory negligence? That is like when you rear end someone and they weren't wearing a seatbelt so you are 100% at fault for the claim but the third party doesn't get all of their damages because their own actions contributed to the severity of the damage.

The OP says there was no damage to the tail lift and so contributory negligence is pointless plus if they are claiming for their damage off their own insurance it's only the insurer that cares if they pay 100% of the TP damages or 75% etc.

Carrot007

People come on.

OK asked a question, it could at least be explained nicely.

So, OP, double yellow mean no parking. A van with a lift would be loading/unloading and is perfectly allowed. )and should they have a disabled badge they can probably stay as long as they likle even parking). It is understandable you are not aware of this and think of double yellows in the way double red lines are meant. Many police get it incorrect too.

However where the vehicle was does not contribute to anything. Even if it were on a double red you would still be responsible for noticing a stationary object. Unless of course it was left in a negligent manor. Was it? Maybe, however I doubt you took adiquate photos to prove anything.

As for the driver rambling about hit and run. No one was hurt and you contacted them. Surely it is a company vehicle and cpompany insurance. From his outburty I assume there is damage and his employers are not happy with him. I expect he will ask for cash next (or maybe it is not damaged and he would just like some cash). Ignore all such requests and let your insrance deal with it. However I don;t seeing it going any way but 100% against you.

[Deleted User]

@Carrot007 thank you for explaining I really appreciate it. It all makes a lot more sense now and I just needed it explaining incase it went any further. I have many photos to show how he was parked in a negligent manor regarding the tail lift ect. And thank you I didn’t think the hit and run part was correct as I did contact the company labelled on the van immediately. I’ve spoken to the driver and he doesn’t want to take anything any further as no damage has been left on his vehicle and he’s taken part to blame for parking with negligence so is all okay thank you again for helping me. 

baza52

fayeabbott1234 said:

@Carrot007 thank you for explaining I really appreciate it. It all makes a lot more sense now and I just needed it explaining incase it went any further. I have many photos to show how he was parked in a negligent manor regarding the tail lift ect. And thank you I didn’t think the hit and run part was correct as I did contact the company labelled on the van immediately. I’ve spoken to the driver and he doesn’t want to take anything any further as no damage has been left on his vehicle and he’s taken part to blame for parking with negligence so is all okay thank you again for helping me. 

yeah i bet he did