Car damage in ramp

400ixl

If as you say the car does not have particularly low ground clearance, even with a couple of ruts, how did the exhaust catch? They could argue your exhaust must have been hanging low, else every other car would be having the same issue.

DullGreyGuy

lisyloo said:
will update, but clearly their insurer has a vested interest when doing their “investigation” as of course do we but we were doing nothing other than driving slowly the way we were meant to go.

Naturally, they represent their client, they are there to defend them and ultimately will make any payment due if they are deemed liable. 

Note also that as a third party claimant you have no Financial Ombudsman rights, if you dont agree with them or are unhappy with them then it's a matter of seeing them in court. 

lisyloo

400ixl said:

If as you say the car does not have particularly low ground clearance, even with a couple of ruts, how did the exhaust catch? They could argue your exhaust must have been hanging low, else every other car would be having the same issue.

I have an independent witness prepared to testify (if that’s the right word) that there have been repeat problems.
as for “every other car”. I can only speculate different heights and different angles I.e. it happened to be the highest point of their wonky ramp and the lowest part of our car, but as I say I’m specualting.

the car was mot’d, serviced etc. and we can evidence that.
i appreciate that only indicates it was well maintained,

Im not expecting forensic experts for £395.
I’m expecting a balance of probability thing which is a well maintained normal car vs a ramp with a history of problems and evidence of people avoiding it (which we didn’t know when we drove over it).

lisyloo

DullGreyGuy said:

lisyloo said:
will update, but clearly their insurer has a vested interest when doing their “investigation” as of course do we but we were doing nothing other than driving slowly the way we were meant to go.

Naturally, they represent their client, they are there to defend them and ultimately will make any payment due if they are deemed liable. 

Note also that as a third party claimant you have no Financial Ombudsman rights, if you dont agree with them or are unhappy with them then it's a matter of seeing them in court. 

Yes totally appreciate Their insurer has an obligation to them not us.
their “ruling” is neither independent nor final.
also appreciate they have access to a solicitor if they want.

i need to check my legal policy but I think it would extend to advice and not representation.

400ixl

Hopefully they will see it as less hassle / cost to pay out than defend, best of luck.

bazdvd

lisyloo said:

400ixl said:

If as you say the car does not have particularly low ground clearance, even with a couple of ruts, how did the exhaust catch? They could argue your exhaust must have been hanging low, else every other car would be having the same issue.

I have an independent witness prepared to testify (if that’s the right word) that there have been repeat problems.
as for “every other car”. I can only speculate different heights and different angles I.e. it happened to be the highest point of their wonky ramp and the lowest part of our car, but as I say I’m specualting.

the car was mot’d, serviced etc. and we can evidence that.
i appreciate that only indicates it was well maintained,

Im not expecting forensic experts for £395.
I’m expecting a balance of probability thing which is a well maintained normal car vs a ramp with a history of problems and evidence of people avoiding it (which we didn’t know when we drove over it).

is this a very little used ramp or have 50% of cars that use it suffered damage? What car do you drive?

DullGreyGuy

lisyloo said:

DullGreyGuy said:

lisyloo said:
will update, but clearly their insurer has a vested interest when doing their “investigation” as of course do we but we were doing nothing other than driving slowly the way we were meant to go.

Naturally, they represent their client, they are there to defend them and ultimately will make any payment due if they are deemed liable. 

Note also that as a third party claimant you have no Financial Ombudsman rights, if you dont agree with them or are unhappy with them then it's a matter of seeing them in court. 

Yes totally appreciate Their insurer has an obligation to them not us.
their “ruling” is neither independent nor final.
also appreciate they have access to a solicitor if they want.

i need to check my legal policy but I think it would extend to advice and not representation.

If it's a legal policy attaching to insurance then typically Home won't cover matters involving you being in a motor vehicle and on Motor it covers uninsured losses. If you have TPFT/TPO insurance then it responds because all own vehicle damage is uninsured, I've never known it used for own vehicle damage on a comp policy as naturally thats not uninsured but then my specialty back in my claims days was disputed liability so didnt deal with that many non-fault cases 

Aretnap

lisyloo said:

DullGreyGuy said:

lisyloo said:
will update, but clearly their insurer has a vested interest when doing their “investigation” as of course do we but we were doing nothing other than driving slowly the way we were meant to go.

Naturally, they represent their client, they are there to defend them and ultimately will make any payment due if they are deemed liable. 

Note also that as a third party claimant you have no Financial Ombudsman rights, if you dont agree with them or are unhappy with them then it's a matter of seeing them in court. 

Yes totally appreciate Their insurer has an obligation to them not us.
their “ruling” is neither independent nor final.
also appreciate they have access to a solicitor if they want.

Their insure doesn't make a "ruling", they either decide to offer you some money on behalf of their client, or they don't.

If you don't like the insurer's offer, or if they didn't make one, then your left with the choice of chalking it down to experience, or taking the charity to court (where they're at liberty to ask their insurance to represent them).

lisyloo

bazdvd said:

Jlisyloo said:

400ixl said:

If as you say the car does not have particularly low ground clearance, even with a couple of ruts, how did the exhaust catch? They could argue your exhaust must have been hanging low, else every other car would be having the same issue.

I have an independent witness prepared to testify (if that’s the right word) that there have been repeat problems.
as for “every other car”. I can only speculate different heights and different angles I.e. it happened to be the highest point of their wonky ramp and the lowest part of our car, but as I say I’m specualting.

the car was mot’d, serviced etc. and we can evidence that.
i appreciate that only indicates it was well maintained,

Im not expecting forensic experts for £395.
I’m expecting a balance of probability thing which is a well maintained normal car vs a ramp with a history of problems and evidence of people avoiding it (which we didn’t know when we drove over it).

is this a very little used ramp or have 50% of cars that use it suffered damage? What car do you drive?

It’s a very busy area (beach). I don’t have access to the stats.

this is not our car/reg, but it’s that model.

https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-private-area/subaru-legacy-3-0-r-spec-b--ph-private-area/

lisyloo

Aretnap said:

lisyloo said:

DullGreyGuy said:

lisyloo said:
will update, but clearly their insurer has a vested interest when doing their “investigation” as of course do we but we were doing nothing other than driving slowly the way we were meant to go.

Naturally, they represent their client, they are there to defend them and ultimately will make any payment due if they are deemed liable. 

Note also that as a third party claimant you have no Financial Ombudsman rights, if you dont agree with them or are unhappy with them then it's a matter of seeing them in court. 

Yes totally appreciate Their insurer has an obligation to them not us.
their “ruling” is neither independent nor final.
also appreciate they have access to a solicitor if they want.

Their insure doesn't make a "ruling", they either decide to offer you some money on behalf of their client, or they don't.

If you don't like the insurer's offer, or if they didn't make one, then your left with the choice of chalking it down to experience, or taking the charity to court (where they're at liberty to ask their insurance to represent them).

They (the insurer) have said they are doing an investigation so they will come to a decision about liability.
They can do what they want but it would be sensible to give some explanation if they have a good case and they want to persuade us to drop the action so they don’t have to engage a solicitor (more than the cost of the damage).

If we don’t get any explanation then I’d think they have no case/defense and are hedging their bets.
I’m not minded to believe they don’t care about employing expensive solicitors for things like this or maybe I’m wrong and the insurers don’t care and just pass on the costs. On that note I’m surprised the operator doesn’t self-insure below a certain level but perhaps they just don’t care and just pass on the costs as well.
i appreciate they have to defend themselves against fraud and also don’t want to set a precedence for just paying any old small claim but being “profligate” is not good for either insurance buyers or end consumers.