Muppet fails to apply the handbrake

Forum for general chat, news, blogs, humour, jokes etc.

Postby fungus » Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:17 am


The vets where my daughter works as veterinary nurse, has an agreement with the pub a few yards up the road to allow staff to park their cars due to the limited space in the vets car park.

Yesterday lunch time, she had a phone call from the landlord of the pub informing her that a customer had parked his van, and was in the pub having his drink when customers started shouting that a van was rolling backwards across the car park. By the time the owner had got outside it was too late, the van had rolled across the car park, stopping when it made impact with the front of my daughters car, a Mini Cooper S. The impact has broken both spot lights, dented the bonnet, and caused some damage to the front bumper. It transpires that the driver had not applied the handbrake. :roll:

My daughter has been advised by her insurance company, not to make contact with the vans policy holder who lives in the next road to us, but refer his insurance company to them. As the car is driveable, they also advised her to go down the route of making the claim directly from the third parties insurance.
Nigel ADI
IAM observer
User avatar
fungus
 
Posts: 1739
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:16 pm
Location: Dorset

Postby C7GRN » Sat Oct 01, 2011 1:58 pm


My daughter has been advised by her insurance company, not to make contact with the vans policy holder who lives in the next road to us, but refer his insurance company to them. As the car is driveable, they also advised her to go down the route of making the claim directly from the third parties insurance.


Sounds like the insurance company want some of the fianancial action :?:

Personally if the van driver has accepted fault I would give him the option of paying for the damage or going through the insurance route. I suspect it might turn out a bit pricey as usually they don't or are unable to knock out dents in bonnets as they are double skinned :?: So it could be a replacement bonnet for starters.
Gary
IAM Advanced Driver


Torqu'ing is good :)
C7GRN
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:41 am
Location: Winterbourne (the one near Bristol)

Postby IVORTHE DRIVER » Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:08 pm


I think I would get a quick estimate from a local body shop then give the van driver the option of simply paying for the repairs rather than get embroiled in the dealings of two insurance companies.

Doesn't sound too expensive (without seeing it) but spotlamps are around £60.£70 each, bumpers plastic and repairable with the correct equipment, bonnet depends on where the dent is as maybe it will push out, double skinned normally only for strengthening purposes (normally in cross braces) and if the paint surface is not broken you may not even need a spray job.

insurance company is almost guaranteed to have pound signs in its eyes.
2.5 Million miles of non-advanced but hopefully safe driving, not ready to quit yet
IVORTHE DRIVER
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:50 pm
Location: Ayrshire in sunny Scotland

Postby Standard Dave » Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:23 am


IVORTHE DRIVER wrote:insurance company is almost guaranteed to have pound signs in its eyes.


So do body work repair garages, it's almost a licence to print money. one body panel replaced and respray will not come in less that £600.

My car which had to have two new body panels (wing and door) was over £1100.
Standard Dave
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 2:55 pm
Location: East Midlands

Postby fungus » Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:17 pm


The bonnet has a double dent with a crease between the dents. This is a 2006 pre-facelift Cooper S, so the bonnet is also the front wings. The small front wing on my Ibiza which was damaged by a cyclist needed a new wing as it was uneconomic because of a crease and deep scratching. Estimates were coming in at between £550 and £650 to replace and colour match.
Nigel ADI
IAM observer
User avatar
fungus
 
Posts: 1739
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:16 pm
Location: Dorset

Postby IVORTHE DRIVER » Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:01 pm


Standard Dave wrote:
IVORTHE DRIVER wrote:insurance company is almost guaranteed to have pound signs in its eyes.


Dave wrote
So do body work repair garages, it's almost a licence to print money. one body panel replaced and respray will not come in less that £600.


But the point is the body shop price actually does include work!

However as fungus has added that there is a crease as well as dents on the bonnet it could be that a new bonnet/wings will be on the cards plus respray etc etc, in which case I doubt very much that the van owner will be willing to pay for it himself, guess you have to go through the insurance companies.

As the car is still driveable probably the sensible if slow route
2.5 Million miles of non-advanced but hopefully safe driving, not ready to quit yet
IVORTHE DRIVER
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:50 pm
Location: Ayrshire in sunny Scotland

Postby Octy_Ross » Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:38 pm


I'd let the van driver make the call - if he wants to claim of pay out of his pocket. Having had a similar situation with the wife - we came to an equitable agreement with the other party which cost far less than an 'insurance' alternative.
Octy_Ross
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:24 pm
Location: Northamptonshire

Postby waremark » Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:52 pm


A friend had a very similar experience - his car damaged by another poorly secured car rolling into it in a pub car park. The third parties insurer tried the ridiculous ploy of claiming that the incident was not covered by their insurance as their insured driver was not driving at the time. In that case they eventually gave way; hopefully the van's insurer in this case will not try anything so unreasonable.
waremark
 
Posts: 2440
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:18 pm

Postby michael769 » Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:51 am


waremark wrote: In that case they eventually gave way; hopefully the van's insurer in this case will not try anything so unreasonable.


That is the kind of ploy that is used when the claimant does not have Comp insurance as they know most people don't have the cash or will to take them to court. When fully comp is involved no insurer will put up with an absurdity that that.

If they do then threaten to report the driver to the police for failing to have insurance that meets the minimum requirements of the RTA. That usually does the trick!
Minds are like parachutes - they only function when open
Thomas Robert Dewar(1864-1930)
michael769
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Livingston

Postby gfoot » Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:17 am


Who is responsible for securing a parked car - presumably the last person to drive it? It could be hard to prove who the last driver was, especially if the car has been stolen, and in that case it seems unfair to hold the registered keeper responsible. Would this be the kind of thing the MIB's uninsured driver fund is meant to cover?

When theft is not a factor, though, it seems reasonable to hold the registered keeper responsible for naming the driver or paying for repairs.
gfoot
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:01 pm
Location: Brighton

Postby Horse » Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:36 pm


gfoot wrote:Who is responsible for securing a parked car - presumably the last person to drive it? It could be hard to prove who the last driver was, especially if the car has been stolen, and in that case it seems unfair to hold the registered keeper responsible. Would this be the kind of thing the MIB's uninsured driver fund is meant to cover?

When theft is not a factor, though, it seems reasonable to hold the registered keeper responsible for naming the driver or paying for repairs.


I think the MIB only covers injuries, not damage.

However, the van driver can't have left the vehicle very secure if 'someone' managed to let the handbrake off . . .
Anything posted by 'Horse' may be (C) Malcolm Palmer. Please ask for permission before considering any copying or re-use outside of forum posting.
User avatar
Horse
 
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:40 pm
Location: Darkest Berkshoire

Postby michael769 » Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:35 am


gfoot wrote:Who is responsible for securing a parked car - presumably the last person to drive it?


Of course it is a criminal offence to leave a motor vehicle without first applying the handbrake.

It could be hard to prove who the last driver was, especially if the car has been stolen, and in that case it seems unfair to hold the registered keeper responsible.


Mostly it is obvious. If not the police can issue a S.172 notice requiring the registered keeper to reveal the identity of the driver.

Would this be the kind of thing the MIB's uninsured driver fund is meant to cover?

Yes - the fund covers all cases where the driver cannot be traced.

When theft is not a factor, though, it seems reasonable to hold the registered keeper responsible for naming the driver or paying for repairs.


In principle the keeper cannot be held responsible for the damage (unless driver). If he fails to reveal the drivers identity he will be prosecuted under S.172 - but that is as far as it can be taken.

I guess you could try to make a case that his failure to name the driver meant that he had failed to meet his duty of care and thus was responsible for the injured parties losses. But I'd not like to bet on such a case being successful.
Minds are like parachutes - they only function when open
Thomas Robert Dewar(1864-1930)
michael769
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Livingston

Postby MGF » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:19 pm


michael769 wrote:...Yes - the fund covers all cases where the driver cannot be traced.

I thought the fund covers liability of driver's who are uninsured. If you can't trace them how do you know they are liable? (I also thought that for damage-only claims the liable driver had to be identified).
MGF
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: Warwickshire

Postby michael769 » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:51 pm


MGF wrote:I thought the fund covers liability of driver's who are uninsured. If you can't trace them how do you know they are liable? (I also thought that for damage-only claims the liable driver had to be identified).


There are 3 distinct MIB schemes all covered under seperate agreements with the DfT they are:

1. The Uninsured Drivers Scheme
2. The Untraced Drivers Scheme
3.The Green Card Scheme (for foreign drivers who are insured under an eligible non-UK policy and traced but whose insurer is outside the jurisdiction of the UK courts)

The fund is an public insurance scheme which pays out when the eligibility criteria agreed with the DfT is met. For untraced drivers the criteria is that based on the evidence available (even if that is only the account of the victim) it is more probable than not that the uninsured/untraced/foreign driver could be held to be at fault were they to be traced and taken to court, and that the police have been unable to identify the driver.

See here

Where possible the MiB will try to recover any payout from the offender, if traced, or from the foreign insurer via the green card scheme.
Minds are like parachutes - they only function when open
Thomas Robert Dewar(1864-1930)
michael769
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Livingston

Postby MGF » Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:49 pm


Thanks for the link. The damage-only element is relatively recent hence my confusion.
Last edited by MGF on Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MGF
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: Warwickshire

Next

Return to General Car Chat Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests