UKC

When reversing out of a parking bay in work I didn't see another parked car in a blind spot and bumped into it scratching the car. The owner, my co worker, wasn't in the car and didn't see it but a few others did, so I waited for him to get back and told him I'd pair for the repair because it was only very minor damage. He then got a quote of his own for a repair which was £240 then when I proceeded to get a quote mine was much cheaper at £100. Although my quote is cheaper he insists on me paying the £240 and refuses to make any kind of deal, and is now threatening to go through insurance. Advice please.

In reply to Gilmour928:
Pay the £240. Be more careful. Blindspot is a crap excuse.

In reply to Gilmour928:

Remind him that even though the accident was your fault and the other driver wasn't in the car if he goes through insurance co. his premium will go up a bit. offer to split the difference and give him the details of the garage you got a quote from (how is this possible without them seeing the car?)

In reply to Gilmour928:

My sympathies, a similar thing happened to me although the sums were larger.

I would suggest that you offer the £100 quote again (maybe in writing, in the politest possible terms) and say that if this is unacceptable then please go through the insurance. Assuming, that is, that you don't mind.

Insurance will affect his rating as well as your own so this really is madness on both sides, but you might want to call his bluff.

In reply to Babika:
Some people get so precious about a stupid tin box. Tell him to take your offer or do one and accept he will have higher premiums forever and let the insurance fight it out

In reply to Gilmour928:

Pay the £240. If you persuade them into going with your £100 guy and they don't like the results you'll be back where you started and it's not worth getting insurance involved and having your premiums go up if it can be made to go away for £240.

My wife did the same to a neighbour's car - tiny scratch on the bumper of a nearly new car. Neighbour's insurance ended up asking our insurance for £2,400 because the neighbour went to the dealer who decided to repaint the entire front of the car to get it 'perfect' and give her a courtesy car for a week while it was being done. Our insurance said it was unreasonable and refused to pay and it was only settled between the insurance companies' lawyers at the last minute before their court date. Must have cost a fortune in lawyer bills over and above the respray and we probably paid it all back in higher premiums.

In reply to Gilmour928:

Agree with deacondeacon pay up - if he goes through insurance it will cost you far more and if it was me I'd want the repair done at a body shop of my choosing not yours.

In reply to Gilmour928:
£100 seems very cheap for a professional scratch repair. Obviously none of us can see the damage, but there are different levels of repair. Depending on the age of the car/ how important it is to him, then it is reasonable for him to want the repair to be done to the highest standard (i.e. undetectable). For comparison, £100 is what I asked (when on the other side of a similar circumstance) for me to do a very half-baked repair myself.

Ultimately, you have damaged his car and caused him all the inconvenience that goes with it. My advice would be to try again to ask if he is prepared to get quotes from a few other places and otherwise just pay up. It could be worse: he might have asked you to pay for a hire car when his is in the body shop!

I may be wrong, but the phrasing you use: "The owner ... didn't see it but a few others did, so I waited for him to get back..." suggests that you may not feel the moral obligation too keenly!

In reply to Cheese Monkey:
I know his car is a ford ka too so it's not even a tin box it's like 90% plastic

In reply to Gilmour928:

I take it back. If it's a ford Ka go back and hit it properly to write the stupid thing off. actually if it's the old style, 240 is prob more than its worth

In reply to Gilmour928:

Personally I would always go through insurance, it avoids any complications later.

In reply to Gilmour928:
Pay the £240, then put a huge f*** off scratch along the length of the dickhead's car when nobody is looking. Lie through your teeth and deny all knowledge. These arses deserve absolutely no respect - it's only a car FFS!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Jesus Christ. What does the c*** think a bumper is for!

In reply to Gilmour928:
pay the £240, its the morally decent thing to do, he will still have the inconvenience of taking it to the garage and being without it for at least a day due to you not being a very good driver.
your post also makes it sound as if it hadn't been witnessed you would have buggered off without owning up.
do the decent thing.
blind spot is a crap excuse.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Pay the £240, then put a huge f*** off scratch along the length of the dickhead's car when nobody is looking. Lie through your teeth and deny all knowledge. These arses deserve absolutely no respect - it's only a car FFS!

I've owned a shed of a car for the last six years and regrettably, it's no longer viable to keep and I'm looking for a replacement.
I've decided to treat myself and get a car for about £3000. Nothing fancy, but to me, it would be a major pisser if someone scratched it and thought it was essentially a joke.

Blind spot is not an excuse at all.
I would go with insurance. It's why you pay for it in first place, so they would pay up for your mistakes.

In reply to Gilmour928:
Like others have said, you need to be sure you are looking at like 4 like repairs. My insurance had had their own companies do work, and the paint matches were poor.

You risk paying 100 for your cheap job, and him not being happy, and as it was your choice, it will cause resentment. If you pay the 240 .oo with his choice, even if it is a crap job, he can have no further complaint.

In reply to deacondeacon:


that's not very nice

In reply to Gilmour928:


If you only waited because someone else saw you do it, then you are a bit of a dick. I would suggest stop being a dick and pay him £240, it's not like he is out to make any profit from your mistake!

In reply to Gilmour928:

£100 for a paint repair sound suspiciously like a quick and dirty rattle can job which of course could be all the car requires but that isn't really your decision to make.

I'd stump up, it's not really a big difference and it's still the easiest cheapest course of action. Going through insurance will cost you both many hundreds in lost discount and weighted premiums which is worth remembering/mentioning if the discussion starts getting silly.
jk

In reply to Gilmour928:

If you give him the cash, get a receipt from him or the garage and have a word with the witnesses. You wouldn't want him making a 'no win no fee' claim for the mental anguish, reoccurring nightmares and the trauma of not having wiplash. Where theres blame, theres a parasitic legal firm just waiting to make maters worse.

In reply to Gilmour928:

I'd pay, I thought you were going to say the 240 was what he was turning down and was going for the full dealer repair, you know where they charge about 1000 for just opening the paint pot!!!

Cheers

Toby

In reply to Gilmour928:

Why has he only got one quote? It's entirely reasonable to ask him to get at least three quotes.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Not a joke. It's that the guy deserves no respect because he's being an arse about it. Anyway, life's too short to worry about things like scratches on cars - it's not as if it's going to be any less efficient at getting you to the crag is it? But then maybe it's a cyclist thing......

In reply to Robert Durran:


Why is he being an arse about it?

In reply to Robert Durran:
I think the point is it's their car and not his, so when he damaged it by by his carelessness, he has to play by their rules on getting it fixed.

You have to respect other people's property, any other option leads to anarchy. In other words have a scratched up old banger if you like, but you have to respect someone else's desire to keep their car looking nice.

In reply to timjones:


By demanding a more expensive repair than is necessary.

In reply to fraserbarrett:


I might have to respect the law and I would pay up within reason, but no, I don't think I have to respect that - I just think they are shallow, materialistic plonkers. This specific overpreciousness about cars is symptomatic of everything I despise about society.

In reply to Gilmour928:
A good guesstimate for a paint repair on a car is £300 per panel, so his quote seems reasonable. You have to remember that after colour matching and mixing, masking off other panels and wetting back the lacquer and paint it makes little difference if it is a small ding or the paint on the whole panel if a decent repair job is being done.

At any point he can just turn around and use his insurance company and that will cost you a lot more (excess, no claims discount, increased premiums for 4/5 years). Feel lucky he's being reasonable, pay and thank him for his patience. If it was me I'd be pretty pissed off you were quibbling when I was doing you a favour.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Sorry but that's exactly what I hate about society, by you logic anyone who fancies it can come kick you out of your house and keep it by force. Ownership is theft after all.

In reply to fraserbarrett:


Absolutely no idea how you draw that conclusion.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Because the reason they have the right to keep their car nice is exactly the same reason they have a right to buy a house or anything else. In a civilised society we have a concept of ownership. That means that they have the right to keep their car in any manner they please(within the law) and if you damage something that is theirs the same moral structure means you should repair/replace it to their satisfaction.
Anything else eroads the concept of ownership and therefore leads to my statement.
My point is that the system works because it gives you the right to deal with your property in any way you see fit, but not the right to dictate how the look after theirs.

In reply to Robert Durran:


A £100 repair is likely to be a bodge. If you damage someone elses car then sadly you are responsible for the cost of returning to it's former state rather than a cheap touch up job.

In reply to Robert Durran:


You have every right to make choices about what you value in life. Sadly you don't have the right to tell others that they don't have the right to choose their own passions.

In reply to fraserbarrett:


The two things are obviously not exactly the same. If you had said "right to keep their house nice", I might have bothered reading further, but even then I could argue that cars are a very different case to houses.

In reply to timjones:


True, but if their passions involve being anal about cars*, I don't have to respect their choice.

*And if it was cams rather than cars I'd feel the same.

In reply to timjones:


Maybe, but why this particular obsession with superficial damage to cars. It doesn't happen with other stuff that gets almost imperceptibly scratched or scuffed in normal use.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Running into other peoples cars does not count as getting scratched or scuffed in normal use.

If you scratch your own car that view is fair enough. If you're clumsy enough to drive into someone elses car and scratch it then you have to repair it to the standard that it was in before you were so clumsy unless they are willing to agree otherwise.

FWIW I wouldn't be to bothered myself unless someone exhibited the shoddy attitude that you appear to be displaying.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Someone works hard saves up and buys themselves a car. They take care of it and look after it because they know the effort that went into saving up to buy it and appreciate the objects they own. Someone then damages their car and by your logic they have not to care?

In reply to timjones:

Not "running into". But I would argue that tapping a bumper or nicking a door in a tight parking spot is normal use. Shouldn't be any different to getting my shoes scuffed in a crowd, but for some reason we have this obsessive anality about cars going on. Maybe a weird British thing - I don't suppose Italians give a shit.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Pay the £240, then put a huge f*** off scratch along the length of the dickhead's car when nobody is looking. Lie through your teeth and deny all knowledge. These arses deserve absolutely no respect - it's only a car FFS!

You're a teacher I believe. Would you honestly deliberately scratch another teachers car, go sit alongside them in the staff room and act as if nothing had happened? They'd pretty much know that you'd scratched the car and I would imagine that it would make for a uncomfortable working environment. Is that really worth it for £240?
In fact, lets up the ante a bit, would you do the same if it was the headmasters car?

In reply to Robert Durran:


If you can't get into a tight parking space without nicking a door then you have the option of picking another space!

In reply to FactorXXX:

I might be pragmatic and take that into account - would depend on the teacher. Anyway, it's the principle not the £240 which is the point.


Depends on the headmaster, how pissed off I happened to be feeling with pointless assessment, and how close to retirement I was anyway

In reply to timjones:


Not if it's the only space left.

In reply to Gilmour928:

IMHO Pay the £240. Buy him a slab of beer too. That's what I did when exhausted from parenthood I clipped my neighbours car and damaged his bumper. He didn't replace it as the car was being changed and it was only worth about £500, but he was happy and I was happy and we still talk and get on with the whole family.

Simply - how much do you value the relationship and how much do you value being 'right' (whether you are or not).
[A quick dent puller and polish out the scratch costs £100ish from Chipsaway or similar. A paint job will cost more. ]

In reply to Gilmour928:

Why do these type of incidents always turn out to be so horrible. It must be because cash is involved.....

Anyhow a few points

1) You hit his car. He didnt ask for you to hit his car so its your problem, not his
2) You said you would pay for the repairs. You didnt say you would pay, up to a limit etc.
3) Why should he have to go and get alternative prices? Are you going to pay him an hourly rate for driving around to get these prices. Pay his fuel bill etc. Say £50 per hour seems reasonable......
4) How did you get a price for the repair? Did he let you borrow his car or did you describe the damage to someone or show them a picture?
5) His price was probably from a main dealer type setup or at least an insurance approved bodyshop. Best guess is yours isnt.

Basically with all of the above, £240 isnt unreasonable for a repair. Yes it may be more than yours but yours at £100 seems rather cheap and i dont care if its not a good car, you damaged it so you put it back to the prior condition. If your price is from a good paintshop who are insurance approved, use water based paints and will give the guy a courtesy car (You have discussed recompense for loss of use of his car havent you???) then tell him just to drop the car off at the paintshop and you will pick up the bill for £100. OTHERWISE, JUST PAY THE £240 and move on. This guy doesnt deserve the stress of negotiating with you.

In reply to timjones:

Yes, but when you put your car on the public road it is reasonable for society to expect that you accept a degree of risk. Otherwise the rich guy with his gold plated Bentley and the car lover who expects their Ford Ka to be returned to showroom condition are increasing the average cost of an accident repair and therefore the insurance premiums of everyone who uses the roads. Everyone else is paying for their 'passion'.

If you want to preserve a car in showroom condition indefinitely lock it up in an air conditioned garage, if you use it on the road expect it to gradually accumulate a few scuffs and scrapes.

In reply to Thelittlesthobo:


Agreed. Just shoot him and be done with it. Probably the way he'd be dealt with in the US.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Yes, more use of then phrase "Don't worry, it's only a scratch" would save a lot of expense, hassle and expensive insurance premiums. And do a little bit to make the world a nicer place. Otherwise, as I said, shoot the bastards.

In reply to Gilmour928:

>The owner, my co worker, wasn't in the car and didn't see it but a few others did, so I waited for him to get back and told him I'd pair for the repair because it was only very minor damage.

It sounds remarkably like you only owned up because somebody saw you do it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

That is utter bollocks

If your so dyspraxic you can't park a car in such a way it damages somebody else's car you should be driving

having had my new car dinged twice recently by drivers doors, it's not an acceptable way to behave

In reply to Robert Durran:



Hmmm, swap 'car' for something you might feel precious about and you'll see the other person's stand point. Just because something isn't of value to you, doesn't mean it isn't extremely precious to another. You may not have to respect their choice, but you do have to accept it. Or rather, you should accept it.

In reply to Robert Durran:



If you were climbing/belaying and other climbers rocked up next to you and started walking all over your ropes/gear, would you be so equanimous ?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Sometimes you just have to accept that there isn't a suitable space.

In reply to Gilmour928:

Some years ago, in those blissful just-graduated days, I had a proper banger (an old 1.0L PoloC). In a supermarket a large Discovery reversed into it, merely adding to the surface decoration (I had once opened the frozen driver's door with a claw hammer). A very nice chap jumped out and peeled £500 in cash from his wallet, asking me to keep the insurance out of it. Nae bother.

Skiing holiday!!!

In reply to Gilmour928:

My neighbour, who is a taxi driver scraped the front wing of my car. He left a note on my windscreen asking me to call at his house and when I did, he came clean about having done it and told me to get a quote saying he would pay and offered to run me around free of charge whilst it was being repaired.

First I went to the main dealer where I had bought the car. There was a lot of tooth sucking and talk that they would have to order in a new one piece front moulded section and then respray it. Repair would take two to three days. Quote £1200.

I was horrified so I went to a local one man band panel beater/paint sprayer who quoted £175 to mould in new plastic to the damage and respray to match.

I told my neighbour both quotes and said I was perfectly happy to go for the cheaper one on the proviso that if it didn't match I would then expect him to pay for the pukka job. I got it done and the repair was brilliant. There was no way you could tell it had been repaired.

Result? I got my car repaired and the neighbour, who until then, had only been on nodding terms, became a friend. the panel beater also pleased two people who now recommend him to others.

You can repeat his story to your co-worker if you like, but maybe he isn't reasonable and doesn't want to be friends?

In reply to Gilmour928:

It seems pretty simple, you damaged it. It's his choice how he fixes it not yours.
Your insurance excess may already be close to the £240 which won't make you any better off.
You need to look at cars a bit differently.. i.e Houses don't move and are not as likely to get damaged by other. Cars are the next most expensive thing, and could last for ten years or more and anything else is relatively inexpensive compare to cars and house so isn't as important to most people.

In reply to Robert Durran:

You obviously don't a f*ck about your own car, so would you object to me parking my tank on your car?

youtube.com/watch?v=PD6qdzQvHhE&

In reply to Lusk:



That is not a superficial scratch which will not in any way affect the car's functionality, so is not really relevant to the discussion.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


If, say, they accidentally kicked a cam while walking past and it suffered a superficial scratch it might be nice of them to apologise, but I would reply that it was only a scratch, so not to worry. If they, say, stomped all over my ropes in their crampons, I would be pretty pissed off, because it might affect the functionality and safety of the ropes. Likewise, there is all the difference in the world between a superficial scratch on a car and, say, a big gouge out of a tyre.

In reply to Fraser:

Ok, yes my cameras and lenses are of value to me, but I'm not going to get upset about superficial scratches caused accidentally by myself or anybody else - the camera still takes photos just the same.

I certainly don't respect people who worry about tiny scratches on cars, but, yes, I do unfortunately, in the end, have to accept their choices if the law says so.

In reply to Robert Durran:

But not everyone thinks cars are purely functional do they. If you put a big scratch across somebody's Rolex ("Omega" - shut up Bond), I'm pretty sure "...but it still tells the time" isn't going to cut the mustard.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It isn't really a suitable comparison. A cam is a low value item that's value is entirely functional and is unlikely to be resold. On the other hand, part of the value of a car is aesthetic. You may not think it should be, but it is, and will be regardless of whether you value the looks or not. If you are not planning to keep the car until it is scrapped, then it has to be considered.

At the other extreme, you might be showing off your new Rembrant at the crag and the same clumsy climber puts a crampon through it. Do you reassure them that it is just a small rip; that you can still see the picture and that a roll of sticky tape will see it right again? Unlikely I would say.

In reply to MarkJH:


Climber culture, eh?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


I'm pretty sure that Robert thinks owners of expensive watches are worse than people who object to people denting their cars.

In reply to MarkJH:


Yes, I am , of course aware of that. As I said earlier, this whole nonsense is symptomatic of the shallowness I despise in society - if society didn't put value on the superficial aesthetics of cars then the problem would go away and we'd all be paying lower insurance premiums. It does seem to be a specific car thing - maybe a sort of conspiracy between car repairers and insurance companies with the vast majority of motorists caught in the middle.


If anyone was showing off their new car at the crag, I would consider them a vain arse. Anyway, comparing a work of art with a mechanical device for getting to the crag is not comparing like with like. Personally I would never take any of my priceless works of art to the crag though - it's just asking for trouble.

In reply to The New NickB:


Well done for remembering that one All dicks, just as bad as each other.

In reply to Robert Durran:

If someone picked up one of your cameras by the rubber usb cover tearing it off and putting a big scratch and dent in the camera as it fell to the ground but, it still functioned, you might be annoyed if they offered black marker pen and a bit of gaffer tape to fix it up as ultimately this would affect the resale value of your camera when you decided to sell it to fund a new one.

I feel very much as you do about cars but i also respect other peoples different values for things that matter to them.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to Robert Durran:

I bought a new car fairly recently, not brand new, but still a considerable financial outlay. I'm not overly precious about its appearance, but I don't want it depreciating faster than it has to and an unrepaired or poorly repaired damage is a good way to do that.

If someone damages their own car, they can choose what they want to do about that damage providing the car is still road worthy, if you damage someone else's car the obligation is to put it right. Not force a financial loss on another person because of your negligence. It's pretty simple really.

I find cars a financial drain and if I didn't need one, probably wouldn't have one, so in that respect we are probably pretty similar, but why should someone tolerate someone making car ownership more expensive by not paying for their negligence.

Expensive watches on the other hand, love them!

In reply to MarkJH:


Putting a crampon through one of my Rembrants is going to do more damage than a small rip. A better comparison would be a dab of liquid chalk on the frame or the back of the canvas - doesn't affect the aesthetics of the painting at all (the whole point of paintings is the aesthetics). Same with my car - if I get back to it with my Rembrant under my arm after the day's cragging to find it's been superficially scratched, it will still get me and my Rembrant safely home (the whole point of a car is to get me from A to B).

In reply to Robert Durran:
OK what is it that you value in this wonderful, anti-materialistic world of yours?

Paintings? Faberge eggs? The Pieta?

Your rather silly and adolsescent attitude is going to paint you into a corner if you're not careful. Artefacts like cars, watches, mobile phones are created by teams of dedicated, enthusiastic and committed artisans, artists and engineers, they're the 21st C equivalent of Wedgewood and Chippendale.; just because they don't float your boat - or you object that you can't afford them - doesn't invalidate that. They can be intrinsically beautiful.

If you can't see that then it may be you that is missing out, not the rest of us.

In reply to Robert Durran:

A car is probably the second most expensive item most people will buy (their home being the first). If I were to spend £24,000 on a new car I would be pretty pissed off if someone scratched it and didnt own up.

I dont think it is about the "shallowness" of society. A damaged paint finish is more likely to rust, and result in more costly repair work in the future.

In reply to Robert Durran:

So if you were buying two cars that to all intents a purposes identical. Bought for the same fleet on the same day, concurrent reg, identical mileage. The only difference is that one is pristine, no scratches or dings or dents. The other has a few dings and dents and scratches. Both are priced at say £1000 pounds and this was your budget. Which would you buy?

In reply to The New NickB:


You are, of course, sadly right, and, as I suggested, my ranting should probably be better directed at the shallowness of society's warped values rather than individual victims of that shallowness such as yourself. However, it's hard to see how this depressing nonsense is ever going to go away while some individuals are perpetuating it by being exceptionally arsey about their cars and not being called for it. Meanwhile I'll continue to do my bit by not giving a shit what my car looks like.

In reply to bagger:


I'd bet that rust in a panel is never going to be the limiting factor in the functional lifespan of a car.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Wonderful non-materialistic things for their aesthetics and functional things for their functionality


Maybe (arguably - there's a whole fascinating debate to be had there), but if I had been the 18th (or whatever) century owner of Chippendale chairs I would have considered them something to sit on, not objects to be kept in pristine condition at all costs.

Anyway, if all Chippendale chairs had survived to the present day in pristine condition, they wouldn't be worth half as much each. Same with vintage cars.

In reply to Lenin:


Toss a coin (not that I'd give a toss).

In reply to Robert Durran:

I'm with you in principle. The trouble is this needs a society-wide change of mind set. One option would be to have a maximum insurable value of, say, £12k, with all damage costs limited to this.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Are you sure that you would not try and knock the price of the scratched one down by oh should be say £240.

In reply to Toby_W:


You're right, I wouldn't be too happy, but, given that it was an accident, I wouldn't insist they fork out for repairs which I suspect might cost more than a new camera.

In reply to Lenin:


If I did I would feel a bit mean about it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It probably would be if you lived by the sea.

In reply to Robert Durran:

What sector do you work in, academia?

In reply to Fraser:


There's nothing wrong with people being extremely attached to cars but the people who want thousands spent to return their car to showroom condition after a minor accident when a reasonable repair could be had for a few hundred should be covering the additional cost of meeting their high standards by paying for additional insurance themselves: they shouldn't get to push up the average price of a repair and hence everyone's insurance premiums.

In reply to Fraser:

Something I've learnt today that you might like to note: if you're going to go out of your way to have a good controversial rant on UKC, don't post any photos the same day because one spin off is that people will vote them down in revenge (I'm not, of course, implying that you were the person who systematically voted 1 for each of my four photos when they were averaging 4 up to that point!). Or maybe they just hate me and my rant is coincidental.

In reply to Lenin:


I'm a teacher.

In reply to Gilmour928:

My old car had picked up quite a few dings and scratches along the way - I was really very relaxed about it, although the scratch and run I (almost certainly) got courtesy of parcelforce was annoying. Having just changed my car, I suddenly find myself twitchy to the point of paranoia on the part of my paintwork, because it's currently pristine. I expect it'll take a few narrow hedgerow lanes to get me (and it) into a more relaxed frame of mind.

In reply to bagger:


Ok, so slap some paint on it for pennies.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I suspected as much. Your attitude is rather nice and you sound true to your values , but 99% of people operate in a different way.

In reply to Robert Durran:

And you know what, I would too but if I'd done that to your camera and you'd kindly said that to me you'd still find your camera magically fixed a week later or me at the door presenting you with a new one and taking the old damaged one off your hands.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to toad:


I once owned a Series ll Land Rover which was covered with dents and scratches from previous owners. They were like battle wounds or badges of honour. So long as the vehicle got me around in all weather conditions I felt totally relaxed about it's scars. It even got me safely through Paris (navigational error - missed the Peripherique!) where I found that the taxi drivers took one look at it and promptly gave way to me.

In reply to Gilmour928:

I'm tempted to give you a 9 out 10 here. For a first post its a great troll.

In reply to Robert Durran:

UKC has plenty of ars*s who don't like to be called out and some are so sad they will stalk you (the data is there for the mods so report it as a potential issue; if unjustified, the behaviour might come back and bite them).... impressive rant btw: what were you drinking?

I think the OP should have paid the £240 to avoid cost and hassle; even though obsessions with perfect paintwork are not a characteristic that I share, I wouldn't want to lose value unfairly.

In reply to Gilmour928:

Go through I insurance - what's the point in paying these companies huge sums of money every month if no one every asks them to pay out.

The whole insurance industry is bolstered by the fact that everyone pays for damage of this nature out of their own pocket to avoid premium increases.

Imagine if every piece of damage every caused to a car was claimed though insurance. It would bring the whole industry to its knees overnight. They'd have to employ thousands of additional staff to manager the increase in claims and if they increased the premiums for so many drivers to cover the additional expense there would be rioting in the streets.

In reply to Robert Durran:


An asset has value. Damaging it damages value. It may be due to materialistic thinking but the OP removed value from an asset and should repair that. Nothing to do with preciousness of the specific car, but general attitudes to cars and preciousness about money.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, I've noticed that in the past myself. There's some queer folk about.

In reply to Gilmour928:
The whole thing relies quite heavily on the deal I offered that he rejected. I said to get it repaired by my garage because firstly it was cheaper for me because he's a family friend so was giving me a discount, not that he was some random unreliable person I found. Then I said after he repairs it we'll take it to a neutral garage to establish whether it was a good job or not. If not I offered to pay the price of his garage to do what he believes will be a good job. Then he declined and said that his dad insists on taking it to his garage and declined my offer.

In reply to Robert Durran:

'Wonderful non-materialistic things for their aesthetics and functional things for their functionality'

There are those that consider cars a combination of both; they are designed to be both aesthetic and functional. Some of the brightest and best have worked on both aspects for 100+ years - no wonder some people like them! To dismiss all that seems really nihilistic and narrow minded. Bit inverted snobbery and hypocritical if you ask me.

What do you teach your pupils: 'Here's a really expensive camera, which although it takes only marginally better photos than a much cheaper one, because I like taking pictures I can justify the extra expense. Anyone who likes expensive cars, because they like driving however, is just a wally.'

In reply to Gilmour928: that , unfortunately for you, is his perogative. Damage fixed to his satisfaction. Thats how society works

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I had a new car that was rammed up the backside on the A1 because the driver behind wasn't concentrating. I guess I could have had a botched repair job, but then I would have been literally £1,000s out of pocket when I came to resell it; whereas the proper job cost £3000 but gave me back my car in the same state that is was before the accident. Given the amount of work involved that seemed a fair price to me; any lesser repair would have meant that I was out of pocket because of someone else's carelessness. I'm not sure what the alternative is.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Do you not think there should be a limit to the liability of others towards expensive cars? Roads are inherently damaging and expecting others (individually or via insurance) to pay for damage when somone has chosen an expensive car must become unreasonable at some point. Should I really pay for loss of sheen to your gold plated rolls if I brush agaisnt when it is parked in the street?

In reply to Robert Durran:


I'm going to accept this as an admission of trolling. Which is good, because I usually find your comments to be rational. Whereas on this car scratch business, you seem to be behaving rather irrationally.

I don't even own a car, but I can empathise with people who do try to keep them looking pristine. I'm sure you can too, really.

In reply to wbo:


Doesn't the question of what is reasonable come into the equation?

If the OP can get the damaged fixed to the claimants satisfaction for £100 it seems unreasonable for the claimant to insist on the same repair for £240.

Surely the test is "Does the repair satisfy the claimant?" The cost is irrelevant, so long as the above criterium is met?

Say for example, the car had been written off. The claimant could demand a new one to replace it, but so long as the new one is the the same the claimant can't insist on the OP buying it at full price if he can find an identical new car at a discount price?

Or I damage your climbing rope. You can't insist that I replace it with one bought for the full retail price when I can the same rope using my BMC discount for 10%

The test is whether the quality satisfies you, not how much it costs me.

In reply to Trangia:




That obviously includes any inconvenience for the duration the victim loses the use of their car.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Hah, I could well believe it. Rest assured, I've not seen or voted on any of yours yet today. I'm sure they're up to the usual high standard.

In reply to GrahamD:
My garage said if the car was dropped off first thing in the morning it would be done by the end of the day. I even offered to meet him at the garage, take him to work and drop him off after to pick up his car. I also offered to pick him up and take him home if the job overran.

In reply to Gilmour928:

have you got protected no claims, is your insurance really cheap (mine is i drive a cheap boring car and am v old!)
might be cheaper than 240 in the end ! After we claimed it went up some but not much for not long. might be worth doing the calculation (if possible) ... and of course he may prefer your offer at that point, especially if he's young (talk of his dads influence)....

In reply to Gilmour928:


This is really very simple IMO. Pay the 240 quid right away.

In reply to Trangia:



Scenario 1 . He will not know if it will be his satisfaction until it is done. So he gives 100, and it goes into the OPs choice of repairer.
If it is NOT done to his satisfaction, he may now insist that it is done again , this time by his 240 repairer.
Total cost to the OP 340.

Scenario 2
He just pays 240 at the outset and the guy gets it repaired , it matter nought if it is a good or a crap job, it was HIS choice to get it repaired there.
So the OP should fork out the 240 and immediately wash his hands of the risk of paying another 100 . ( and the argument over what is a good or a bad repair)

In reply to Gilmour928:

At the end of the day you dinged his car, £100 is very cheap for any sort of bodywork and family friend or not I would be very sceptical at the quality of the job.
On the other hand he or at least his dad has a trusted garage that by the sound of things they have used before so my advice is to pay up and be done with it.
Use it as a lesson to be more careful in future.

In reply to Toby_W:


I think I would probably do that too if the damage was more than just superficial scratches.

In reply to Offwidth:

I've suspected for a while that one or more person has been routinely voting down a lot of my photos, I presumed because I know I have upset a few people with some of my views on photography in the past, but it did seem odd that someone voted 1 for all four photos today (and, though I say so myself, they're not all rubbish!)


Tea!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I think this misses the point. The whole point of a camera is to take photos - the actual camera is a means to an end. I bought an expensive camera in order to take better photos, and this is completely unaffected by superficial scratches on the camera. Likewise the whole point of a car is to get from A to B. You might pay more for a car that does this faster or in more comfort or with more room for climbing gear or dossing, but superficial scratches, as with the camera, do not detract from the car's function at all.

So no, but I have explained to classes why the fashion industry is an evil conspiracy (they'd just been doing fashion in Art FFS!) .........But I won't get started on that rant now.

In reply to captain paranoia:

I'll concede that blaming individuals for getting scratches expensively repaired is probably in many cases unfair because they are simply trying to maintain the resale value of the car. Though I'm sure there are a few unreasonable vain arses around too. However, things are certainly seriously f***** up when such a massive premium of hundreds or thousands of pounds is placed on a car not having superficial scratches. I suspect this is probably the result of a nasty spiral of exploitation played out between insurance companies car repairers and a minority of car arses which we all pay for in higher insurance premiums and absurdly expensive and unnecessary repairs of superficial damage. The sooner this insanity ends, the better it would be for everyone.


No, I genuinely struggle to do so.

In reply to Gilmour928:
You must gave taken a photo, can we see said ' scratch'

Also is it a special paint finish , multicoloured metallic, or a bog standard paint finish that any under the arches paint shop can replicate?
( bearing in mind that a poor paint match / repair will reduce the resale value of his car)

In reply to Gilmour928:

You must gave taken a photo, can we see said ' scratch'

Also is it a special paint finish , multicoloured metallic, or a bog standard paint finish that any under the arches paint shop can replicate?

In reply to Robert Durran:

>. I suspect this is probably the result of a nasty spiral of exploitation played out between insurance companies car repairers and a minority of car arses which we all pay for in higher insurance premiums and absurdly expensive and unnecessary repairs of superficial damage. The sooner this insanity ends, the better it would be for everyone.

You definitely have that right, my van was rear-ended and my insurance had me take it to my local approved repair shop.
2 new doors, 2 new door panel's, new badges, new bumper.
Not wanting the claim to go through the roof I was pushing for body filler on the doors and ignore the bumper because it's a working van that I drag machines in and out of so the bumper is always scuffed anyway.
Nope they were having none of it and a 1 day job turned in to 4 weeks of me being in a hire van. (doors were out of stock but they had already removed and scrapped mine)

In reply to Robert Durran:

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Have you stopped to think about that statement for more than a few seconds? Cars can be a means of self-expression. Cars can be a source of fun. Cars can be a way to pick up girls (or try to). Cars are certainly how some people evaluate other people. If you want to drive around in a scratched up old car (which I do) then some people will judge you as someone who can't afford a new car or can't be bothered to "make an effort" on appearances. On the whole that won't be a positive judgement. Maybe you are content with that (I am) or maybe you are not. If you worked in certain jobs, a beaten up car is a problem. "I wouldn't buy from a salesman who drove that, they are obviously no good." Shallow maybe, but I've heard it said, more than once. What's a certainty is that for many people a car is not just a means to get from A to B.

In reply to Gish28:


So either he is an adult who takes a lot of notice of his dad's advice or more likely, it is actually his dad's car.

In reply to Jim C:

Good points

In reply to Dogwatch:


Yes.


Yes, some people are shallow


Yes, but what's that got to do with scratches?


Yes, some shallow people want to pick up shallow girls.


Yes, some people are depressingly shallow.


Yes, shallowness is pervasive and should be resisted.


F*** 'em

In reply to Robert Durran:
I used to drive round in an elderly (14 yrs old) Fiesta that wasn't particularly battered but which also wasn't particularly glamorous. It was very reliable and cheap to run, and I liked it. A friend pointed out that driving this particular car was as much about my self-image as anything else, and when i went to disagree he cited Jeremy Clarkson (of whom he wasn't a fan, but anyway) saying 'we don't buy cars to drive, we buy them to wear'), saying that it went along with my hand-made, hand-knitted, secondhand self pretty well. Not caring is as much a 'position' as caring is. Same with the clothes you said you weren't bothered about in a thread last week. We all exist within a 'social' world where our actions in relation to how we present ourselves to others are much more deliberate than we often think (If you really want to wade into all this stuff read the French cultural theorist Pierre Bourdieu's book 'Distinction', or Erving Goffman's 'The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life').

FWIW, I spent a few years driving a battered old Focus estate with a dented door (an altercation with a bollard) and I don't think I'd have been that bothered about how fancy a paint job was done on it, just that someone had acknowledged they'd done it and were prepared to sort it out, but I now drive a nice shiny new (2 yrs old) red car and I'd be proper pissed off if anyone dented it, to the point that I often park in the furthest corner of car parks where there are fewer cars around. It's a nice thing that I want to keep nice. Surprised that that's a confusing concept.

And - to add to this - having always had elderly dishevelled cars, when I first got the new car (at a year old) I felt pretty uncomfortable with it as it was very different than what I was used to (and what many of my friends drive) - never mind that a) it's only a Fiesta, so nothing fancy, and b) the other car in our household is generally a much bigger car, worth a lot more (so has more 'be careful not to bump/prang/crash it' considerations). I bet if you were suddenly given a spangly new car you might find yourself - even momentarily - feeling slightly different about yourself when driving it.

In reply to Tall Clare:

There is of course some truth in that, but not caring could be seen as the default position because it takes much less effort than caring. Chucking a few T-shirts in my trolley at Tescos takes an extra 30 seconds of my time, whereas going to a clothes shop requires extra hassle and time (and expense). Never washing my car requires no effort at all. And a few months ago someone left a note with a phone number to say they had scratched my car - I didn't bother to get I touch because that required no effort (and the scratch was so imperceptible that I'd have never noticed it anyway - and not cared if I had).
So yes, not caring about clothes and cars beyond their actual prime function does, by default, say something about me - that I have other (I would say less shallow) priorities in life.


Well, yes, you are entitled to that, but I am interested in this whole culture about keeping cars and other things nice for niceness sake, despite the hassle and expense (to us all in insurance premiums). As I said, I suspect there are vested interests at work here through advertising (brain washing?). I do wonder whether this, to me absurd, premium placed on immaculate cars (basically a tool that is inevitably going to get scuffed about a bit by normal use - chips off the road etc as well as other cars are going to cause scratches), is a peculiarly British or perhaps north European thing - I wonder whether, say, in Italy, a bumper is seen as just that rather than an ornament (once you feel the bump, you know you can't go any further!).

In reply to Robert Durran:


But if someone was stomping over your gear in their shoes, so no real safety issue, just careless/don't give a ..... attitude, I think it unlikely you would say not to worry?

I wouldn't have thought it is a "spiral of exploitation" by insurers/repairers/fastidious car owners that affects premiums , more likely people with old bangers who don't care how they drive/park!

In reply to Trangia:


Paris actually becomes fun in a badly battered series Landrover
jk

In reply to Robert Durran:

Driving a nice car and wanting to keep it nice, doesn't automatically make a person shallow, in the same way that driving a beaten up wreck doesn't automatically make someone interesting.

Out of curiosity though, how would you feel if I pissed all over one of your waterproof jackets, as according to your logic, it wouldn't affect either its performance or functionality?

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


It's not a don't give a shit attitude to other people's cars, just an acceptance that minor carelessness causing tiny superficial damage does happen and shouldn't really matter.


I disagree. If there wasn't a culture of attaching great value to not having tiny scratches, then the expense would be avoided.

In reply to Goucho:


If it was a genuine accident, I'd tell you not to worry and give it a good wash. If you did it deliberately I'd be pretty annoyed.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Sigh.

If you damage someone else's property whether accidentally or deliberately, the point is not how *you* feel about it, it's how *they* feel about it.

Personally I'm the same as you, when my car picks up another scrape in the Tesco carpark I shrug and carry on. But for someone who *does* care: that's their prerogative and they're fully entitled to it.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Why would you give it a good wash either way - it hasn't affected the functionality of the garment?

In reply to Goucho:


It's clear what he's saying: the intent matters.

"Sorry, I've not been well and I had an accident, some wee got on your coat" isn't the same as 'Ha ha ha got wasted and pissed in you rucksack while you were sleeping you knut!"
jk

In reply to jkarran:




The point isn't whether the damage was intentional or not, but Robs argument is why bother making a fuss about fixing it if it doesn't affect functionality.

I was merely using the 'pissed on jacket' as an example of how different things have different levels of importance to different people.

In reply to Goucho:


If I didn't wash it, I might throw up from the stink of your piss part way up a serious route and become dehydrated and die. Also. for all I know, the noxious chemicals in your piss might effect the breathability of the jacket resulting in hypothermia and death.

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/1AsAAOSw37tWC29e/s-l400.jpg

In reply to elliptic:


Yes, I think I have more or less conceded that - doesn't stop them, in my opinion, being shallow though. My main argument now is that we have this culture where everyone is paying extra in insurance premiums and hassle over an absurd obsession about superficial, cosmetic damage. I am genuinely interested in how this sorry state of affairs has evolve - as I have said, I suspect it is more about exploitation than genuine concern about aesthetics.

In reply to elliptic:

Up to a point but there is a public interest in placing a limit on it especially when 3rd party insurance is a legal requirement because the increased financial risk puts a burden on everyone who uses the road.

As an extreme example if you bought a two million quid sports car or a gold plated Bentley and parked it at Tesco and it got scraped I don't think its reasonable to expect someone else's insurance to pay out tens of thousands of pounds to get it restored to showroom condition. There's a degree of personal responsibility for putting your extremely valuable possession in an obviously risky situation.

I think it is reasonable for insurance companies to have a table of maximum third party insurance pay outs for various classes of accident and if people think they may need more than that because they have a particularly expensive car or want an absolutely as-new finish for the slightest scratch even if it means repainting half the vehicle then they can pay extra premiums themselves.

In reply to Robert Durran:

In the amount of time it has taken to have this pointless discussion on a forum you could have washed, waxed and polished up the alloys real nice!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


That is completely arse about tit.

The degree of personal responsibility lies with the person who isn't able to park a f*cking car without crashing into someone else's.


If I smash into your car, my insurance pays to return your car to the same condition it was in before I hit you. The same applies if you hit me. Whether your car costs sod all to fix because of its value, and mine costs a fortune because of its value is irrelevant - that's why it costs more to insure an 80 grand Porsche then a 2 grand Vauxhall.

In reply to bagger:


I think it's an interesting discussion with my drive by posts helping me punctuate some tedious admin. If I had the time to tart up my car, I'd get in it and go climbing instead.

In reply to Goucho:


Yes, but we're all, in effect, paying more to insure your 80 grand Porsche - accidentally scratching your precious Porsche is no more culpable than accidentally scratching a 2 grand Vauxhall.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Lighten up, it was a joke.

In reply to Robert Durran:


No your not Rob. You're actually paying more to insure your car because of the number of uninsured yobs driving round in 2 grand Vauxhalls crashing into other cars.

And whether you scratch my car intentionally or accidentally, I shouldn't be out of pocket either way.

In reply to Goucho:


But the bottom line is that if we didn't, for whatever reason, as a society have this absurd obsession about cosmetic scratches, we'd all be paying less.


I agree. But, if there wasn't this absurd premium put on scratchless cars, it would cost a lot less to keep you in pocket.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I was more gutted when I bumped my restored 47 year old Alfa, (hand built by Pininfarina), than when i crashed my bike and had to have my face rebuilt, complete with scars, hooded eye and wonky shaped head.

In reply to Goucho:


A much better analogy would be if you accidentally spilt your wine and made a small stain on my jacket. Would I be upset? Hardly at all. Would I expect you to pay for cleaning? No. Would bother getting it cleaned? No.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I do see where you're coming from on this, and yes, if society was less materialisic and focused more on what really matters, and not rampant plastic consumerism, then the world might well be a better place?

But until then, I'm perfectly happy to respect your right to drive around in something from a post apocalyptic dystopia, as long as you accord me the same courtesy to like my vehicles shiny and dent and scratch free - apart from my 1974 ex MOD Landrover, which wouldn't look out of place in Mad Max, and has never been cleaned - inside or outside - in the 12 years I've had it.

In reply to Goucho:


So if you accidentally scratched your own 80 grand Porsche, would you spend , say, a grand getting an immaculate repair done or would you save the money for a climbing trip?

In reply to Robert Durran:


I'd do both

In reply to Goucho:



The cost of third party insurance depends on the chance of being in an accident which damages someone else's car and the average cost of the repairs. The people paying their insurance premiums haven't done anything wrong but if the average cost of repairs goes up they still pay more.

The roads are there for everyone to use, even people without much money. Third party insurance which pays out without a cap on the value of claims is like a regressive tax. The poor and people who don't care about cars put as much into the insurance system as the rich but get less out.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



So if we introduce your capped system, then people who drive expensive cars and get driven into by people in cheap cars, will be penalised and have to make up the shortfall between the capped third party payout and the actual cost of repairs.

You are either a student, a commie or Rick out of the Young Ones, and I claim my £5.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



That also depends on the frequency with which they make claims.

It's also be worth considering the total value of claims made for vehicle repairs compared to the total value of the claims that are made for deaths and injuries. I think you might find that the repair costs that you are whinging about are just a drop in the ocean.

In reply to timjones:

My thoughts entirely.

Insurance is primarily to indemnify against a claim so the claimant is paid correctly and the insured it not bankrupted, and to pay for such things as new front ends and 24 hour nursing care and tube feeding.

For £240 I'd do a handshake - most polices will have at least a £250 excess. That's why scratches aren't really worth the claim and my mate gets run a smart repair business and to drive an X6M (taste in cars optional).

My car is my office - I do 30,000 miles a year. It has a few scratches but if someone opened their door on it and dinked it then they pay. No argument. If they want to go into some great in depth philosophical debate about the concept of "worth" and how we are all slaves to our possessions then that's fine, so long as they put their hand in their pocket and pay for the repair.

The things we own may well come to own us, but in the meantime door denting monkeyboys have to stump up.

In reply to Gish28:

At least some people have the decency to own up to the damage unlike the couldnt care less fat lady who flung her door open ,left a nice ding in my door and drove off .Thankyou very much.

In reply to PATTISON Bill:

Someone reversed into the side of my husband's car a few years ago and was kind enough to leave a note. Her car was an elderly Corsa; his was a new Audi A4 company car. They sorted it out through the insurance but because his company insurance policy said he should have a 'similar' car as a courtesy car, for some reason Enterprise in Keighley decided that the equivalent to an 'executive estate' was a Mercedes S350, which he had for about a month while the body shop sorted out the side of his car. I dread to think what happened to that poor woman's insurance premium as a consequence.

In reply to Tall Clare:

We reckoned he looked like a Latvian plutocrat in it.

I damaged my S5 and got an elderly and asthmatic Ford Ka (in purple). I think it was a life lesson.

In reply to Donald82:

It is a bad excuse. You are responsible as a driver for ensuring your vehicle does not hit things. If you hit things, cough up.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

If further evidence were needed that sometimes one's mode of transport can affect one's self-perception and that of others, turning up at a campsite in that car, with two mountain bikes strapped to the boot via a Saris Bones, and then camping in a 20 year old Quasar, felt a little absurd. I seem to recall at least one group of blokes pointing and staring.

In reply to MG:

Then people at the lower end of the market would lose out, because to keep the price under £12K cars would become of far worse quality and would fall apart far earlier, meaning no 10 year old bangers to pick up any more.

In reply to Goucho:


Yes. And nothing wrong with that as long as the capped payments are at a reasonable level. We can argue about what 'reasonable' should be but IMHO it wouldn't include £2,400 to replace a bumper and respray half a car for the sake of a tiny scratch or £100K to replace carbon fibre bodywork on a McLaren supercar.

It's not like capping insurance payments and having a standard for how much various things should cost is some kind of horrible communist principle, it's fairly normal.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

You mainly seem to get Nissan Micras as courtesy cars, I find.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Bollocks.

You damage my car, you pay to put it exactly back as it was before you damaged it - either through your insurance or personally.

If my car happens to require 000's to put right, well, that's life, get over it.


OK, last year, some cretin in a van gouged a big scratch right down to the metal down the side if my car because he couldn't be bothered waiting for someone to move over, and tried to squeeze past them. It cost his insurers £4k to repair, because I insisted it went to a specialist in order to match the special metallic midnight blue paintwork exactly.

In your world, I'd have no doubt had to either settle for an apprentice from Halfords or foot the bill myself for a proper job.

In reply to Goucho:
Don't know about tom but in my world the insurance would pay a reasonable amount for a long scratch. You pay the top-up if you want fancy gold flecked paint work. Liability limited to reasonable functionality, rather than show-off luxury. That way people with "normal" cars aren't paying for the those with expensive, luxury ones through their insurance. Obviously won't happen, of course.


Edit: This happens with house insurance typically, where the insurance of valuables like jewellery, is normally limited to a certain value. If people want such valuables, fine, but they have to pay for the additional risk, rather expecting everyone's premiums to be bumped up for them.

In reply to MG:

But the person with the luxury car pays more for their insurance than the person with the "normal" car. Why shouldn't they have the same level of service, i.e. restored to original condition or whatever the wording of the policy is?

In reply to MG:

Might you consider the average cost of insuring a group 1 car as opposed to a group 50 car, rather than spouting bollocks about gold flecked paint.

In reply to Tall Clare and Nick:
We are talking about liability covered on my (say) insurance for if I hit a Rolls. That isn't covered by the Rolls owner, whose high premiums are there so when he wraps it round a lamppost he gets a new one. Or are you suggesting his premiums are subsidizing my liability?

In reply to MG:
Isn't that the way insurance works (and insurance companies make their money), that across any insurer there will be a load of people paying (at various price points) with very few people actually claiming?

Also, if, for instance, you drive a Micra and it costs you £100 a year to insure, and he drives a Rolls, which costs £1000 a year to insure, if you drive your smaller, cheaper, etc car into his bigger, more expensive car, there would be a claim on your insurance for mending his car which wouldn't equate to what your insurance premium went up to - your insurance would most likely still be cheaper than for his Rolls, unless you were convicted of dangerous driving or somesuch, compared to his immaculate driving record and many years of no claims.

In reply to MG:
To an extent that is how insurance works.

In reply to MG:

No it isn't. Under UK law, you are liable for the full cost of any damage you do to other peoples property. You either have to pay for a full repair (i.e. in back to previous condition) or replacement (whichever is cheaper). If the 3rd party liability that you get with your household insurance won't meet the full cost of the repair, it doesn't mean you are excused from paying the rest!

In reply to Tall Clare:

In general sense yes, of course. But there are two aspects to this. First the cost to insurers for buying someone a new car when they crash. That is easily calculated - more expensive car, more expensive insurance. Second the cost to insurers when the insured drive into someone else's car. I assume that is calculated as total cost/number of insured (roughly) so the cost is the same in each policy. I would surprised the insurance companies made those with expensive cars pay more to balance out the higher risk they pose to everyone else, but could be wrong.

In reply to MG:


Is this a policy based on fiscal egalitarianism, or envy?


The same as they also pay more to insure an expensive car - and your point is?

In reply to MarkJH:

You miss my point. I know that's the law currently but am suggesting it is not sensible for expensive cars.

My point about contents insurance was that you cant use a typical policy to insure the Crown Jewels. This prevents those with exceptionally high value belongings paying below the odds with every other policy holder taking a little bit of their risk. You can do this with car insurance though (unless I wrong, as above).

In reply to Goucho:


I suppose on the belief that if you voluntarily put an expensive status symbol in a risky environment, the responsibility for it should be yours. And that car insurance is an expensive thing that could be lowered by such measures.

In reply to MG:

But car insurance isn't just about the car, it's also about the driver and the level of risk they present.

In reply to MG:

But surely Goucho already pays more for his car insurance to address that responsibility, but that that insurance might not be absolutely sky high because perhaps he has many years no claims, proving that he can be 'trusted' (in the eyes of the insurance company) with his 'expensive status symbol' (i.e. car).

In reply to Tall Clare:

Yes, and many other details. But do those with expensive cars subsidize those with cheaper ones because of the higher cost of liability they produce? I doubt it.

In reply to MG:

Insuring your possessions is entirely different from insuring your liabilities! You are asking for UK civil law to be changed such that peoples responsibility for other peoples possessions is capped at a certain level. That's certainly a point of view, but you may regret it when a negligent tradesman burns down your house.

Regarding cars:
1. 3rd party liability costs for insurance companies are largely personal injury (currently 2/3 of the total). Cosmetic damages represents an even smaller subset. Limiting payouts will have next to no effect on premiums compared to other things you can do (e.g. not driving into other peoples cars).
2. It is far from clear that expensive cars are more expensive for cosmetic repairs. Fixing a clear-coat scratch is likely to be very similar whether it is a Ka or a Bently (mostly labour).

In reply to MarkJH:

. That's certainly a point of view, but you may regret it when a negligent tradesman burns down your house.

Just roads.



Oh well. It was a nice idea.

In reply to MG:

But do those with expensive cars subsidize those with cheaper ones because of the higher cost of liability they produce? I doubt it.

The people that do the subsidising, are the ones that never claim. That's regardless of the cost of the car.

In reply to MG:



OK, what about the HGV driver who ploughs into your house? Would you want it built back to how it was before, or would you be happy for them to give you a 'basic house'? After all, it is just a place to eat and sleep.

It is a fundamental point of law that you should not have to suffer any loss through the actions of someone else. In that cars are no different to any other area of life (except perhaps in the level of risk you take).

In reply to MG:


So basically anyone with an expensive car should keep it locked in their garage to avoid any risk, and also help to lower insurance premiums for those who don't have an expensive car?

My god, you don't half talk shite!

In reply to Goucho:
No, the idea was they pay the risk, not pass it on to others. That was all. Seems the numbers don't work.

In reply to MarkJH:

Is it that clear cut? There are plenty of "belongings left at owners risk" type notices about. Why not cars driven at owners risk too?

In reply to Tall Clare:

Well I'm quite happy to disclose my insurance premiums.

To insure 5 cars on a multi car policy - £5,868.16 per annum through a specialist Lloyds Underwriter. £250 Excess, with an 8 year No Claims, covering me and Mrs G for them all, and the kids as named drivers on 2 of them and including full European cover across them all.

Even though I haven't claimed in over 8 years, and have only 1 claim over the past 12 years - a minor rear end shunt (my fault) - my premiums go up every year.

In reply to Goucho:

Whereas my insurance is £200/year fully comp for me with Mr TC as named driver, with £250 excess and (iirc) 10 years no claims. I think this shows that you already pay for the 'additional liability' of driving fancier cars than someone like me does.

In reply to MG:


And all are equally meaningless in law. At best they are a way of proving that you haven't offered to look after someone else's stuff. You cannot get out of your liabilities by declaring that they don't exist!

In reply to MG:




I don't believe they are insured anyway.

In reply to Goucho:

You damage my car, you pay to put it exactly back as it was before you damaged it - either through your insurance or personally.



I agree , your car re-sale value would be less if it was a cheap non matching paint job. If your car was damaged, it should be put back as near perfect as possible.
If it is a carbon fibre panel, then I would not expect a cheap fibre glass repair. You should not be out of pocket for their mistake just to save them , or their insurers , a few bob.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Excellent point. Would you share details of your vehicle and its registration please Robert?

In reply to Dogwatch:

I'm with you. It is really what you want to spend your money on, I can afford a much better car than I drive.

I drive a middle aged Polo that has a back seat and boot littered with outdoors gear , and tools. The paint is faded, and it has more dings and scratches than you could count, and the engine sounds like a tank. ( it runs well though and is reliable, and economical)
If you hit me, you would need to make a really good job of it before I would notice , or care less.

I use it for travelling to work, and it is handy for shopping, and outdoor pursuits)
I can park it anywhere I like with no worries of kids with bikes, shopping trolleys , quad bikes, tractors , or whatever .

I watch people at work walk long distances ( usually in the rain) having driven past closer parking spaces, so they can park their pride and joy with other like minded people at the far end if the car park.
I park in the first closest spot , and never think about it again, certainly not worrying that it might get a ding.

(Our other car , that my wife uses) is much smarter, but still fundamentally functional)

In reply to Goucho:



This thread started going in round in circles ages ago - but I'm curious now. Tell us all about these motors Gouch. And what are you doing with *five*?

(Readers with a poor memory might also value a tip here: if you happen to scratch Goucho's missus's car, I suggest you immediately fess up, and pay up. And that includes you, Robert. She doesn't mess about.)

In reply to Thugitty Jugitty:


Yes, dark blue (but filthy) Kia Ce'ed Diesel Estate SB09 JFJ. Excellent cragging and dossing vehicle. Stinks of rock boots. Never been washed in the nearly four years I've had it, though I have just this evening removed 4 months worth of rubbish from the foot wells before dropping it off for it's MOT.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Is that's an attempt at sarcastic wit? Well you know what Oscar Wilde said?

Unfortunately you're also wrong - yet again.

Make derogatory comments about me by all means Robert, but don't be an arrogant smart arse regarding my wife!

In reply to Goucho:


Genuine apologies for any offense caused and I've deleted the post. It was meant to be light hearted, but I clearly misjudged it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Appology accepted Rob.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Don't forget your MOT runs out in 10 days.

HTH.

In reply to Robert Durran:


True, but if someone was careless and every time you saw them spilt their wine on you, you might say something to them.
I get the impression (definitely not aimed at you, as I get that you are playing devils advocate to a certain extent) that a disproportionate amount of car park dings are caused by small number of people who just can't be bothered to put just a little bit more attention in to avoid damaging someone's property.
There needs to be comprise between obsession with possessions and personal responsibility. So far in this thread I think you've been arguing too far towards vilification of the former while ignoring the latter...

In reply to Oceanrower:

Thanks, but I've not forgotten (see my post from last night).

In reply to fraserbarrett:


Maybe, but I'm not advocating not caring. These little accidents happen in tight spots and, to me, the fuss, for whatever reason, does seem to be out of proportion. Yes, it might be reasonable to want to retain a car's resale value, but the value put on not having a tiny scratch seems like collective madness to me; some one could probably buy a perfectly serviceable second had car for the cost of an immaculate repair of a tiny scratch on a posh car.


Well yes, I have been stimulating the debate with a bit of ranting devil's advocacy.

But I am genuinely interested in how motorists have arrived at this collective madness where we are prepared to pay crazy amounts of money for entirely cosmetic repairs to cars. We don't do it with washing machines or the walls of our houses. What is it about cars and why has it come about? Do we do it with other stuff?

In reply to Goucho:

If you put a car on the public road you should expect its condition to degrade gradually over time. When there is legal compulsion to have third party insurance in order to drive on the road it's not unreasonable for there also to be limits on the size of claims against it in order to keep the insurance affordable.

Two years down the line looking at my neighbour's car nobody could tell whether the little scrape on their bumper had been ignored, repaired for a couple of hundred quid or repaired by replacing the bumper and respraying half the car for £2.4K. The whole thing was a massive waste of time and money for zero benefit to anyone except the insurance companies, lawyers and the Toyota dealer.

In reply to Robert Durran:
".........I have just this evening removed 4 months worth of rubbish from the foot wells before dropping it off for it's MOT".



You are Mr Treebus.

We'll find you, crushed under the hoarded weight of unsold copies of Gravity magazine and Faces Gems, your Troll jesters and Think Pink Tshirt (with ketchup stains) all ripped and the cats having eaten your eyes.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


Had to google that. Not a hoarder. Just find the footwells make good rubbish bins.


Actually mostly coffee cups, pie packaging and banana skins. Always hated that pretentious Think Pink stuff.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, dark blue (but filthy) Kia Ce'ed Diesel Estate SB09 JFJ.

You posh git, that's under ten years old!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


There's a difference between wear and tear, and accident damage - if you can't grasp this, don't ever rely on your own judgement at avalanche risk assessment.


So basically, you are advocating a system where victims are inadequately compensated for damage to their cars, in order to drag everything down to the levels of those people who don't give a shit about the condition of theirs?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Ever found a rotting chicken carcass on the back seat? I think that was my record in automotive indifference.

In reply to Goucho:


I think what is regarded as adequate is the question here. What you think will depend on your attitude to cars - status symbol and investment, or means to get about.

In reply to MG:

No, but I did leave my car in a park and ride for three months last year while I went to America and when I got back I found two half litre tubs of yoghurt under the seat. Perfectly edible too - surprised me, but I suppose that, unlike chickens, the point of yoghurt is that it is rotten.

In reply to Goucho:


No. I think he is advocating a system where we're not all dragged down to the level of people who are absurdly neurotic about the condition of theirs.

In reply to Robert Durran:
Was it already yoghurt when you left it there in the first place...?

In reply to MG:


A few weeks ago, I invested in a 1967 E - Type Roadster. It's currently being restored but should be completed by mid June.

As well as being a childhood dream, it is also arguably the most beautiful car ever made and an icon of automotive design. It is also an investment.

Whilst I will not be using it everyday, and certainly not parking it in a supermarket car park, I don't see why my investment should be reduced in value if someone else damages it. The difference between a 'proper repair' and a 'make do' one, will affect the future value considerably.

As I've stated on earlier posts, why should I be out if pocket for someone else's mistake - that's the whole point of car insurance beyond its legal requirement.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It's not neurotic to want to keep your car in good condition, anymore than it's neurotic to give your dick a wash once a week.

In reply to Goucho:


Because you voluntarily put a expensive delicate object in a risky, damaging environment. The argument is that should be your risk rather than someone else's.

To take it to an extreme, if you had a car made of hand-crafted, gold foil that collapsed when a Fiesta door touched it in a supermarket car-park, is really fair to expect the Fiesta owner to pay you £millions for a new one?

In reply to Goucho:


I'm arguing for a bit of common sense instead of self-righteous, emotional nonsense. Paying £2,400 to fix a tiny scratch on the bumper of a Toyota Aygo when Toyota will sell you the whole car new for £8K is not rational. The consequence of a fraction of drivers getting all worked up about their right to have their car restored to showroom condition even when this is economically irrational is large amounts of money collected from everyone's insurance being pissed away for the benefit of insurance companies, lawyers and car dealers.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

How about a compromise situation in which the insurance companies would pay the value of functional repairs plus depreciation costs? That would compensate Groucho's investment loss but would prevent thousands being spent on repairing minor scratches to Fiestas.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I don't think you fully understand how the insurance industry works?

Insurance companies do not spend thousands on a repair when hundreds will surfice. They look for the most cost effective way to repair the vehicle - hence why a 20 year old Fiesta with more than a grands worth of damage will be written off, not repaired. Also, irrespective of who is at fault, a lot of insurance companies will do a 'knock for knock' settlement - especially the case if both parties are insured by the same insurance group of companies.

A Ferrari costs more than a Skoda, just get over it.

In reply to WildCamper:


Yes. I think it fell out of a supermarket bag - Asda "value" plain stuff - I find the half litre pots a more sensible serving size than those silly little things.

In reply to Goucho:


You do that too?! Even on a climbing trip?

In reply to MG:

Ever found a rotting chicken carcass on the back seat? I think that was my record in automotive indifference.

Due to a miss-understanding, I had to stash a lollipop lady in my boot and only disposed off her properly when the smell got too much.
Still got the lollipop though!

In reply to Robert Durran:


Not on an actual route no, but on a trip, of course. Even during my frequent stays at Snells Field, I always made sure my winkie was clean before a night out in Cham - you never know what might happen?

In reply to Goucho:

Probably not. But I bet I understand it at least as well as you.


It sounds like you are now accepting my point that insurance companies in general have tables of how much claims should cost and don't just fork out unlimited amounts to restore to 'as-new' condition.

If they were looking for the most cost effective way to repair the vehicle in this case they wouldn't be paying £2400 to fix a scratch on the bumper of a Toyota Aygo. My guess is the woman who owned the car had paid for a gold plated insurance policy that got her dealer repairs and a rental car no questions asked. After paying out a stupid amount of money her insurance company then tried to recover it from ours at which point ours said no and the lawyers got involved.

The situation is crazy. If the woman had an option of £500 quid in her hand or £2400 to get a tiny scratch taken off her £8,000 car she'd almost certainly go for the £500 and forget all about the scratch. But the system doesn't allow for that once the insurance companies get involved.


Of course a Ferrari costs more than a Skoda which is why if you have a Skoda owner and a Ferrari owner with the exact same accident record the Ferrari owner will take more out of the third party insurance system than the Skoda owner. Putting a Ferrari on the street creates a financial risk for every other driver just like sticking a Van Gogh in a normal parcel would create a financial risk to the postal service. The postal service will stick a limit on the maximum amount they will pay out for damage to parcels because if they didn't one lost Van Gogh would create a cost that they'd need to recover from all their other customers. The compulsory third party insurance system should impose limits on claims for the exact same reason.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

That only works in the context of a contract between two parties. If the post office van crashed into another courier carrying the Van Gough and destroyed it, there would be no limit to their liability (although there may be a limit as to the amount paid by their insurance). You could have a similar contract in place between, say, all the participants in a motor race on a closed track. It would be fundamentally unfair to give people a general exemption from their responsibility for damages that they cause.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:






A person insuring a Ferrari probably pays 10 times more on premiums than a person insuring a Skoda. So the fact a Ferrari costs 10 times more to repair than a Skoda is irrelevant. That's how risk assessment works in insurance.

All this coblers about expensive cars costing you increased premiums is just that, coblers.

Your premiums go up because of Wayne from his council estate in his Corsa thinking he's in Fast and Furious, not rich bastards in Ferrari's.

In reply to Goucho:


But you never know what might happen on a route though. Someone I knew punctured their scrotum with their ice axe and ended up being sewn up by a lovely young nurse in the Cham hospital. The fact that he had tried to sterilise the wound with petrol after a bit too much wine didn't help matters.

Anyway, a week must have been some route............

In reply to Goucho:

Of course they pay 10 x more for the complete car insurance package because there are many factors influencing their insurance premium such as the cost of repairing their vehicle if there is an accident which is their own fault and the likelihood of someone in a Ferrari driving too fast. This discussion is specifically about the premium for third party insurance. It will already be weighted for the likelihood of having a crash. There's no reason for the third party insurance cost to scale with the price of the insured car in the current system because third party insurance pays out for the damage to third parties not your own car.


My premiums go up for a combination of many of different reasons *including* people paying stupid amounts of money to fix tiny scratches. Maybe if the system was designed to make third party insurance affordable there would be fewer uninsured drivers.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



So exactly how would your new 'capped' third party insurance system work?

Exactly how would you arrive at the figure for the 'capped' amount?

And how would you achieve this without taking the obvious cop out choice of making anyone driving a car worth more than 20 grand pay for their own repairs if they want a proper job done?

And it has to work in practice, not just theoretical ideology.

Go on, this is your chance to go from being Rick the Student, to the architect of a new approach to insurance.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

How about making pre-scratched and dented cars fashionable (like those pre-faded and holed jeans). If we can be brain washed into wanting ludicrously pristine cars, this alternative shouldn't be too difficult to manage. Once it become the norm, the minority shiny car brigade could be told to get lost by the system.

In reply to Robert Durran:


It's not about wanting pristine cars, it's simply about wanting accident damage repaired so the part of the car that is damaged, is put back to the condition it was in immediately prior to the damage occurring.

I really struggle to understand how anyone can have a problem with that?

In reply to Goucho:



Yes, but if we could change the culture so that lots of random dents and scratched was the norm, then your "original" condition would be effectively the same pre and post scratch or dent, so no repair and expense needed.

In reply to Goucho:


It's not a new approach to insurance it is a totally normal approach to insurance being applied to cars.

Insurance companies come up with a table of reasonable claims for various types of accident. A law is passed providing for binding arbitration based on this table if there are any disputes about how much somebody should be paying to fix someone else's car.

The amounts specified in the table don't have to be based on a 20 grand car. The idea of a cap is to cut out the egregious cases like hugely expensive cars, super expensive materials and massively disproportionate effort to deal with minor damage.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


So you are going to penalise those with expensive cars then?

Spoken like a true left winger.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I certainly don't go out of my way to keep mine in 'showroom' condition, and the odd graze, stone chips, kerbed alloys (Mrs G could keep an alloy wheel refurbishment company in business single handidly) etc are part of life - and all mine have these blemishes in various minor forms. However, there's no escaping the fact that condition has a direct effect on resale value - ironically, it's probably costing you more money to have your car full of dents and scratches, than to keep it in good condition.

In reply to Goucho:

Is it really stressful driving around in a car with pristine bodywork?

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Porsche 911 Carrera 4s Cabriolet
Audio RS6 Avante
Mercedes CLS 63 AMG - about to depart since purchase of E- Type.
Range Rover Sport V8
Ex MOD Landrover Defender

Why so many? I love cars (so does Mrs G) and we've been fortunate enough to be able to afford to indulge over the last few years. Also, I have a very small penis and masculine insecurity issues, and therefore need to over compensate


If I could get her to own up to when she scratches them, it would be a start, though not sure how I'd tackle her about it?

In reply to Goucho:

No I'm going to stop them getting a free ride from the system. If you want to post a Van Gogh you need to pay extra to the courier service because of the additional financial risk if they lose it or damage it: if you put it in the standard service there is a cap on how much they pay out. I'm just applying the same principle to cars.

In reply to Lusk:


Not pristine, just kept in a nice condition and looked after.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



No it isn't. The point you keep missing is that what an insurance company is prepared to pay for your mistakes has no effect on your liabilities under civil law. The fundamental premise of civil law is that where you suffer a loss or damage through negligence on someone else's part; you are entitled to hold them fully responsible for your loss. You would have to change this basic premise for the outcome you want; and this would be considered unjust by almost anybody's standards. That it would be entirely unworkable in practice is probably a secondary concern.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Nope. You're still sounding like Rick.

In reply to Goucho:


I'm not denying that at all - it's a sad fact! Which is why I'd like to see a change of culture so that it isn't the case - it seems to me that placing such monetary high value on the lack of scratch is just a weird and artificial social convention.

Anyway not giving a shit about the state of a car means that you can reduce stress levels by taking it out on the car. I once kicked in every door of my Mondeo Estate in frustration after driving all the way from Scotland to Wales only to discover that I'd forgotten my rock boots - most satisfying.

And you can play the game of parking your car in a busy street, going off to do your shopping and then later walking back past it and giving it a good kicking. I imagine this would get an even more entertaining reaction from passers by with an 80 grand Porsche than an ancient Nissan Sunny.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Like the majority of things unfortunately.



Hence my 40 year old Landrover

In reply to Robert Durran:


Would you? Don't you save a load of money when you buy a new car because you can get a really scruffy but otherwise perfectly functional car? Aren't you already doing pretty well out of our 'weird' set of values?

The effect of cosmetic repairs on your insurance premiums (compared to personal injury, total write-offs, uninsured drivers etc) must be negligible compared to that.

In reply to MarkJH:


That is a very good point.

In reply to Gish28:

Let him threaten to go through the insurance. His insurance that is. You may have admitted being at fault but that's not the same as admitting liability. He might well find he isn't covered because the car park may be private property. Looks to me like they are trying to get their car fixed and profit from it. On the other hand they might think £100 is a cheap price and therefore a poor repair and can't see why their car should be repaired poorly when the accident wasn't any of their doing. I personally take great care of my car and if I had someone damaging it I would want it fixed properly.

In reply to Goucho:



Having any back trouble since owning these?

In reply to Gish28:

My car isn't a scratch on my neighbour's car

In reply to MarkJH:


It is also a fundamental premise that people have a right to make contracts that specify conditions under which they offer their services including a cap on liability. If you don't like the cap on liability in a parcel company or dry cleaner's contract then don't use their services. If you don't like the government specifying a cap on damages payable in the event of an accident then don't put your car of the government's roads.

In reply to BnB:


Not really - I presume you're talking about ride? The front seats in the RS6 are not ideal for being over 6 foot with broad shoulders, but that is Mrs G's car, and I seldom drive it.

In reply to rossn:

>... You may have admitted being at fault but that's not the same as admitting liability ...

What's the difference?

In reply to Goucho:


Just looked those up. Watching Top Gear must be a somewhat different experience for you than for the rest of us. I imagine a bit like watching an Ueli Steck video and, rather than seeing a barely imaginable fantasy, thinking "That looks a nice route. I might nip out and solo it after work one day next week". Or maybe people actually interested in cars don't watch Top Gear!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Yes, a contact: a mutually agreed set of rules governing a transaction between two parties. I appreciate that there is some confusion in government at the moment regarding this point, but that doesn't make what you suggeat fair or reasonable.

In reply to Neil Williams:

It's not really an excuse, is it? It's just what happened.

Sure, if you hit someone's car pay up. But also, if you get hit, try to get good value - don't go for the most expensive just because someone else is paying. No idea which applies to this case.

In reply to Donald82:
Indeed, you should get good value - but the owner of the car you damaged also has the right for it to be put back the way it was, which mostly will mean a new panel, not a hammer and a bit of filler. So any quotes need to be on that basis.

If you damage your own car and want to use a hammer and filler, that's up to you. If you damage mine, I want it back the way it was, which means a new, or at worst used but intact, replacement panel.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Just been fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time a few years ago when my partners and I sold the business.

There is a practical side to them though. We spend a lot of time throughout the year travelling between the UK and the house in Courmayeur - often with the kids in tow - so cars that are both rapid, comfortable and good load luggers take on a different perspective than just being flash tin.

And also, it's a glorious drive, which is enhanced further when you do it in a nice car

In reply to Neil Williams:

Sure, they have the right to. But should, I think, make a reasonable judgement as to whether the expensive options is really worth it. If someone scratched my (hypothetical) car, I like to think I'd err on the side of hammer and filler rather than a new panel because that's what I'd do if I scratched it myself.

In reply to Donald82:
That would depend probably on the circumstances for me I think. And also, if relatively new, on the effect on the expected resale value at the time I'd expect to sell it, because that is an investment which will lead me to a deposit for my next vehicle.

If I'd parked it somewhere stupid, I would probably agree.

If it was parked with lots of space around it and someone hit it with a small, easily controlled car, I would have little patience. There would also be the "attitude test" - if they failed that, it would certainly be going through insurance however minor. Same if the collision occurred while driving - if someone hit me not because they were driving too fast or erratically, I'd have far more time for them (and thus be far more accommodating) if they were clearly driving competently but perhaps skidded on ice, a patch of oil or something.

Accidents do happen, but I have no time at all for lazy or incompetent driving. There is too much of the latter around, and too many of those people think it's OK.

In reply to Goucho:

There is a practical side to them though. We spend a lot of time throughout the year travelling between the UK and the house in Courmayeur - often with the kids in tow

I like your style.
Adults in the car, kids in a trailer...

In reply to Goucho:


I don't begrudge you them!

I admit that I used to enjoy the drive from Edinburgh to the far north west even more when I had my big Mondeo rather than the crappy Kia thing I have now!

In reply to Goucho:


And in particular because of Wayne's terrible whiplash.

A few years ago I was tail-ended. Not much damage to my car although my towbar made a bit of a mess of the car that crashed into me. I didn't make a claim but I informed my insurer as contractually required to do. And they evidently passed my details onwards. I was inundated with letters and calls from pond-scum lawyers who were pretty much begging me to pretend to have whiplash and telling me I was a fool for refusing free money.

In reply to Dogwatch:


That's really depressing, and disappointing. (And I like "pond-scum").Thanks for sharing that.

In reply to Robert Durran:




Rat Look - all the cool kids drive them.....

In reply to Neil Williams:

Sounds reasonable!

In reply to Dogwatch:

Do you think we should spare a bit of the blame for the 'claims farming' industry - ambulance chasers who target Wayne, advertise on daytime tv, maybe cold-call Wayne after he's had a bump to see if he was injured. "Are you *sure* you don't have whiplash Wayne? The symptoms could develop a while after the crash you know. If you did have it we could definitely get you a few grand."

The insurers themselves have been shockingly complicit in all this.

In reply to deepsoup:

That is almost exactly the conversation the ambulance chasers had with me, followed by letters every few weeks for several months.

Yes the insurers are complicit, they get a referral fee from the ambulance chasers and also from the car-hire company who was wonderfully keen to provide me a car during the repair that I'd said didn't need doing.

False claims are immoral but you can see the perception that it is victimless crime, plus a few hundred quid of free money can make a difference to many people's lives and you can see the temptation.

Btw I'm not disputing whiplash can be real. But it's also pretty easy to fake.

In reply to deepsoup:



I think it might actually be Wayne causing the whiplash to other people, by driving into the back if them in his 9 year old 1 litre Corsa with the 12 inch diameter exhaust, and his drivers seat in the default 'Strait Outta Compton' position, while getting his bad gangsta ass down to some heavy duty rappin on his Goodmans ICE.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I suppose it's not completely out of the question - ripped jeans go in and out of fashion, while if you have a Land Rover Defender...

In reply to Robert Durran:

It can be given MOT requirements, not to mention it may let corrosion spread to structural elements long term. I dont understand the comparison to how intact the corrosion protection (anodising) on climbing equipment is, the parts are designed to suffer abrasion and its expected.

Theres no picture/s of the damage so how can you or anyone asses the value of the repair or how it will affect resale? If Gish28 adds up the increased premiums over the next 5 years, £240 is probably a good deal.

I haven't logged on to UKC for a while, and now that I have again, and find threads like this one, it makes me wonder what UKC has come to, when non-climbing topics like this proliferate it...

In reply to M9iswhereitsat:

I haven't logged on to UKC for a while, and now that I have again, and find threads like this one, it makes me wonder what UKC has come to, when non-climbing topics like this proliferate it...

Why complain about a 'non-climbing' thread that was last active 9 days ago?

In reply to M9iswhereitsat:

they have been 'proliferating' for at least the last 10 years my friend

In reply to Kimono:

They are not 'proliferating'. They are on several specifically designed UKC forums for climbers to talk about non climbing issues (including some associated adventure sports).

In reply to Gish28:

269 posts on the subject of a scratched car. Shows you the real interest of most posters on here then.

In reply to Dave Perry:

Loads more people have scratched their car than climbed the Eiger, but THAT Eiger thread had more views than this one...and this one is only still alive because we're all posting about how many posts there are!

Doh!

In reply to deacondeacon:

Yes pay the £240 and be more careful. But don't say blindspot is a crap excuse. We all know they exist and we have all fallen into their trap. You also I suspect at some point!

In reply to Gish28:

On the flip side, one of my brother's neighbours backed into my car on Sunday. Her husband came straight round with his details. My cars nothing special really but obviously I don't want to pay for someone else's mistake.

I took the car home and washed it to see the damage better - it's nothing really, just a hand sized dent in the back door and he had the decency not to try to hide it so; I've asked my brother to tell him I'll buy a second hand door as soon as I find one in the right colour and condition and send him the bill (about £75 by the looks of it). It really doesn't need to be a major drama.

However, if I'd watched her do it and she then drove off pretending nothing had happened, things would've been very different - a bit of courtesy goes a long way in my book.