This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Hello UKC, font of all knowledge.
I was in the car park of a well-known burger chain minding my own business and reading the paper when a bloody caravan slammed in to the back of my little car, damaging the bumper/boot leaving me with a knackered back.
So, the police arrived and it turns out the caravan wasn't insured, only the car.
I've reported it to the f*cking useless PC Plod and he said nothing he can do it about it it's between the two of us.
SO if the caravan's not insured, is there anyway I can get him to pay for the repairs to my car? Preferably avoiding the small claims (waste of time) court?
I have this address/pictures of the damage/pictures of his caravan pushed against my car.
Anyone have any ideas? If I was to speak to my insurance company would it be registered as a claim? Will I lose my NCB/Excess? Can I claim against his car insurance (The caravan was about to be fixed on to the tow-bar but obviously wasn't at the time of the impact)
A very unhappy Sam_In_Leeds with a bruised back.
I was in the car park of a well-known burger chain minding my own business and reading the paper when a bloody caravan slammed in to the back of my little car, damaging the bumper/boot leaving me with a knackered back.
So, the police arrived and it turns out the caravan wasn't insured, only the car.
I've reported it to the f*cking useless PC Plod and he said nothing he can do it about it it's between the two of us.
SO if the caravan's not insured, is there anyway I can get him to pay for the repairs to my car? Preferably avoiding the small claims (waste of time) court?
I have this address/pictures of the damage/pictures of his caravan pushed against my car.
Anyone have any ideas? If I was to speak to my insurance company would it be registered as a claim? Will I lose my NCB/Excess? Can I claim against his car insurance (The caravan was about to be fixed on to the tow-bar but obviously wasn't at the time of the impact)
A very unhappy Sam_In_Leeds with a bruised back.
In reply to Sam_in_Leeds:
I'd talk to your insurance company. They should represent your interests and if they can recover the repair costs from the other party you shouldn't loose your no claims. Is the caravan wasn't attached to the tow hitch I can understand that it may be a difficult situation for claiming but it may turn out that they have some kind of third party liability insurance that would cover them.
I'd talk to your insurance company. They should represent your interests and if they can recover the repair costs from the other party you shouldn't loose your no claims. Is the caravan wasn't attached to the tow hitch I can understand that it may be a difficult situation for claiming but it may turn out that they have some kind of third party liability insurance that would cover them.
In reply to Sam_in_Leeds:
An account that will no doubt endear you to any police officers with helpful advice.
A bruised back from someone pushing a caravan into your car? Really? Even if this could be true, have you no pride?
An account that will no doubt endear you to any police officers with helpful advice.
A bruised back from someone pushing a caravan into your car? Really? Even if this could be true, have you no pride?
In reply to Andrew Wilson:
I thought the same. Come on, lets see photos of this bruised back. I rolled my wife's car on the motorway last year and appear to have walked away better off than yourself.
>
> A bruised back from someone pushing a caravan into your car? Really? Even if this could be true, have you no pride?
I thought the same. Come on, lets see photos of this bruised back. I rolled my wife's car on the motorway last year and appear to have walked away better off than yourself.
In reply to Nigel Thomson:
I took it to just mean the back of his car to be honest.
Possibly worth checking which he means before being critical?
I took it to just mean the back of his car to be honest.
Possibly worth checking which he means before being critical?
Post edited at 00:46
In reply to Sam_in_Leeds:
How is this obvious? Maybe it's obvious to you, as you were there, but your lackadaisical reporting makes NO ASPECT of this incident clear at all.
I'll lay my cards on the table - I think you are an obnoxious person both online and even more so in person (yes, I have seen you in the flesh), BUT I accept that you've been involved in some sort of "no fault" vehicle incident for which you have my genuine sympathy, but your OP does not paint you in a good light as it is so vague an petulant.
Try rewriting it in the language of a mature and calmed-down adult, and you will hopefully elicit a few more answers about the legal/insurance aspects of this incident. Good luck with it (sincerely)
Best not to slag off the police, the insurance companies, and the fuzzy-wuzzies though.
> (The caravan was about to be fixed on to the tow-bar but obviously wasn't at the time of the impact)
How is this obvious? Maybe it's obvious to you, as you were there, but your lackadaisical reporting makes NO ASPECT of this incident clear at all.
I'll lay my cards on the table - I think you are an obnoxious person both online and even more so in person (yes, I have seen you in the flesh), BUT I accept that you've been involved in some sort of "no fault" vehicle incident for which you have my genuine sympathy, but your OP does not paint you in a good light as it is so vague an petulant.
Try rewriting it in the language of a mature and calmed-down adult, and you will hopefully elicit a few more answers about the legal/insurance aspects of this incident. Good luck with it (sincerely)
Best not to slag off the police, the insurance companies, and the fuzzy-wuzzies though.
In reply to Timmd:
Note to self, he did mentioned a bruised back...read more carefully,
> I took it to just mean the back of his car to be honest.
> Possibly worth checking which he means before being critical?
Note to self, he did mentioned a bruised back...read more carefully,
In reply to Timmd:
Suspicous... a caravan is just foam.. it takes a huge hit to bruise a back... in a car park?? how fast were they going?
Suspicous... a caravan is just foam.. it takes a huge hit to bruise a back... in a car park?? how fast were they going?
In reply to xplorer:
Possibly yes. Tired after a hectic works trip abroad. But Sam's OP is a little vague, and he is still obnoxious (less so than 7-8 years ago, but that's not saying much)
> It seems your are just as angry as the op dude.
Possibly yes. Tired after a hectic works trip abroad. But Sam's OP is a little vague, and he is still obnoxious (less so than 7-8 years ago, but that's not saying much)
In reply to Blue Straggler:
You shouldn't let his politics cloud your knife sharp legal mind though. I'm puzzled how a caravan could have an accident without being towed, or reversed, by a car though too? I would have thought that the OP's insurance company would have dealt with the matter with the owner or user of the caravan anyway. If the owner had no insurance then he would be in trouble for sure as the insurance company would sue him. I don't quite see why Sam's insurance company isn't taking care of the matter, nothing to do with the police anyway.
You shouldn't let his politics cloud your knife sharp legal mind though. I'm puzzled how a caravan could have an accident without being towed, or reversed, by a car though too? I would have thought that the OP's insurance company would have dealt with the matter with the owner or user of the caravan anyway. If the owner had no insurance then he would be in trouble for sure as the insurance company would sue him. I don't quite see why Sam's insurance company isn't taking care of the matter, nothing to do with the police anyway.
In reply to Sam_in_Leeds:
I can easily see how some morons manoeuvring a caravan around in a McDonalds car park can hit a parked car (think: large shopping trolley). I can equally see, when detached from a car it is uninsured.
What I don't get is why are these potential death traps still allowed on the roads? Won't someone please think of the children?
I can easily see how some morons manoeuvring a caravan around in a McDonalds car park can hit a parked car (think: large shopping trolley). I can equally see, when detached from a car it is uninsured.
What I don't get is why are these potential death traps still allowed on the roads? Won't someone please think of the children?
In reply to IainRUK:
During the big floods in the UK in 2008 (I think it was 2008...or was it 2009?) I couldn't get my car into Worcester city centre because the last passable bridge that I needed to use was put out of action due to structural weakening from being repeatedly hit by a caravan adrift in the swollen river...
During the big floods in the UK in 2008 (I think it was 2008...or was it 2009?) I couldn't get my car into Worcester city centre because the last passable bridge that I needed to use was put out of action due to structural weakening from being repeatedly hit by a caravan adrift in the swollen river...
In reply to xplorer:
I had my suspicions and kept them quiet but now I am calling "troll" on this.
> It seems your are just as angry as the op dude.
I had my suspicions and kept them quiet but now I am calling "troll" on this.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
> "troll"
Oh, I hope not. I had a good chuckle at the idea of 2 pints trying to claim for whiplash or whatever because an unhitched caravan bumped into his car. In reply to Sam_in_Leeds:
Your only option, if the owner of the caravan is not volunteering to cough up as he should, just as if he'd hit your car with anything else and caused serious damage (like say a fully loaded supermarket trolley), is to sue him. He will then claim from any insurance policy relevant, or be forced to pay himself.
Given how flimsy caravans are, though, I can't see how you could have ended up with a serious injury, unless you weren't in your car and it hit you?
Neil
Your only option, if the owner of the caravan is not volunteering to cough up as he should, just as if he'd hit your car with anything else and caused serious damage (like say a fully loaded supermarket trolley), is to sue him. He will then claim from any insurance policy relevant, or be forced to pay himself.
Given how flimsy caravans are, though, I can't see how you could have ended up with a serious injury, unless you weren't in your car and it hit you?
Neil
Post edited at 11:05
In reply to woolsack:
wow there was one blown into a river in the pass, it was destroyed in a few hours.. it was just so flimsy..
wow there was one blown into a river in the pass, it was destroyed in a few hours.. it was just so flimsy..
In reply to IainRUK:
Don't forget; these flimsy caravans are usually assembled onto a pretty substantial chassis made of steel girders.
Don't forget; these flimsy caravans are usually assembled onto a pretty substantial chassis made of steel girders.
In reply to Sam_in_Leeds:
It`s not on the Public Highway so of no interest to the Police, so your first port of call is to get a quote for the damage and send it to them, and really they should pay, and really being a bit Stereotypical I would have thought a caravanner might do the decent thing.
I to am a little intrigued about your injured back. If your sat reading a Paper in a Car Park, I would have thought you would be not wearing a seatbelt and if the Caravan hit with sufficient force to bruise your back, it would have flung you forwards and smashed your face on the Steering wheel, and if you had your seatbelt on it would have to be a hell of a smash as Military planes have you sat facing away from impact to avoid just this type of thing.
It`s not on the Public Highway so of no interest to the Police, so your first port of call is to get a quote for the damage and send it to them, and really they should pay, and really being a bit Stereotypical I would have thought a caravanner might do the decent thing.
I to am a little intrigued about your injured back. If your sat reading a Paper in a Car Park, I would have thought you would be not wearing a seatbelt and if the Caravan hit with sufficient force to bruise your back, it would have flung you forwards and smashed your face on the Steering wheel, and if you had your seatbelt on it would have to be a hell of a smash as Military planes have you sat facing away from impact to avoid just this type of thing.
In reply to Andy DB:
No, but your insurance premiums will still go up because you made a claim. There is no point in protecting your no claims bonus because it is worthless if you make a claim anyway. You still get charged more.
> I'd talk to your insurance company. They should represent your interests and if they can recover the repair costs from the other party you shouldn't loose your no claims.
No, but your insurance premiums will still go up because you made a claim. There is no point in protecting your no claims bonus because it is worthless if you make a claim anyway. You still get charged more.
In reply to ByEek:
"No, but your insurance premiums will still go up because you made a claim."
If there is full recovery that is not classed as a claim. They might go up a bit because you were involved in a non-fault accident. You are obliged to report this to your insurance company even if you do not claim via them. (Some people might not do this, but the way insurance companies share information these days I would consider it extremely unwise, and it is legally fraud).
Personally, I would go via my policy (fully comp with legal protection) for any accident involving another vehicle, my fault or otherwise. Indeed, the legal protection would help me sue if I were in your situation.
"There is no point in protecting your no claims bonus because it is worthless if you make a claim anyway. You still get charged more."
This is completely untrue. When you make a claim on a normal insurance policy, two things happen. The first is that you lose your no claims discount. The second is that your base premium increases because the accident means you are seen as a higher risk. The first will, unless you are a very young driver, make *far* more difference to your premium than the second. So yes, it *is* worth protecting your NCD, as if you do your premium will increase by a small amount, but not by the significant amount it will if you lose NCD.
Neil
"No, but your insurance premiums will still go up because you made a claim."
If there is full recovery that is not classed as a claim. They might go up a bit because you were involved in a non-fault accident. You are obliged to report this to your insurance company even if you do not claim via them. (Some people might not do this, but the way insurance companies share information these days I would consider it extremely unwise, and it is legally fraud).
Personally, I would go via my policy (fully comp with legal protection) for any accident involving another vehicle, my fault or otherwise. Indeed, the legal protection would help me sue if I were in your situation.
"There is no point in protecting your no claims bonus because it is worthless if you make a claim anyway. You still get charged more."
This is completely untrue. When you make a claim on a normal insurance policy, two things happen. The first is that you lose your no claims discount. The second is that your base premium increases because the accident means you are seen as a higher risk. The first will, unless you are a very young driver, make *far* more difference to your premium than the second. So yes, it *is* worth protecting your NCD, as if you do your premium will increase by a small amount, but not by the significant amount it will if you lose NCD.
Neil
Post edited at 16:38
In reply to Neil Williams:
I hear your words, and I am sure you are right, but I am not convinced. Only the other day, there were reports on the radio of a woman who had had a fraudulent claim made against her. Despite what she told them, her renewals went up significantly. 7 months on and they are still investigating and she still has the promise of increased premiums in the future.
If there is one thing about insurance companies - if they can screw you over, they will and if they can't, there is some small print to ensure that they can anyway.
Even the 14 day legal cooling off period money-back guarantee has been worked around now and you may find that your premium now includes a non-refundable booking fee.
I hear your words, and I am sure you are right, but I am not convinced. Only the other day, there were reports on the radio of a woman who had had a fraudulent claim made against her. Despite what she told them, her renewals went up significantly. 7 months on and they are still investigating and she still has the promise of increased premiums in the future.
If there is one thing about insurance companies - if they can screw you over, they will and if they can't, there is some small print to ensure that they can anyway.
Even the 14 day legal cooling off period money-back guarantee has been worked around now and you may find that your premium now includes a non-refundable booking fee.
In reply to ByEek:
"Only the other day, there were reports on the radio of a woman who had had a fraudulent claim made against her. Despite what she told them, her renewals went up significantly. 7 months on and they are still investigating and she still has the promise of increased premiums in the future."
The way they work is to assume an at-fault claim until proven otherwise. So this does not actually contradict with what I was saying.
"If there is one thing about insurance companies - if they can screw you over, they will and if they can't, there is some small print to ensure that they can anyway."
There is that...
"Even the 14 day legal cooling off period money-back guarantee has been worked around now and you may find that your premium now includes a non-refundable booking fee."
I don't see that as unreasonable. You have researched the policy (if you have any sense - the full wording is available before you take it out) and have chosen not to take it. Why shouldn't they be compensated for the administrative cost?
I think the same about the DSR, to be honest. The cooling off period is good, but I think carriage should be nonrefundable and the return should be at the purchaser's expense. Companies should not be forced to offer a "try before you buy" facility if they don't commercially want to.
Neil
"Only the other day, there were reports on the radio of a woman who had had a fraudulent claim made against her. Despite what she told them, her renewals went up significantly. 7 months on and they are still investigating and she still has the promise of increased premiums in the future."
The way they work is to assume an at-fault claim until proven otherwise. So this does not actually contradict with what I was saying.
"If there is one thing about insurance companies - if they can screw you over, they will and if they can't, there is some small print to ensure that they can anyway."
There is that...
"Even the 14 day legal cooling off period money-back guarantee has been worked around now and you may find that your premium now includes a non-refundable booking fee."
I don't see that as unreasonable. You have researched the policy (if you have any sense - the full wording is available before you take it out) and have chosen not to take it. Why shouldn't they be compensated for the administrative cost?
I think the same about the DSR, to be honest. The cooling off period is good, but I think carriage should be nonrefundable and the return should be at the purchaser's expense. Companies should not be forced to offer a "try before you buy" facility if they don't commercially want to.
Neil
Post edited at 17:07
In reply to ByEek:
Think you will find that you are contractually obliged to inform them of any accident you are involved in claim or not. If the police have been there is an official record so i would tell your insurance or they could accuse you of insurance fraud.
In conclusion you will probably find your insurance company will screw you what ever you do.
Think you will find that you are contractually obliged to inform them of any accident you are involved in claim or not. If the police have been there is an official record so i would tell your insurance or they could accuse you of insurance fraud.
In conclusion you will probably find your insurance company will screw you what ever you do.
In reply to Andy DB:
Not all that surprising when you consider insurance is basically gambling. You bet you will crash your car, they bet you won't.
Neil
Not all that surprising when you consider insurance is basically gambling. You bet you will crash your car, they bet you won't.
Neil
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Vendetta much? If he's actually knackered his back I'm sure he'll have to provide evidence.
Don't know Sam from adam so I take it you think he is a bit od a dodgy dealer?
People are clamping down on whiplash claims so the O.P should be very careful here.
Vendetta much? If he's actually knackered his back I'm sure he'll have to provide evidence.
Don't know Sam from adam so I take it you think he is a bit od a dodgy dealer?
People are clamping down on whiplash claims so the O.P should be very careful here.
In reply to FreshSlate:
I think it's his politics/world view, rather than anything dishonesty related.
It's not relevant to the thread, though.
I think it's his politics/world view, rather than anything dishonesty related.
It's not relevant to the thread, though.
In reply to Sam_in_Leeds:
Do you know, some old dear in a merc hit our car in a car park and dented the doors. We exchanged details but I never bothered claiming. The paint wasn't broken and even though the cars only 5 years old it really wasn't worth mending. There was something quite liberating about just letting it go and not being a dick and spoiling her day. Take a chill pill.
Do you know, some old dear in a merc hit our car in a car park and dented the doors. We exchanged details but I never bothered claiming. The paint wasn't broken and even though the cars only 5 years old it really wasn't worth mending. There was something quite liberating about just letting it go and not being a dick and spoiling her day. Take a chill pill.
In reply to tatty112:
Same thing when a young lass slid backwards into our car on sheet ice in Austria last year - didn't really do any damage, and she was distraught, so we just told her to forget about it.
JW
Same thing when a young lass slid backwards into our car on sheet ice in Austria last year - didn't really do any damage, and she was distraught, so we just told her to forget about it.
JW
In reply to graeme jackson:
I know but there's a lot around it which isn't. But reversing a caravan in a car park.. a cars bumper will take a good 5mph impact.. I'm suspicious and must admit I think the OP wants his days off work and a bit of compo..
I know but there's a lot around it which isn't. But reversing a caravan in a car park.. a cars bumper will take a good 5mph impact.. I'm suspicious and must admit I think the OP wants his days off work and a bit of compo..
In reply to Neil Williams:
So why was the 14 day cooling off law introduced? And in any case, such administrative costs are in reality tiny. For an online transaction, it is basically the cost of any card handling fee + the cost to the card handler to administer the refund i.e. a few pounds. This is compared to the administration fees of £50 - £100 that companies often claim. We give money back guarantees. It costs us to do so but we also have an unrivalled reputation for being honest and fair with our customers.
Now can you say those words in the same sentence of any insurance company? Personally, the only words I can think of when I think about insurance are rip off, scam, money grabbing bar-stewards and poor service.
> I don't see that as unreasonable. You have researched the policy (if you have any sense - the full wording is available before you take it out) and have chosen not to take it. Why shouldn't they be compensated for the administrative cost?
So why was the 14 day cooling off law introduced? And in any case, such administrative costs are in reality tiny. For an online transaction, it is basically the cost of any card handling fee + the cost to the card handler to administer the refund i.e. a few pounds. This is compared to the administration fees of £50 - £100 that companies often claim. We give money back guarantees. It costs us to do so but we also have an unrivalled reputation for being honest and fair with our customers.
Now can you say those words in the same sentence of any insurance company? Personally, the only words I can think of when I think about insurance are rip off, scam, money grabbing bar-stewards and poor service.
In reply to tatty112:
Did you tell her that, by the way? She might have an outstanding possible claim stuck on her policy otherwise. That'd ruin her day a lot more.
Neil
Did you tell her that, by the way? She might have an outstanding possible claim stuck on her policy otherwise. That'd ruin her day a lot more.
Neil
Post edited at 09:36
In reply to ByEek:
I can't recall having had an issue with Direct Line or More Than, but I'll give you that those are the *only* two I can speak vaguely highly of.
They also happen to be two insurers who *don't* go after the bottom of the market. As with Ryanair, you can't expect to get good service if your criteria are simply "who's the cheapest".
We brought the race to the bottom on ourselves by prioritising price over quality and service.
Neil
I can't recall having had an issue with Direct Line or More Than, but I'll give you that those are the *only* two I can speak vaguely highly of.
They also happen to be two insurers who *don't* go after the bottom of the market. As with Ryanair, you can't expect to get good service if your criteria are simply "who's the cheapest".
We brought the race to the bottom on ourselves by prioritising price over quality and service.
Neil
Post edited at 09:38
In reply to Neil Williams:
No need to, she wanted to pay for the repairs without involving insurance companies. The older i'm getting the less bothered i'm becoming about my car and the general state of it. As long as it works who really cares.
Driving flashy smart cars is just a bunch of willy waving
No need to, she wanted to pay for the repairs without involving insurance companies. The older i'm getting the less bothered i'm becoming about my car and the general state of it. As long as it works who really cares.
Driving flashy smart cars is just a bunch of willy waving
In reply to tatty112:
"No need to, she wanted to pay for the repairs without involving insurance companies."
Given how personal injury claims seem to appear out of nowhere these days, I would not even consider that regardless of the damage, unless it was so minor (door ding, bumper scratch) that most people would be letting it go on the spot and not exchanging any details.
"Driving flashy smart cars is just a bunch of willy waving"
If you damage someone else's property, you pay to put it right. Doesn't matter how flashy it is.
And if personal injury claims were limited to proper personal injuries, like life-changing stuff like disability, I'd be happy to do it that way. But not while it's possible to claim for a couple of days' of sore neck.
Neil
"No need to, she wanted to pay for the repairs without involving insurance companies."
Given how personal injury claims seem to appear out of nowhere these days, I would not even consider that regardless of the damage, unless it was so minor (door ding, bumper scratch) that most people would be letting it go on the spot and not exchanging any details.
"Driving flashy smart cars is just a bunch of willy waving"
If you damage someone else's property, you pay to put it right. Doesn't matter how flashy it is.
And if personal injury claims were limited to proper personal injuries, like life-changing stuff like disability, I'd be happy to do it that way. But not while it's possible to claim for a couple of days' of sore neck.
Neil
Post edited at 13:21
In reply to Neil Williams:
Well, what ever, each to their own. I prefer not to worry about those sorts of things. If I had my way there would be no such thing as personal injury claims. As soon as you get in a car you take your chances.
Well, what ever, each to their own. I prefer not to worry about those sorts of things. If I had my way there would be no such thing as personal injury claims. As soon as you get in a car you take your chances.
In reply to Sam_in_Leeds:
The caravanner's car ins won't cover this . Your only option is to gather evidence of damage and present this to the owner to come to an amicable agreement; give them a time limit, then move on to legal action. Check your house policy- it might actually cover this, and your own car ins- does it include uninsured loss?
Forget the "bruised back" - you need to present evidence of this and as it will not represent a financial loss ( take any unpaid sick leave? )
Good luck
The caravanner's car ins won't cover this . Your only option is to gather evidence of damage and present this to the owner to come to an amicable agreement; give them a time limit, then move on to legal action. Check your house policy- it might actually cover this, and your own car ins- does it include uninsured loss?
Forget the "bruised back" - you need to present evidence of this and as it will not represent a financial loss ( take any unpaid sick leave? )
Good luck
In reply to Sam_in_Leeds:
Do you know, I could tell you exactly what you need to do. I could probably even forward you a few useful forms and sites that would guide you through the process.
But seeing as I'm a f*cking useless PC Plod...you work it out yourself. Have a good day sir.
> I've reported it to the f*cking useless PC Plod and he said nothing he can do it about it it's between the two of us.
Do you know, I could tell you exactly what you need to do. I could probably even forward you a few useful forms and sites that would guide you through the process.
But seeing as I'm a f*cking useless PC Plod...you work it out yourself. Have a good day sir.
Post edited at 20:04
In reply to Infinite Granite:
I thought chortle too, though he only called one policeman a f*cking useless PC Plod. ()
I thought chortle too, though he only called one policeman a f*cking useless PC Plod. ()
In reply to FreshSlate:
No vendetta. As Timmd suggests, Sam has a long history of airing unpopular opinions on here and being flamed for doing so. I've called "troll" here because his OP is a little vague and poorly thought out, he has not replied since Saturday, and I suspect him of trying to have a little fun by "aping" his own online persona. He just hasn't done a very good job of it here. I don't think the incident occurred at all.
> Vendetta much? If he's actually knackered his back I'm sure he'll have to provide evidence.
> Don't know Sam from adam so I take it you think he is a bit od a dodgy dealer?
No vendetta. As Timmd suggests, Sam has a long history of airing unpopular opinions on here and being flamed for doing so. I've called "troll" here because his OP is a little vague and poorly thought out, he has not replied since Saturday, and I suspect him of trying to have a little fun by "aping" his own online persona. He just hasn't done a very good job of it here. I don't think the incident occurred at all.
In reply to tatty112:
"Well, what ever, each to their own. I prefer not to worry about those sorts of things."
I guess we differ there. There might be an element of it depending on the cause of the accident as well. People who slam doors back on cars are rude and inconsiderate and deserve at the very least a stern talking to, as do people who drive in an aggressive, inconsiderate manner and by so doing cause accidents. OTOH, someone slipping on sheet ice might just be unlucky.
"If I had my way there would be no such thing as personal injury claims. As soon as you get in a car you take your chances."
I'm near-enough with you on that one, except a situation where there will be a real on-going financial cost to providing care for serious injuries. I had an accident a while ago where someone went into the back of me, I did get a bit of whiplash. I didn't claim for that, because money doesn't remove pain. I did of course claim for the £1200 damage to the car to be rectified. I can't even see that I'd claim for, say, the loss of a finger or something. But if I had to have my house adapted for wheelchair use because of an accident, I would want that cost covered.
Basically to me - you crash into me, you pay the direct financial cost of rectifying the situation. I'm not, however, interested in money for anguish as money can't do anything about anguish. I'd rather have a genuine heartfelt apology, and if the accident was caused by shitty driving a promise of some action to rectify it, e.g. a willingness to take extra driving lessons, if it was caused by drink-driving a resolution to go dry, or indeed (say in the case of an elderly person with failing senses) perhaps even a choice to give up driving. IOW, anything to prevent that person causing similar anguish to someone else.
Neil
"Well, what ever, each to their own. I prefer not to worry about those sorts of things."
I guess we differ there. There might be an element of it depending on the cause of the accident as well. People who slam doors back on cars are rude and inconsiderate and deserve at the very least a stern talking to, as do people who drive in an aggressive, inconsiderate manner and by so doing cause accidents. OTOH, someone slipping on sheet ice might just be unlucky.
"If I had my way there would be no such thing as personal injury claims. As soon as you get in a car you take your chances."
I'm near-enough with you on that one, except a situation where there will be a real on-going financial cost to providing care for serious injuries. I had an accident a while ago where someone went into the back of me, I did get a bit of whiplash. I didn't claim for that, because money doesn't remove pain. I did of course claim for the £1200 damage to the car to be rectified. I can't even see that I'd claim for, say, the loss of a finger or something. But if I had to have my house adapted for wheelchair use because of an accident, I would want that cost covered.
Basically to me - you crash into me, you pay the direct financial cost of rectifying the situation. I'm not, however, interested in money for anguish as money can't do anything about anguish. I'd rather have a genuine heartfelt apology, and if the accident was caused by shitty driving a promise of some action to rectify it, e.g. a willingness to take extra driving lessons, if it was caused by drink-driving a resolution to go dry, or indeed (say in the case of an elderly person with failing senses) perhaps even a choice to give up driving. IOW, anything to prevent that person causing similar anguish to someone else.
Neil
Post edited at 09:39
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...