UKC

First, a rant. A few weeks ago a motorcyclist lost control on a bend and ploughed into the side of my car. Luckily he wasn't going that fast and only broke his wrist. My car was quite badly damaged though. It was finally ready today, I picked it up from the bodyshop, stopped for 10 minutes in a car park and some bastard has smashed into it, door out of shape, electric windows broken etc. And the wanker's driven off, no note.

It happened in a big shopping centre car park with lots of CCTV coverage. Not had a chance to ring yet, but anticipating they won't be that bothered, do I have any rights to request the CCTV footage? Do I need to through the police first? It's not just the money. I just don't want the tosser to get away with it. Any advice appreciated. Sorry for the swearwords.

In reply to chris_s:

I've no advice for you mate but I can offer some moral support. Sounds like you've had a sh*tter of a day

In reply to chris_s:

Forget what you're entitled to. There's no law stopping you going to the store and asking, is there?

Secondly if you do that and then tell the police, they may well insist the store hand the tape over for use as their evidence. I wouldn't worry what order you do it in either. Just do it!!

In reply to chris_s:

What he said. ^ Maybe ring the police and ask them if they think it would be helpful, they might say yes and then you can tell the store you've had the police recommend you get footage of what happened?

In reply to chris_s:


Well first you are required by law to notify the police within 24H, it's a criminal offense to not report a traffic collision if names couln't be exchanged, even if you are the victim.
I know it's crazy but I was victim of a hit and run like you and when I went to the police 28h after (instead of 24), I got a scolding and got told that they might prosecute me ! (In the end they didn't).

So advice, go to the police asap, take your mot, v5, insurance certificate, and driving license with you. They will investigate and get the cctv footage.

In reply to chris_s:
anticipating they won't be that bothered, do I have any rights to request the CCTV footage? Do I need to through the police first?

Trust me it'll be a toss up between the shopping centre and the police for the title of who which one of them couldn't give the shit most. Do you SERIOUSLY think the police are going to assign someone to sit there watching CCTV to find out who the driver is??? Your either deluded or smoking something illegal...... You'll be told to F'off and claim on your insurance and stop wasting police time.

Before anyone says anything been there done that got the T-shirt with a huge bucket of sugar and salt popcorn.

Edit: goes with out saying, sorry to hear of your shit day.

In reply to chris_s:

I'd contact the shop asap even without having called the cops just in case they pull the "we only keep the tapes for a day" thing.

But I would also report the crime asap as some insurers have a time limit between incidents and reporting.

Thanks all... Will be onto the police and the shopping centre first thing.

In reply to Antigua:

I had my bike stolen from outside Morrisons. The police chased up the CCTV, but there wasn't a camera where I needed it. Just assuming one bad experience means that's the norm isn't usually a good idea. And just because somebody works in a shop, doesn't mean they don't care, and won't make an effort if they can.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

So your saying they spent 2 minutes ringing up Morrison who told them sorry no CCTV. They then break the news to you. Total cost of police time £1.50 and a happy punter who thinks the police give a shit. Win/Win

As opposed to the OP where they'd have to make an official request .Then the Shopping Centre would then need to make copies of multiple CCTV camera's footage at there cost. Then somebody would need to spend hours watching CCTV to identify the perp and collate all the evidence. Then they'd either need to prosecute or caution. More money more time. In this time of cuts where is this money coming from and is it a good use of resources? OR is going after murderers and rapists a better use of the money?

In reply to chris_s:

I'd be really interested in how this works out.

In reply to Antigua: Not 'hours watching'. The OP was in there for ten minutes and knows where he parked. Footage from two or three cameras, fast forward to the appropriate time and watch. Forty minutes tops, including the time it takes to make a brew first.

T.
And for the OP, your language was a modicum of restraint. My outpourings would have turned the air blue across Western Europe.

In reply to Antigua:

You said the police would say f**k off, stop wasting our time. I was just saying, that won't necessarily happen. Maybe going in there with a bad attitude was your problem?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

If you still have the till receipt, it might give you an approx time stamp to work around?

In reply to chris_s:
Buy an old banger for shopping etc. never take your pride and joy shopping, and if you really must take it to the supermarket, park it away at the back of the car park where the other people who value their cars park. ( even if they have to walk a distance)
They will be more careful not to scratch theirs, and by default ( yours)

When we park ours (with all it's dings and scratches people avoid parking beside us
( n.b we bought it with the dents)

(Sorry you had such a crap day)

In reply to gethin_allen:



Good point, they will probably expect that the OP will have taken photos in situ, too, recording position , time date etc.

In reply to Antigua:

Then somebody would need to spend hours watching CCTV to identify the perp and collate all the evidence.

The OP said they were there only 10 mins, so assuming they recorded the time, it will be a quick check, not hours.

It is a good point though to look for the CCTV cameras and park in their field of view .

In reply to Antigua:

This is why I asked if I had any rights to see the CCTV. I anticipate the shopping centre not caring much and wouldn't expect the police to pull out all the stops. But someone has caused criminal damage to my car and driven away. That's worth reporting.

In reply to chris_s:

Sorry to hear that - that's crap

My parents-in-law have had a note through the door asking for witnesses for someone's car that got smashed into at the weekend. They live down a dead-end road and someone hit the car when leaving early Sunday morning, so someone knows who it was.

In reply to Antigua:


No you wouldn't. You wrote "Before anyone says anything been there done that got the T-shirt"

In reply to chris_s:

You have a right to obtain a copy of any video images of you under the Data Protection Act. It might not be the shop that runs security for the car park though but, by law, there has to be a sign displayed in the car park with the address of the operators. They can charge a fee for admin, usually about £10. hope this helps.

In reply to bleddynmawr:

Thanks, yes - that does help.

In reply to bleddynmawr:


The key word being "you". You don't have a right to images of others, even if they hit your car. You may get it but not as of right.

In reply to chris_s:

If you go tothe supermarket and ask to speak to whoever is manning the CCTV room, and is almost certainly bored out of his tree and would love the distraction of 10 minutes doing something useful, you may well be surprised how much help you get.

Most decent sized stores have manned CCV rooms watching for shoplifters not carpark issues, but I would have thought all the cameras would be accessible

In reply to chris_s:

Not much fun to have your car damaged and no note left.
But on the other hand, here is my story:

I backed into a car into a supermarket and caused some very minimal damage to a rather old and, dare i say, crappy car.
The owner was in it at the time and i just told him to send me a bill if he was to get it repaired.

Some weeks later i receive a letter saying that the local garage wouldn't repair it as it would cost more than the car was worth and so they are now pursuing it through my insurance company.
I have to say to this wtf!
The damage was a small dent and a scratch to a car in very poor shape anyway and with probably no resell value to speak of.
So, it looks like they are just trying to get as much as they can from the situation, and it will probably end up costing me a small fortune through my premiums.

Had it been me, i would either have said don't worry about it mate, not the end of the world. Or maybe, would have settled for 100 quid or so to repair the damage.

It is this 'get whatever you can from the situation' attitude that may well put people off coming clean.

In reply to Kimono:
It's not for you to judge. The owner has the right to have the damage put back exactly as it was before, or if the cost of doing that properly is more than the value of the car to receive the value of the car as a write-off (actually, in a way I'd argue that doesn't matter and it should be repaired whatever the cost, as the owner might be quite attached to it, but that's not how insurance works). Doesn't matter what they have or what condition it is in.

Personally I would always go through insurance, as there are too many people out there who cannot be trusted (present company excepted).

I do object to people claiming for non-existent injuries, e.g. I had minor whiplash once but it was just a pain in the neck (ha!) so didn't claim for it. I equally think that if you damage someone's property you should pay the full financial cost of putting it back exactly as it was, properly, and not just using a tub of filler and a can of spray paint.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


My wife had an accident where she touched a nearly new little Toyota when reversing. There was no damage on our car and a tiny scratch on the Toyota. The Toyota owner went to a dealer and got the bumper swapped out, the whole of the front of the car resprayed and a couple of weeks rental car. Total cost about £2,500. She could have got a reasonable repair to just the scuffed spot for a couple of hundred.

Our insurance refused to pay because the cost was unreasonable and the thing went to court. I think in the end the two insurance companies compromised before the hearing. But there were presumably a bunch of lawyer bills to add to the £2,500.

The problem with the principle of making everything perfect is that it costs an absolute fortune compared with a 'reasonable' repair and the outcome is to enrich garages and insurance companies and it just drives up premiums and makes owning a car more expensive for everyone.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Another problem is when insurers insist on using their 'preferred repairer'... who charge the other side £800 for a £400 repair; the preferred repairer then gives the insurer the other £400 as a kickback/'referral' fee.

(numbers made up)

In reply to chris_s:

How about just accepting that life is not perfect? Ok, so you get a little dent in your car….so what? Do you not buy a car because it has a small dent? Really, there are more important things in life.

I live half the year in a more developing country and to be honest, knocks against cars are just part of life.The thought of leaving a note would be quite laughable to the locals!

We are just a bit obsessed about perceived perfection over here...

In reply to Kimono: It'll only be a small increase in your premiums, not important in the great scheme of things. Of course you could always learn to park.

In reply to Kimono:
Again, that is your choice. You don't get to impose that choice on those who take more care of their vehicles. It isn't rude IMO to ask if they will accept a few hundred for a repair, but I would always refuse and I would expect you to take that refusal gracefully.

The main reason I would refuse, FWIW, has far less to do with how perfect the repair would be, and far more to do with those who claim things like personal injury after the event, even where at fault. Therefore, I would always leave it to my insurer (I always take fully comp with legal protection, so would claim off my insurance who then hit the other insurance to get my excess back) to sort out the issue.

Neil

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
There is always the option of being more careful and not crashing. Some major accidents will happen, sometimes in bad weather, but not hitting things when parking is not exactly rocket science. If someone is that bad at judging, get out and look if you have enough room.

And if you stuff it up, expect to cough up to put things back as they were.

Neil

In reply to chris_s:

to those judging my parking skills, i would just say:
firstly: let he who is without sin etc etc
and secondly, you don't actually know about my parking skills or what exactly happened on this occasion, so maybe best not to judge too quickly eh?

Im not saying i wouldn't pay for damage etc, just why are people so obsessed about their possessions? and why do they feel they have to get as much as they possibly can from a situation?

In reply to Neil Williams:

My mate Ed wanted to know if I have ever backed into anything. I said no, because I do that rare and unusual thing- I use my mirros and look where I'm going.

this is the bloke who parked his car in a stone wall (going too fast, didn't make the corner).

Sx

In reply to Neil Williams:


Being careful and not crashing will get you a no claims bonus but it won't protect you from the basic relationship between premiums and the average cost of a repair. If insurance companies need to pay £2.5K for a minor scratch because people can demand showroom perfection even if it means respraying half a car then everybody pays more for insurance.

In reply to chris_s:


Quite the opposit I expect... if you talk to their security guard, - they tend to be real mini kings that will jump at the chance to nail someone for a crime.

Also remember that you don't need to know who was driving the car, only the car reg - then your insurers can persue it with the other car's insurer (if not insured, press them to make a recovery from the MIB)

(If you do get any resistance then point out that the sign says the cameras are their for crime prevention/detection and for your safety)

I witnessed someone do this when leaving a carpark recently, so wrote
down the reg, and waited for the owner to appear (we were leaving twickenham so knew he wouldn't be long) as it turned out no damage was done, but the offending driver didn't bother checking

In reply to Kimono:
"just why are people so obsessed about their possessions?"

Here's one reason you might not have thought of.

For those of us who drive newer cars by preference (the reason in my case being that I want my car to be very reliable and predictable in terms of costs, and because a newer car tends to be nicer to drive), it is a financial consideration because we resell the cars to replace them periodically. If damaged, they are worth less than they would be undamaged. Therefore, if you damage my car, you will pay to put it back in the condition it was in before you hit it (exactly that condition, not with an obvious filler patch or inconsistent paintwork). Otherwise, I lose money.

Another option would be that you pay me the loss, but the problem is I don't know that loss until such time as I sell it, and even then it is hard to quantify.

"why do they feel they have to get as much as they possibly can from a situation?"

Not the same at all.

Neil

In reply to andrewmcleod:

The only insurer that has been proven to do this (and for some reason won a courtcase when this was challenged in court is the RSA) all other insurers are trying to get this ruling reversed, as it makes it impossible for insurance companies to minimise costs (and tehrefore offer competitive premiums

In reply to Neil Williams:

fair enough. If i had a brand new car i would be very concerned as well. But if you read my OP, you will see that the car i bashed was a pile of junk and i doubt whether, even if it had a resale value, it would be affected by a little ding.

In reply to chris_s:

Shitter of a day mate.

Good luck with the CCTV, but I would bet my last £1 they are going to quote privacy, confidentiality and data protection crap at you.

I had a similar thing in my block of flats. The security guy, despite me being on very god terms with him (or so I though) quoted this nonsense at me. Despite my protests nothing happened.

In reply to Blue Straggler:


Errrrr yes I would. When I had my issue I asked other people about there experiences and got pretty much the same stories back. Police can't be bothered and the CCTV owners not wanting the hassle SO would be interested to know if others have any success.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Au contraire..... A work colleague left her iPhone 5s on a supermarket conveyor belt while buying lunch. She rushed back and spoke to the security guard at the door. He wound back his CCTV and saw the person behind her pocket it. Watching further he said that the person paid with a credit/debit card so it should be easy to trace them. Guard couldn't/wouldn't show her the person and said that any further inquiry had to go through the police. Police asked if she was insured. She was. They gave the impression that they weren't going to do anything about it. This proved bang on. She was told that it was a low level crime and the police had other more important things to spend their reduced budget on.

If the person who stole the phone or the one that damaged the OP's car thought they'd get found and punished then it would be a deterrent but they know the chances are super slim so they steal and do hit and runs..... I blame the police, what happened to the zero tolerance approach to policing?

In reply to Antigua:

How long ago was that as she should make a complaint against the relevant force. They are duty bound to investigate crime regardless of whether it is perceived as low level or not and if there is CCTV that shows the offender, especially one who then pays on a debit or credit card allowing them to be indentified then that is a line of enquiry the Police should be making.

I would have thought there would have an officer jumping up and down at the chance to get that on their workload as there is the possiblity of getting a detected crime out of it!

In reply to chris_s:


I reported an accident yesterday and practically the first thing the insurers asked about was whether there would be any CCTV. If they think there is some way to mitigate their loss by access to CCTV I think they will be pretty motivated to get hold of it.

Didn't apply in my case but fortunately there were lots of witnesses and the damage (front of the other car missing, ditto rear of mine) is pretty conclusive as to what happened.

In reply to Kimono:

Please read the OP again. Mainly I was sounding off because I was literally bringing my car home from the bodyshop when the damage was done. Crap week, you know? Secondly, this isn't just cosmetic damage. The windows don't work now!