Back in early September a runaway van slammed into the back of my mother's car. It was shunted about 8 feet down the road (she lives on a moderate hill). She was abroad at the time but the incident was witnessed by her neighbour who fortunately had a digital camera inside and he took quite a few pictures.
Her car is an elderly Volvo estate and despite the impact there is no visible damage. But quite rightly she wants to get it professionally inspected to make sure there is no hidden damage underneath. The car drives perfectly well but she wants it checked.
She is TPTF so is looking to claim off the other motorist. However they are refusing to report the incident to their insurance, who by coincidence is the same company as my mother's. The insurance company are saying that they can do no more until he reports the incident.
This seems a bit rough to me, there was a witness and we have provided the photographs that the neighbour took, but they won't budge on their position.
What options are available to her? She is elderly and doesn't need this hassle.
Thanks in anticipation of any advice.
|
Solictors letter and/or threat of small claims court might gee them up a bit.
|
|
|
If there is no damage what is she going to claim for.
If there is, it doesn't seem to be major, from what is stated. So it would be civil action to reclaim costs but bearing in mind, an old car then " betterment" could play a part and reduce these.
Funny but a letter claiming costs with threat of civil action addresses the mind to using what one pays for ---- Insurance
(cough, cough)
dvd
|
|
She wants to claim for the cost of an inspection and the cost of any repairs. There is no visible damage because it would appear that the towbar on the back of her car took the impact as the plastic cover was slightly deformed. However there could be other damage underneath that only a professional inspection would identify.
|
She wants to claim for the cost of an inspection and the cost of any repairs.
I thought body repair shops gave a free inspection on the basis that they'll recoup their money when they do the repair?
Take it to any VBRA approved repairer who *should* be suitably qualified to assess any damage. If any damage has been identified, then take it from there by the methods mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
|
|
|
|
I had the same problem some years ago when an old Vauxhall ran into the rear of my car at a zebra crossing. Both cars were badly damaged - the engine of his dropped out - and my car was crumpled and the back axle and transmission came adrift.
I had the other guys details, but he refused to make a claim and his company would not accept a claim through me. I sued him in the county court, against advice from friends who told me I'd lose. I won, and his insurance company paid out.
Getting solicitor's letters concentrated his mind wonderfully.
However, I knew the guy had money as he owned a scrap metal business. He probably drove around in scrap cars, because the one that hit me was just a pile of junk. My car was less than eighteen months old.
As your mother's car does not appear to be damaged I'm not sure how you should proceed. Perhaps have it checked over and present him with the bill. If he fails to pay up you could then take him to the small claims court.
|
|
|
It used to be a few years back that the insurance co had to receive a claim/notification from their insured.
This is no longer the case and the witness is sufficient for them to accept notification of an incident.
|
Remember, your claim is against the driver, not the insurance company.
They are merely his agent.
As has been said before, a solicitors letter should get things moving, but first establish exactly what your claim is.
|
Would have thought that the cost of an inspection if it proved that there was no damage could not be recovered, as there has to be a loss for there to be a claim.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
|
|
I appreciate the claim is against the other driver but I still think the insurance company is behaving in an unsatisfactory manner. Both motorists are insured with the same company and the evidence is there in front of them, including the contact number of the witness. I would have thought the administrative costs of this case would now have exceeded any payout on their part. This has been going on for weeks now with letters flying all over the place. Any payout from the insuranace company is not likely to be more than a few hundred pounds since they would have the option of writing off a 16 year old car!
Groan.
|
Many moons ago a similar thing happened to an ex- colleague of mine also when his car was hit on the towball; he had to pay for the cost of the inspection, and when damage was found, submit his claim to the insurer.
This he did, and the third party's insurer then took over. The car was repaired and the cost of repairs borne directly by the insurer.
The initial inspection however was not considered by the insurer to be an insured loss. He was most miffed, as I would be, but after seeking advice was told that he'd have to sue the third party directly to recover this cost. Though still miffed, he couldn't be bothered with the hassle, especially as the other driver looked like they didn't have two pennies to rub together and he was amazed in the first place to find they were actually insured!
|
|
third party's = other party's
|
|
|
|
|
I know its not right to have this happen but one of the benefits of old volvos is the fact that its bumpers were in fact real bumpers designed to absorb a hefty knock without any damage as they have rubber shock absorber type mountings,if your concern is for the towbar check the bolts are ok going in to the body mountings,hope all is ok
|
The insurance company will not entertain a claim because there is as yet NO claim to entertain. The onus is on you to find out if there is any damage, not the insurance company.
|
|
|
|
Report the accident to the police, stating that the other party have refused to give insurance details. As this refusal is a criminal motoring offence the police will investigate and (eventually) pass on the insurance details to you.
|
He knows the insurance company and details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe you do have the van owners insurance details. Keep on to them. They are being economical with the truth. Had a similar problem a good few years back, shortly after a change in the law (as Falkirk Bairn has noted) which made it a reuirement for the insurance company to act even though their insured has not reported the claim. Can't remember the legislation, unfortunately.
In my case the car owner wouldn't tell her insurer (wonder why not?)and wanted to get a 'mate' to fix my car, not pay for a proper body shop.
The Insurance Company will take some pushing, they will delay, claim it's not the case, say they've written to their insured and not had a reply etc but they do need to be reminded of their duty. In my case they eventually keeled over and paid me out.
It's also worth pointing out to the third party that his insurance company require him to report any accidents and won't be happy he hasn't.
That said it may be quicker, if you are proposing to claim, just to make a claim via the small claims court from the driver, which may get him running to his insurance company.
JS
|
|
|
You are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Faffing around with insurance companies will get you [her] nowhere. Get the damage fixed then sue him. Keep details records of all your outgoings attributable to the accident.
|
|
Thanks for all the advice, she's seeing a solicitor tomorrow so we will see what they suggest. There's a principle involved here more than anything else, I don't see why the other motorist should get away with this sort of behaviour.
|
|
All I would say is that the price of the principle is her no claims discount (which from the sound of it could well be a much larger sum than the the repairs - if any are required)and that when people fight on a principle the only winners are the lawyers.
|
|
|
<< There's a principle involved heremore than anything else ......
But remember that there's no point in cutting off your nose to spite your face. Getting revenge is all very well, but not if you end up out-of-pocket in the process.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
I don't see what use seeing a solicitor will do, hopefully a 15 min free consultation otherwise you're wasting your money, unless you can show there is damage to the vehicle, which by the sounds of it you can't.
Take the car to body sho repairers ask them for a free estimate of repairs, otherwise, pay them the 10 or 15 quid fee they will charge for the estimate of repairs.
i.e. if you are really really really concerned about this all it will cost you is 10 - 15 quid to get a repair estimate.
On the other hand you could just look* at your really old banger of a car and if on the face of it there is no apparent damage - just forget about it and say "oh well these things happen - luckily there's no damage".
*have a good look, under the bumper (if it was hit on the bumper) look at the bumper mounting bolts, look at the bodywork surrounding these, is it deformed in anyway? Then just look for witness marks on the bodywork - (if it was hit on the bodywork).
|
|
|
|
<< ......then sue him.
But bear in mind that you can't get blood out of a stone. If he hasn't got any money or worthwhile assets......
--
L\'escargot.
|
as an after thought it used to be standard practice in the highland winters for AA and RAC landrovers to have large overriders fitted to the front bumper to push cars fitted with a towbar or a proper bumper(like the volvo )out of snowdrifts,up slippery hills etc.it only stopped after pushing too many bits of plastic in to the back of cars
|
"Third party won't admit liability"
They have now...
Thanks everyone
|
"Third party won't admit liability" They have now...
Just as a matter of interest, what changed their mind and what is your claim?
|
Just as a matter of interest, what changed their mind
Not really sure, possibly guilt? When the solicitor phoned the insurance company, they said the third party had been in touch.
and what is your claim?
At the moment, nothing. Unless a garage inspection shows up any damage underneath. If I were dishonest I could claim for a cracked rear light, but that was there before :-(
|
"Back in early September a runaway van slammed into the back of my mother's car."
What were the chances of an old and empty Volvo being in it's path to stop it? Are there any other cars that could take a hit sufficient to shunt it 8 feet down the hill and sustain little/no visible damage.
The bumpers are designed to absorb impact but they do this by deforming (on recent cars anyway). The bumper probably needs replacing but a body shop will advise. Get it repaired and then County Court summons if he won't pay the costs. If he won't involve his insurers, he'll have to pay it. The other party should be thankful that the Volvo was there and that the police aren't involved (are they?).
It wasn't a runaway van, the van is innocent. It was a negligent van driver who should be facing the prospect of a criminal prosecution and points on his licence.
|
The insurers are indeed extremely fortunate that there was this 'old and empty Volvo' there to stop this van. Parked in fornt of her car are the neighbour's two cars, a one year old BMW 3 series Convertible and a three year old Audi TT. There is no justice! ;-)
Worse than that, the hill gets progressively steeper so the van would have gathered speed. It then passes a small shop where children frequently visit to buy sweets. And this was early September, when the school children are on holiday...
|
".....so the van would have gathered speed. It then passes a small shop where children frequently visit to buy sweets."
I find it painful to think about it.
Congratulations are due to Mum for both her choice of car and having the handbrake applied well enough that it could stop both car and moving van.
|
All would not have been lost if the TP insurers had maintained their position - since the 19th January 2003 there has been the right to sue a motor insurer direct by virtue of The European Communities (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2002. It was rather unhelpful of them, to say the least, that they did not offer to do the decent thing and play ball, knowing that they would have to respond to a summons if it had been issued against them instead of their policyholder.
Something useful to come out of Europe......
www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023061.htm
CG
|
|
|
