Accidental damage to car - question

[mjr]

All this arguing over the basic complaint of "It's not my fault, someone else must be to blame". We have heard all this several times before.

Yep, it's never any fault of the motorist driving in the door zone and apparently modern traffic conditions means it's normal to ignore http://highwaycode.info/rule/152 or something.

 

[midlife]

As mentioned the tricky thing is that A and C went about their merry way without involving B.

A cannot claim for payment for the repairs from B as payment has been made. A is seeking the contract value from B (forget age for now) which is tricky to do at the best of times. The contract value seems to have been set at some arbitrary value by A and C.

B has not breached any contract so A claiming in law from B would be less than straightforward. Maybe B should ask for copies of quotations for the repair work of which there should have been 2 to check the contract value?

 

[Milkfloat]

What this thread says to me is: there are a large number of people on this forum I would refuse to do any business with if this is the morals you have.

 

[midlife]

What this thread says to me is: there are a large number of people on this forum I would refuse to do any business with if this is the morals you have.

It's amoral for two individuals to stitch up a third party, in this case B ...

 

[PaulSB]

Because it was an accident and As insurance is there to cover this. I could understand B paying if he had damaged the car on purpose but he didnt it was a genuine mishap.
I cant believe you would embarass yourself by trying to lodge a claim in the small claims court. You would be making a fool out of yourself, it would get thrown out and you'd probably get told off for wasting the courts time.It would end up costing you more money in effect.
Theres nothing A and C can do, Sandra needs to put her foot down and tell them to jog on.

You’re correct insurance is their to cover accidents. The huge difficulty here is the cost of premiums, the potential increase in future premiums, the loss of NCB and the very strong likelihood the insurance policy carries an excess of at least £100 and more likely £250.

If you take all of the above in to account a claim for this amount would end up costing A hundreds or possibly thousands in future premiums. This would be grossly unfair on A. Clearly this was an accident but one that was caused by B and so B should ensure A and C are not out of pocket. Yes Sandra should have been consulted, not to include her was wrong. I’m very interested to know if B told her mother about the accident. My gut feeling is she didn’t.

Going back to the insurance. In my view it’s completely wrong that people are dissuaded from making legitimate claims because of costs. It’s completely wrong customers cannot make small claims for fear of future penalties. Utterly wrong but that’s how it is.

 

[midlife]

You’re correct insurance is their to cover accidents. The huge difficulty here is the cost of premiums, the potential increase in future premiums, the loss of NCB and the very strong likelihood the insurance policy carries an excess of at least £100 and more likely £250.

If you take all of the above in to account a claim for this amount would end up costing A hundreds or possibly thousands in future premiums. This would be grossly unfair on A. Clearly this was an accident but one that was caused by B and so B should ensure A and C are not out of pocket. Yes Sandra should have been consulted, not to include her was wrong. I’m very interested to know if B told her mother about the accident. My gut feeling is she didn’t.

Going back to the insurance. In my view it’s completely wrong that people are dissuaded from making legitimate claims because of costs. It’s completely wrong customers cannot make small claims for fear of future penalties. Utterly wrong but that’s how it is.

But it wasn't an accident, strictly it was negligence. The problem lies in the way it was dealt with.

 

[Jody]

What this thread says to me is: there are a large number of people on this forum I would refuse to do any business with if this is the morals you have.

Its not about morals. Its about who is lialbe and its not party B although it was them that caused the accident.

Personally I would offer some form of payment to A, but B and B's mum have no obligation to.

 

[Milkfloat]

Its not about morals. Its about who is lialbe and its not party B although it was them that caused the accident.

Personally I would offer some form of payment to A, but B and B's mum have no obligation to.

My morals trump legal wiff waff, as parent of B I would be paying up straight away, even though I would be miffed that I was not consulted (which as mentioned above may not be totally A or C's fault.

 

[PaulSB]

But it wasn't an accident, strictly it was negligence. The problem lies in the way it was dealt with.

Yes. You’re absolutely right in this summary.

 

[midlife]

My morals trump legal wiff waff, as parent of B I would be paying up straight away, even though I would be miffed that I was not consulted (which as mentioned above may not be totally A or C's fault.

Would you pay up straight away if they had demanded £10,000 out of the blue?

 

[mjr]

My morals trump legal wiff waff, as parent of B I would be paying up straight away, even though I would be miffed that I was not consulted (which as mentioned above may not be totally A or C's fault.

If you think B's parent should pay an amount agreed by two people without the consent of them or B, plus C should not have to pay anything for driving in the door zone, plus A should not have to pay anything for failing to remind their passengers to alight on the kerb side (or possibly for parking contraflow and not warning them of passing cars, although I don't recall whether that was confirmed), then I think your morals have gotten twisted: although B made a mistake, it sounds like A and C did too and now have also attempted to stitch up B.

 

[Milkfloat]

Would you pay up straight away if they had demanded £10,000 out of the blue?

No, but £250 is a reasonable amount for minor damage to a car and 10k is not.

 

[Milkfloat]

If you think B's parent should pay an amount agreed by two people without the consent of them or B, plus C should not have to pay anything for driving in the door zone, plus A should not have to pay anything for failing to remind their passengers to alight on the kerb side (or possibly for parking contraflow and not warning them of passing cars, although I don't recall whether that was confirmed), then I think your morals have gotten twisted: although B made a mistake, it sounds like A and C did too and now have also attempted to stitch up B.

We don't actually have the full story, has B said to A/C that they will pay, did B tell her Mum right away what she had done etc?
A was doing B a favour, B made a mistake and is expecting A to pay for it- sound fair to you? If so, you are a very different person than I thought.
As you well know, often it is impossible not to drive in the door zone, especially on narrow roads - still C's fault?

A and C should have arranged with B's Mum before repairs were undertaken, but we don't actually know what B did or did not said to A, C or Mum.

As parent of B I would still be paying up.

 

[nickyboy]

#

No, but £250 is a reasonable amount for minor damage to a car and 10k is not.

What would you do if £250 was a very large amount to you and you didn't have it?

 

[midlife]

No, but £250 is a reasonable amount for minor damage to a car and 10k is not.

Just curious, how much money would you pay out before money trumps your morals? £500, £1000, ?

What about if you feel £250 is too much, similar to your feelings that £10,000 is too much. Both instances are down to money not morals.