Norwich Union wont check other cars details

[BADGER 69]

Wow! Some people are really getting hot under the collar about splitting hairs.
My reference to an old case that I vaguely remember was not intended to have much reference to the subject of these postings, but only to point out that the driver of a parked vehicle can be held liable for contributing to the cause of an accident/incident.

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by dazzlin73

. my wife neglectic her rear view mirror resulting in an accident occurring due to her carelesness!!!

= negligence on the part of your wife in neglecting to check her mirror.

[JonCris]

Originally Posted by BADGER 69

Wow! Some people are really getting hot under the collar about splitting hairs.
My reference to an old case that I vaguely remember was not intended to have much reference to the subject of these postings, but only to point out that the driver of a parked vehicle can be held liable for contributing to the cause of an accident/incident.

I'm sorry but just being parked can't be a reason to suggest liability. There has be some negligence on the part of the parked vehicles owner & parking by itself doesn't count.........otherwise, following that logic, every time a motorist emerged onto a main road, whilst their view was obscured, causing an incident they could blame the other person who parked the vehicle & not themselves for emerging blind.

[dazzlin73]

Originally Posted by BADGER 69

Wow! Some people are really getting hot under the collar about splitting hairs.
My reference to an old case that I vaguely remember was not intended to have much reference to the subject of these postings, but only to point out that the driver of a parked vehicle can be held liable for contributing to the cause of an accident/incident.

dont worry badger, joncris is just annoyed cos he doesnt even understand what accident means in the OED. i mean, where does it state in there that an accident will only happen with the hand of god?!!!

scenario: man 1 steals car stereo from stationary car. on his way to a pub, man 2 steals car stereo from man 1. later that day, man 2 gets caught by police for stealing the car stereo. man 2 says he stole stereo from man 1. should man1 get away with being investigated cos the police have man 2 and man 1 is a victim? i think not!!!!

the car should not have been there whether it had all docs or not. the guy opposite us is a mechanic and put the car there. he is working from home and i can assure you he does not declare the any business taxes and should not be working there as per his tenancy agreement. i am man 2 and man 1 is the mechanic, the only difference is that nothing was stolen and no police were invovled and it was an accident regardless to what joncris says!!!

i am currently gathering photo evidence to not only get him evicted but for the inland revenue to recoup the taxes he owes!!!

[dazzlin73]

Originally Posted by patdavies

= negligence on the part of your wife in neglecting to check her mirror.

correct but it was also carelessness as my wife could get done for 'undue care and attention'....still an accident

[gyzmo]

The big deifference is that you are STILL confusing the different issues.
For the LAST TIME - IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER THE CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE OR NOT. IT WAS THERE AND YOU HIT IT.

Are you suggesting that if you hit a wall which didnt have planning permission, and some brick come off and injure a passer-by, that you would not be liable because "the wall should not have been there"? Or what if an elderly person is slowly crosing the road in the wrong place. Are you secure in your knowledge that you can knock that person over because she should not be there? Becasue that is EXACTLY what is being said here. The examples are extreme, but the principle is the same.

Your beef about this car not being taxed, MOT'd etc is nothing to do with you. You don't even know for absolute certain that the car is not taxed etc.

The person's reaction to you is wrong, but that does not entitle you to do a wrong to another.

And the OED definition of an accident does not encompass the meaning ascertained to it by the insurance industry. Without being patronising, I suggest you undertake the Chartered Insurance Institute courses before commenting on such things.

[BADGER 69]

It was not the parking that they were sued for but for creating a hazard. The plaintiff won.

[JonCris]

The only reason there can be for an 'accident' is that the circumstances are unforeseen (previously referred to in law & practice as an 'Act of God) If a collision occurs because of a lack of attention to what your doing, like not checking your mirror properly, then it's not unforeseen & therefore NOT an accident

You quote the OED I suggest you read your post again I try & understand what it says.....at no point does it state that an accident can be the result of negligence.......in fact it states the opposite.....the circumstances have to be unforseen........& in your case they are not.

Now it appears you blame him even if he is legal so all that guff before was just a smokescreen to disguise your true intentions. Now you speak of getting the guy evicted from his home & reporting him to the authroities......got kids has he........when will your vendetta against this guy end.........never I suppose.............you must be very proud of yourself

[Helford]

Hi all,

I have to say that this thread is going around in circles!

Dazzlin 73, you are missing the point entirely. Bottom line - Your wife reveresed into a stationery car, therefore in law she is 100% liable. FULL STOP.

Not what you want to hear, but fact. I had someone park there car in my front garden, about 50 yards from the highway and I reversed my car through my gates into my front garden, not expecting anything to be there, it should have been the case. I was held 100% liable and I had to pay for all damage. This chap took a diabolical liberty, but if was my fault. FULL STOP.

H

[rdm2006]

Originally Posted by Helford

Hi all,

I have to say that this thread is going around in circles!

Dazzlin 73, you are missing the point entirely. Bottom line - Your wife reveresed into a stationery car, therefore in law she is 100% liable. FULL STOP.

Not what you want to hear, but fact. I had someone park there car in my front garden, about 50 yards from the highway and I reversed my car through my gates into my front garden, not expecting anything to be there, it should have been the case. I was held 100% liable and I had to pay for all damage. This chap took a diabolical liberty, but if was my fault. FULL STOP.

H

I hope you charged him rent for using your premises to store his property (if only you could eh)


And Dazzlin although I agree that just because a car has been hit, its owner has no right to be abusive and threatening, I now feel that this is looking like a vendetta and you are allowing this event to take over your life. Don't allow it to do that, just let it go.

[old_andrew2007]

As I read through the posts, I have to agree with gyzmo the thread is muddled due to several issues.

• The car being hit, this is cut and dried, Dazzlin crashed into it, and admitted the facts.
• The other car was it insured, well direct line are acting for the other party so the answer is yes, was it taxed who knows, it nothing to do with the OP, its a DVLA concern (but consider a valid MOT cert is required to tax a motor vehicle), an MOT cert was according to the OP issued that day.
• Threats made to the OP, no evidence supplied

Rmd2006 advises that the event could take over the OP life, I think that's true I can just imagine standing in a pub used by the OP, having to listen to the same story over and over.
Is it not time to ask a moderator to close the thread, if you go back to the OP's original question how much NCB could be lost?, then lemontwist answered it "If you no claims discount is unprotected, then it will be reduced by 2 years".

Andy

[rdm2006]

if ya gonna quote me the least you could do is get my name right Oldy oops Andy

[old_andrew2007]

Originally Posted by rdm2006

if ya gonna quote me the least you could do is get my name right Oldy oops Andy

Ha, Ha, I accept the criticism, rdm2006 I've got it right now, but don't you think the thread has run its course, as you say (paraphrased) there is a risk of the event taking over the OP's life.

The only real losses were the drivers pride with a possible 2 years of their NCB, the other car owner will have their car repaired, I expect it was still drivable otherwise the OP could have found the registration number.

Nady oops I mean Andy

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by old_andrew2007

As I read through the posts, I have to agree with gyzmo the thread is muddled due to several issues.

• The car being hit, this is cut and dried, Dazzlin crashed into it, and admitted the facts.

Andy

Actually, it is not that cut and dried as it was Dazzlin's wife who was driving.

[JonCris]

My own view is that I think it appalling that this incident should be used by the negligent party in an attempt to have the accused evicted from his home....I think stating that brought the true motives to the fore

[rdm2006]

Originally Posted by JonCris

My own view is that I think it appalling that this incident should be used by the negligent party in an attempt to have the accused evicted from his home....I think stating that brought the true motives to the fore

To be honest i don't think that this was their original motive. Their original motive was that this guy was abusive. As the saying goes s#'/t happens and that is how it should have been viewed but by being abusive this angered the op (as any of us would be angry at this), but now it is spiraling out of control in my opinion and just because the other guy was being silly there is no need to stoop to his level. I would just shrug my shoulders and say "its just not worth it"

[JonCris]

I agree rdm but it soon became clear that the OP wasn't going to stop blaming the victim for their wifes negligence & no matter how many times it was explained that an accident is not actually an accident if it's caused by negligence then it's an incident which the poster refused to understand

I fully understand that some will want to vent their spleen & why not they feel they have been done wrong but in this case the person was asking us to support him in what now appears to have been a vendeta.....I suppose the thought that most here have been the victims of one injustice or another makes some members think they will be supported no matter what

[rdm2006]

To be totally honest i think that if this had happened to me my gut reaction would be "why should he get away with threatening me when he has no tax etc etc" and lets face it people can park cars in a way that is likely to cause an accident, it does happen, but like i say when it gets to the point that its taking over, then it is time to stop as the only person you are going to harm is yourself. Take a deep breath count to ten and just say sod it!!


ooo it didn't edit that can we say sod it ?

[gyzmo]

How can someone park a car in a way that is likely to cause an accident? Is it an invisible car that suddenly appears when another car comes within a couple of feet of it? It is someone else who is driving too fast or not paying attention to their surroundings or failing to anticipate problems that causes incidents, not stationary objects. No wonder there's a perceived blame culture....

[rdm2006]

Originally Posted by gyzmo

How can someone park a car in a way that is likely to cause an accident? Is it an invisible car that suddenly appears when another car comes within a couple of feet of it? It is someone else who is driving too fast or not paying attention to their surroundings or failing to anticipate problems that causes incidents, not stationary objects. No wonder there's a perceived blame culture....

Don't know about you but whilst i have been driving i have seen many cars parked where i have thought what a stupid place to park a car or do you not notice these things when you are driving ? and did i say it would or should be their fault no i did not. (ever heard the phrase look before you leap)