Had an accident?

[buzby]

Sort of - but would be grateful for the team's consideration;

A few weekends ago the weather was reasonable enough for me to treat my fences with some spray-on preservative for the coming winter (the fence is 1.8m high and made of wood. Shortly after the mamoth task was completed, the girl friend of my next door neighbour comes to the door and says I've 'painted' his car. I told her not to worry, as I'd be out with a bucket of water to clean it up - I explained it wasn't paint but a coloured wax treatment for wood. By the time the kettle had boiled and I had a pail of soapy water and sponse at the ready, I go to my neighbours drive to find the car gone!

Later in the week I speak with the neighbour who tells me he had a devil of a job removing the 'paint' and his car bodywork is badly damaged. It transpired that the girl firend went off on a short trip before going to a car wash - this caused the wax to dry making the car washing innefective. He then tried to T-Cut the paintwork in an effort to remove the wax, and has ended up damaging the bodywork further. All this time the girlfirend didn;t tell him it was only wax and not paint.

The fence treatment manufacturers (Cuprinol/ICI) advised the recommended removal method is lots of warm soapy water, any stubborn marks will go with weathering.

Because of his botched DIY approach to removing the wax, my neighbour subsequently made a claim to his insurers, and said company is now chasing me for the full costs of restoration, which may include a respray. I'm more than indignant at this, as I fail to see why I should be held responsible for consequences not of my making.

Sure, I could pass the matter on to my house insurers and let them sort it out, but I feel there is a modest principle at stake, and if someone makes an 'accident' worse, then they have to take responsibility for their errors. Or should my insurers be forced to pay for an unjustified car respray because the neighbour (in reality) damaged his own vehicle.

[ian_s]

I would get ICIs advice in writing, then reply stating that you will reimburse the cost of washing the car, and not pay for his attempted repairs. Might be better someone with legal background on this one.

If one of our customers bodges his repairs and makes it worse then claims, we would pay for the cost of the original repairs, but he would have to pay for any costs that he has caused.

[buzby]

I got ICI's response in an email, and I've now followed this up with a letter requesting a formal reply. for info, on receiving a claim letter from the Car Insurers, I responded with all the relevant information, along with a cheque for £5.00 to cover the cost of a car wash. They rejected this and sent the cheque back. Assuming it comes to court, at least it could be seen that I attempted to make full restitution - I do home my insurer doesn't roll over....

[Bookworm]

Hmmm... I don't think it's that cut and dry (pardon the pun), tbh.

The fact is that you did, accidentally or not, spray his car. The g/f drove car to car wash, probably with the idea that better to wash it whilst still wet, not necessarily realising that the stuff would dry before getting to the carwash.

I suspect, but I must stress that it's only a suspicion at this point, that there is a case of negligence, and that it points at you. Regardless of what happened afterwards, you were careless by spraying paint on the car, and I think that no matter how you try to justify it by saying they should have listened to you, or let you wash it yourself, there is no guarantee that the car paint would not have been damaged anyway, whatever the paint manufacturers might say to the contrary. The point is that there is no way of checking now, and your action is still what precipitated the chain of events.

I hope for your sake that I am wrong, but I think that the way it works, the bucks stops with you. Let us know what happens, I'd be very interested to know.

[Rich44]

But surely there was some duty to allow him to rectify the problem once he was made aware of the situation?

From the sound of it the car wash didnt do the damage attempting to remove the spray with a caustic substance caused the damage so surely that should be negligence of the owner too.

If I had something like that on my car I would have been taking professional advice before butchering the paint on my car

[buzby]

Another tack that this was on private ground (not a public road) therefore common sense would dictate that anyone on there with permission of the owner owes themselves a duty of care. If it was dark, even more so. I have a motorcaravan and regularly camp up in the dark in locations I have never been to before. If I had brushed-up against a bollard or kerb I would be my fault not the site owners (after all, he wasn't driving). Even if there was a subsequent admission of liability by the caretaker, this could easily be repudiated either by stating the the steward had no autrhority of such admission, or the apology given was for the distress/damage incurred to the subject vehicle, as sympathy, NOT a liability. The fact the steward painted the pole and hilighted its location simply acknowledges that they reacted immediately to a problem, not that there was a problem that they needed to address and had only just done so.

I think, like others, the only solution is to pass it to the insurers, and take the hit on the excess.

[mikey]

Originally Posted by Rich44

But surely there was some duty to allow him to rectify the problem once he was made aware of the situation?

From the sound of it the car wash didnt do the damage attempting to remove the spray with a caustic substance caused the damage so surely that should be negligence of the owner too.

If I had something like that on my car I would have been taking professional advice before butchering the paint on my car

This is similar to where somebody at fault tries to get the innocent party to go to a garage of their choice. If somebody's vehicle is damaged by another person due to an act of negligence, then that person has the right to get the damaged repaired anywhere they like. it sounds like the person who's car was sprayed decided to have a proper repair job carried out rather than take the risk of a 'quick-fix', and quite rightly so in my opinion

[buzby]

Originally Posted by mikey

This is similar to where somebody at fault tries to get the innocent party to go to a garage of their choice. If somebody's vehicle is damaged by another person due to an act of negligence, then that person has the right to get the damaged repaired anywhere they like. it sounds like the person who's car was sprayed decided to have a proper repair job carried out rather than take the risk of a 'quick-fix', and quite rightly so in my opinion

Perhaps - although if the methods used to effect the 'repair' are in themselves negligent, it no longer is an open-and-shut case. In this particular instance, those attempting to effect a repair were assuminhg it was 'paint' rather than coloured wax. In any event, it was the neighbour who attempted a DIY repair using T-Cut, creatring a level of damage that would not have existed if the correct removal method had been used. Current situation (as I understand it) is he is getting his insurrers to pay for a respray to the entire side of his vehicle, and those insurers state they will look to me for redress.

My personal view is this is wrong, not only is it betterment, but the Insurer is not only condonig the damage by their policyholder, but facilitating in the fraud.

I could let my house insurers take the strain, however I feel if I do this I am effectively agreeing that if an insured makes a problem worse (by T-Cutting instead of washing) then I should be further liable for his mistake? If the action came to court, I'm minded that each party can be made responsible for the damage they themselves caused... and on that basis I pay £5 for the car wash, and he picks up the tab for the respray.

[buzby]

Originally Posted by Bookworm

Hmmm... I don't think it's that cut and dry (pardon the pun), tbh.

The fact is that you did, accidentally or not, spray his car. The g/f drove car to car wash, probably with the idea that better to wash it whilst still wet, not necessarily realising that the stuff would dry before getting to the carwash.

I suspect, but I must stress that it's only a suspicion at this point, that there is a case of negligence, and that it points at you. Regardless of what happened afterwards, you were careless by spraying paint on the car

You see, I only sprayed his car with droplets of brown wax, not paint. Like most things, this is rolling out of control as, error is piled on error.

A new dispute has also arisen, totally unrelated and this is a condition that was printed at the bottom of the letter from the insurer.

The 200w 'Fraud Prevention Detection Notice' goes on to tell me that any details they hold on me will be passed to a panel of 5 external agencies including Credit Reference and 'Insurance Hiunter'. Now, I have neith a business relationship with this firm, or gave them permission to pass my details to third parties. I responded to their letter, explaining that this condition was unacceptable, and I refused to allow my information to be treated in this way. Subsequent responses from the Insurer have ignored my request entirely, whilst the clause appears at the bottom of each letter. Bringing it to the attention of the Information Commissioner's Office, the helpline stated that it appears the Insurer is in breach of the Data Protection Act and will be investigating. I'll keep the team advised of how both these matters pan out.

[Bookworm]

Totally different matter, and damn right you are not to let them get away with that! If you get a chance, could you start a thread about that separate issue in the Data Protection Act forum, and keep updates there? It could prove very helpful to other peole whose data is also being processed in such a cavalier fashion.

[buzby]

Originally Posted by Bookworm

If you get a chance, could you start a thread about that separate issue in the Data Protection Act forum, and keep updates there? It could prove very helpful to other peole whose data is also being processed in such a cavalier fashion.

Consider it done, BW!