Norwich Union wont check other cars details

[JonCris]

Forgot to mention but for the transmission of personal data about a 3rd party your email address must emanate from a secure server

[Guest Aviva Support]

JonCris

 

I understand your points, and all is in hand.

 

Becca

[dazzlin73]

joncris

 

who's using tit for tat now?!!! all i want is for the authorities to deal with the incident now. i am asking NU for the reg number and that is all. is that so bad?

 

we now know that the law states that insurers must payout even to an illegally parked car. you never answered whether a SORN is worth the paper its written on?

 

all i here from you is that even if the car was parked illegally, you would sue me if it was you i hit. from this, i take it that your saying you dont mind cars being on our roads illegally?!! i dont think you would agree if they had run someone over? we are also the victim here as if the car wasnt there (which it shouldnt have been)then we wouldnt have accidently bumped into the door!!all we want is some justice for the injustice caused by a third party of the car owner!!

 

you seem to take the side of someone who threatens and lies to people than someone who has admitted straight away that they had an accident and may just have been a bit niave that the law is there to protect people that do things leagally and not illegally!!!

[gyzmo]

we are also the victim here as if the car wasnt there (which it shouldnt have been)then we wouldnt have accidently bumped into the door!!all we want is some justice for the injustice caused by a third party of the car owner!!

quote]

 

You are confusing three separate issues.

 

Your liability in hitting this parked vehicle. You ahve accepted already taht you are liable.

 

The legal status of the vehicle you hit. This has nothing to do with you or the incident. Whether or not it was taxed, it was there.

 

The reaction of the "owner". This is a separate issue to be pursued by the appropriate authorities.

 

Just let the otehr insurance company deal with the damage that has been caused. If you feel that the third party has committed an injustice by not properly taxing etc their vehicle then report it.

 

If the authorities decide to do nothing when there is evidence that they should, well thatis unfortunate.

 

But it is not worth this fruitless vendetta that you seem to be on.

 

Please accept what is being said is with your best interests at heart. JC has expressed his feelings. I don't know if I would quite feel the same, but the facts are quite clear and so is the advice given.

[JonCris]

gyzmo I have expressed the feeling I have because there are people even though they are the wrongdoer feel they must punish the victim in some way "cos they shouldn't have been there"

 

Had the vehicle been legal (& we don't know it wasn't yet) then the same thing would have happened the stationary car would have been struck by another's car being driven negligently yet they want in any way possible to punish their victim of their incompetence.

 

If we start going down this road what next "you have an illegal tyre so even though I caused the accident your not getting a penny" Far fetched............NO ..........t's happened.

 

A few years ago an insurance company attempted to deny liability because their deceased insured had a bald tyre & their policy stated the vehicle must be being driven lawfully & in a road worthy condition & this was not

 

The court gave short shrift to that argument

 

Anyway IMHO that encouraged by the authorities we are turning into a country of snitches only too ready to shop our neighbours

[kevsaints]

joncris what's your point explain?

 

here's my opinion:

dazz has said he accept's responsibility, all he is asked for is valid insurance details as the third party in question has requested they go through insurance company's. (dazz did say he would pay out himself for the damage)

 

also his driveway is adjacent to their house ie: at the side of building,

as the car was parked on the main highway ( main road ) this would indicate that legally the car should be taxed, mot'd, and insured !

 

I had a car hit mine i was not driving at the time but as my car was parked in a layby it was classed as on the main road therefore the police requested ins, tax, mot cert. ( from myself )

It turned out the guy was not insured and police prosecuted him.

I had the option of county court for damages etc, but decided as i knew the guy and he had very litttle money it was not worth it.

So yes legally it require's full doc's etc.

 

If the car was parked off road or on private property thats slightly different.

 

Hence a SORN declaration.?

 

as for JONCRIS's comments ( laughable ) I'm sure if a child of his was playing near, on, or by the roadside and an uninsured driver hit them his opinion would change drastically... not being nasty joncris but as far as I'm concerned any uninsured driver should be entitled to nothing by law.

 

Also as far as I'm aware the document's provided to dazz from the third party was for the guy who threatened him, however he is a banned driver ( current ) so his insurance would be void? as i'm aware

 

they witnessed the lad's girlfriend driving the car away, but she is state'd

she does not own the car. therefore i would determine who owns's the car and is there a valid ins cert.

 

I would contact the police again and demand this is looked into further as far as i'm concerned you should have the right to sue whoever own's the car if it should not have been there legitamately.

 

here is a little hint for you all How to make money....The easy way.

buy a car don't do anything tax no, mot no, ins no, reg keeper no, then park it in a place where it will get hit..... then claim claim claim...Why have we all not thought of that..... let's ask Jonchris!

 

plz reply......

[kevsaints]

Also i understand the point you are making pay as it's your fault, and i agree but legally dazz is entitled to see or for them to provide valid doc's etc.....yes dazz's ins should pay as that's ther route the guy wanted.

but if it is proved all doc's are in order fair enough, but if someone threatened me I would make sure the guy etc get's what's coming to them.......legally I might add.

Dazz ask brian to have a word? haha

[kevsaints]

I was thinking this consumer site is for people who have an issue over many concern's to post in the appropiate forum?

may i just add this.

 

if all parties involved provided full doc's there would not be an issue.

it has arisen due to the fact 1. threatening behaviour towards dazz.

2. not all doc's are in order even police stated not on this planet.

3. the guy in question works for panel beater repair garage and told dazz he would hike price up?.

4. wrong doing for hitting the car in question, however I hope ins do not pay if not legal, as this means higher premiums for all of us even though the car was not/ as far as we know legally supposed to be there.

5. It is because of this dazz has an issue as he refused to get 3 quotes said he will do it himself to dazz on the phone.

DAZZ MAKE THE FACT'S CLEARER.

 

THX

[kevsaints]

Toptara vbmenu_register("postmenu_1488216", true);

Basic Account Customer

 

Join Date: Apr 2008

Posts: 1

 

 

Sorned vehicle on the road

Hi everybody

 

I had a little van which was an MOT failure and had SORN'd it and was keeping it in a rented garage around the corner from our house. I advertised it for sale as an MOT failure and a potential buyer wanted to view it. So I removed it from my garage . I then parked it in allocated parking outside our house overnight. (Which I understand is technically still the public highway) I was unable to return it to the garage after the viewing as there was a house fire in the road and the police closed the road for the whole weekend and would not allow any vehicles to enter or leave the road. D

 

A bored community support officer noticed the vehicle was untaxed and put a notice on it. I approached him at the time but it was too late as he had already issued the notice.

 

I received a letter from DVLA asking me to pay £175 out of court settlement. I wrote and explained but they are taking it to court. I am having no end of problems at the moment so did not have the choice of paying the fine as I simply do not have the money.

 

Do I have any defence in court?

 

SO SHOULD NOT BE ON THE ROAD? LEGALLY

 

This is not me, hence the name..... but trying to show the point in law a car, van,etc is either legally parked or not, it can not be both.

[JonCris]

What's your point kev

 

It was a CSO who nicked you not a neighbour wanting to cause aggro to you after having caused damage to you.....

 

Had your van been hit by a negligent driver are you saying that you would have said "OK mate it's not SORN'd & it's on a public road so you don't have to pay" Cos that's exactly what your expecting of this guy to do

 

Whether your van had a SORN or not is only relevant to the authorities

[JonCris]

Also i understand the point you are making pay as it's your fault, and i agree but legally dazz is entitled to see or for them to provide valid doc's etc.....yes dazz's ins should pay as that's ther route the guy wanted.

but if it is proved all doc's are in order fair enough, but if someone threatened me I would make sure the guy etc get's what's coming to them.......legally I might add.

Dazz ask brian to have a word? haha

 

If your not at fault & no one is injured the negligent driver who admits liability cannot demand the 3rd party provide their insurance details

 

The innocent 3rd party can if they so wish approach your insurer direct.....in fact that can refuse to deal with your insurer altogether & come direct to you for satisfaction.........& if you didn't pay up they could even go so far as to issue proceedings directly against you

 

There is no legal requirement for either party to engage with the insurer

[JonCris]

I finally if I was aware of a banned, uninsured or drunken driver driving a vehicle on the public highway I would report him/her.........but in this case the victims car................was stationary & parked at the roadside

 

There can be many reasons why an unisured car is on the public highway.............Lets look again at your circumstances you took your van out of it's garage so a buyer could have look & were not able to put it back.....are you really stating that had it been hit by a careless driver you would have accepted not being paid for the repair simply because it was parked illegally

[dazzlin73]

joncris, if you ask the police, there is no difference whether a car is driving or stationary, without its necessary documents it is still a criminal offence. on the other hand, the law states that even though someone breaks the law( such as this instance), insurers must payout regardless.

 

i dont understand why you wont answer on whether your opinion would change if our victim had run someone over without the necessary docs!!

from reading your previous posts i can imagine you blaming the pedestrian for being in the wrong place at the wrong time!!!....there can be many reasons why an unisuered car is on the public highway as quoted by you on your previous reply!!!

 

i do not appreciate you quoting my wife as driving negligently, the position of our drive is at an awkward angle to the road and we have a corner from one side and 6ft fence stopping us from seeing whats coming from the t junction on the other side. it was purely an accident.

 

remember, this site is here to help people and from your replys it seems either you have been 'a victim' like ours and have a vendetta towards anyone who believes the law should be changed.

[JonCris]

Wot I have already stated if I saw what I knew to be an uninsured or drunken driver driving on the public highway I would report them period.............but this guy wasn't doing any of these things he was minding his own business when his parked car was struck.........by your wife

 

The pedestrian analogy you make is all about you not the victim.......according to you he's the one who was in the wrong place & for that he must be punished.........not you

 

As far as the victim running someone over without docs what on earth has that got to do with it.......... He hasn't your wife has hit him.........as its plain for everyone to see he's the victim not you or your wife.......although from your posts it's pretty clear you would like to think you are

 

You don't like me telling you your wife was negligent

 

OK lets see

1/Was your wife driving at the time of the collision with a parked vehicle?

2/Did your wife strike a stationary vehicle.

 

Yes she did.........result she was negligent & it doesn't matter where or how it was parked or how difficult it was to get out she was still the negligent party......unless of course you are going to claim the unattended vehicle jumped out in front of her......Just because a manoeuvre is difficult does not give anyone the right to damage another's property & then claim exemption from fault

 

Also it wasn't an accident..............accidents only happen where there is no fault & in yours that's not the case........even though it obviously wasn't deliberate.......it wasn't an accident........even the police have stopped calling them accidents in their reports........they call them either incidents or crashes

 

Yes this site is here to help people & has........many many thousands but what no one who understands the law is going to do is to pander to someone who wants to shift the blame from themselves to the victim or who is seeking revenge for a situation that they, or in this case your wife caused

 

As for vendettas I think it's obvious from you posts that it's you who is having the vendetta......against your neigbour

 

As for his alledged threats against you there are other ways to deal with that such as reporting him to the police etc..........He may even be an obnoxious bum. I don't know, but that's not against the law & to try & deprive him of his vehicle when your wife's the cause of this situation is petty & mean

 

Your last remark is to imply I have had an uninsured vehicle on the public highway or have behaved in some sort of criminal way because I'm on the other guys side......That being the case your completely missing the point..........I'm not on anyone side I'm explaining the law to you whilst pointing out that you are NOT the victim he is

 

To imply such a thing just because you don't like being told the truth shows the weakness of your argument.................it's also libel chum

[dazzlin73]

joncris im the wife who was negligent i would like to point out i have never denied my fault. i think your completely missing the point we are trying to make here as far as i was aware before we entered this forum you needed three legal documents to drive or park on a public highway. It has now come to our attention that you in fact do need these by law but that law will not protect you if you have an accident and the party in not involved personally (IE a parked vehicle with one of the legal documents missing.)However when i have all the information needed i am now aware that i can myself sue the third party for damage to my car as he/her should not have been there legally. thank for your comments.

[dazzlin73]

can i also just mention that i have been driving for 7 years and have NEVER had or been involved in an accident.

[patdavies]

have a vendetta towards anyone who believes the law should be changed.

 

Why should the law be changed?

 

The way the law is written now protects the innocent driver. If a car that is being driven illegally crashes into you, then the insurers are still liable for your (the third party) damages. They will not pay out damages to the driver or for any repairs to his vehicle.

[Chesterexpress]

i am now aware that i can myself sue the third party for damage to my car as he/her should not have been there legally. thank for your comments.

 

Oh I would just love to see you try that one.......you quite simply wouldn't stand a chance of winning. As has already been explained to you numerous times, you damaged someone else's property therefore you are liable. If the police wish to take action against the other party for having an uninsured vehicle on the road then that is up to them. However in my opinion from reading what you have said, the vehicle was in fact insured othwise why would an insurance company, Direct Line in this case contact your insurer's if the vehicle was not insured with them. The last time I looked DL most certainly were not registered as a charitable organisation.

 

Sorry, dazzlin but with all the nonsense that you have been spouting I think you are talking through your rear end as far as any of this goes.

[JonCris]

joncris im the wife who was negligent i would like to point out i have never denied my fault. i think your completely missing the point we are trying to make here as far as i was aware before we entered this forum you needed three legal documents to drive or park on a public highway. It has now come to our attention that you in fact do need these by law but that law will not protect you if you have an accident and the party in not involved personally (IE a parked vehicle with one of the legal documents missing.)However when i have all the information needed i am now aware that i can myself sue the third party for damage to my car as he/her should not have been there legally. thank for your comments.

 

Look you or anyone else (including me) cannot cause an incident then expect to get away with it because the other party wasn't legal.

 

Also I don't know who told you that you can sue him, legal or not, when you caused the damage so before trying that one on I strongly advise that you seek a second opinion because it's complete rubbish

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

can i also just mention that i have been driving for 7 years and have NEVER had or been involved in an accident.

Yes you drove without an accident for 7 years, UNTIL THIS ONE WHEN YOU REVERSED INTO A STATIONARY CAR, WHAT IF YOU REVERSED INTO A PEDESTRIAN.

 

Andy

[JonCris]

Dazzling "never had an accident in 7 years".........so what.......You have now........& it was your fault

 

I'm sorry if your a genuine victim of say the banks, CCCompanies, Insurance Companies, Lousy dishonest retailers or other [problem] artists or any of the other many daily injustices out there then please feel free to ask our help which you will no doubt get by the bucket full.....In the meantime stop trying to make out like your the victim........you are not the other guy is

[dazzlin73]

old andrew, yes we reversed into a stationary car...welldone but what has that got to do with a pedestrian? cars without required docs are as i believe parked illegally on the road and as such shouldn't be there. a pedestrian on the other hand can come and go all day long. if we had reversed into a pedestrian then that is something we would have live with for the rest of our lives. thankfully for us, it was a car and not a pedestrian.

 

joncris, we admitted to the accident and have admitted liability. i believe our insurer is or has paid out already.

 

 

when people go negligently overdrawn with say a bank, they get penalized with a bank charge. people are aware that if they go overdrawn that there will be a charge and what that charge will be!!! i think we all agree that the charges are ridiculous and thats why groups like this have helped people get back their charges. although the charge is high, it is legal. i think we also agree that there should be a small charge to people for being negligent with their account.

 

when people drive negligently into another car, they get penalized by their insurance company. you don't know by how much as you don't know what sort of accident you unfortunately would have had. this is legal and how it should be. should this still be the case if a car is parked illegally? the third party know they are parking illegally but will not get penalized!!!

at least when you go overdrawn by a bank, you were aware of it before and will be charged for being negligent.

 

what you are saying is, it is alright to claim against a charge for being negligent even though you were aware of it before the incident, as you are being unfairly penalized. on the other hand, we shouldnt claim against someone for parking their car illegally and that the car should not have been on the road in the first place!!!

im not saying that im the victim not him as two wrongs dont make a right. what angers me is that people have been quick to say its all our fault. if he wasnt there then we wouldnt have hit him, if you dont go overdrawn then you wouldnt get charged!!! whats the difference?

 

i would like to point out that i too think the bank charges are ridiculously high and congratulate everyone who have helped or received people to receive their charges back.

[BADGER 69]

When driving on a public highway it is incumbent upon you to ensure that you do so in a safe manner and ensure that it is safe for you to proceed. You failed to do just that, and it is in material as to what you hit. You failed to ensure that you could proceed in a safe manner, and that is all that there is to it.

[JonCris]

What don't you understand....Stop trying to justify your negligence....The victim wasn't doing any of those things he was the innocent victim.......your view that if uninsured he shouldn't be allowed to blame or seek compensation from you is frankly a ridiculous position to take & could lead to all kinds of injustices

 

You are the guilty party not him. You have done him an injustice not him you........I have to say reading your posts that if you give any hint to the guy of the attitude you display here & whilst not the right thing for him to do I'm not surprised he threatened you........I think many people, if confronted by such beliefs as yours would do precisely the same

[dazzlin73]

i have never said what i did wasn't wrong i have never tried to justify my action and i am paying for my mistake so i did'nt understand why you are failing to see that all that I'm trying to explain is why should an uninsured driver get away with parking his vehicle opposite my property and be allowed to get away Scott free. that if my final comment on this matter the police understood my case its a shame other citizens cannot. these are not beliefs they are the facts my attitude is one of a legal driver having to pay yet again for uninsured drivers being on public roads but its clear you all believe this is acceptable behavior. Jon your attitude toward us has been petty and uncalled for from day one you have never wanted to see both sides of this story and i have NEVER asked you for your justification or sympathy all i wanted was facts on what could be done in my situation not an endless reply on what you think of us as people you have nothing but negative things to say and quite frankly I'm not very interested in you opinion as it is not very helpfully. regards dazzlin.