Norwich Union wont check other cars details

[gyzmo]

It is for the insurance company to determine and admit/decline liability - not for you.

 

Whether the third party has their car legally taxed / insured etc does not affect liability, though it could possibly affect the amount they will be entitled to in some cases.

 

An insurance company can accept a third party's version in the absence of other evidence

[gyzmo]

Whether the car should have been there or not is irrelevant. It was there. You are suggesting that the legality of the vehicle's status determines liability. They are two separate things. You (or your insurer) has to pay the third party. The third party, if his car is not taxed / insured etc, will have to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. It is not for you to "punish" the third party for their wrongs by refusing to pay for your own wrong.

 

I have come accross this situation quite a few times. You will burst a blood vessel before anything else. Let the insurer deal with it and leave this other person to their own.

[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.

[gyzmo]

Err - no. certificate of insuranc is only evidence of the contract. The MOT does not affect insurance except if TLd or if it fundamentally breaches the policy. But that does not affect third party risks.

 

I have also had the "he was parked on double yellows" excuse. Also had "the skip shouldn't have been there", "I was not driving too close to the car in front - he braked too quickly", "the tree wasn't there yesterday" (I kid you not), "He should have moved - there was a gap" (smacking into back of another car on approach to a roundabout) and the best of the lot was when the insured's way was blocked on a car park. the insured repeatedly rammed the TP vehicle to get out. But did he accept liability? Oooh no. And most disgusting of all was a claim from an injured pedestrian claiming against a doctor for damage caused to clothing (when said doctor had to remove clothes quickly to perform emergency surgery on said pedestrian). And another where a driver negligently hit a cyclist (thankfully not badly injured) and tried to claim damages for the cost of cleaning his car of the blood.

[gyzmo]

Dittoed. There are some people who, no matter what, will not listen to reason. The fact that the answer is unlikeable does not make it incorrect. A fact that a few people need to understand.

[gyzmo]

They may be but the problem is that two wrongs do not make a right and the actions of one do not affect the remedy of the other. The OP is seeking to claim that their wrong does not entitle them to a remedy for his own wrong. The issue is simply that the OP cannot, or does not want to separate the various issues apart.

[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.

[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....

[gyzmo]

Yes it is something I would notice because I pay attention. And the very definition that it is parked means it wouldn't be that persons fault anyway. You impled that is was by stating such vehicles cause accidents. That implies negligence of the driver of parked car, so yes, actually you did!

[gyzmo]

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 ?

 

That's where

[gyzmo]

↓

park cars in a way that is likely to cause an accident,

↑

[gyzmo]

It's no more likely to than will because a parked car cannot and will not cause an accident!

 

I give in....

[gyzmo]

Well if its a blind spot then someone driving round the corner should do so at an appropriate speed so that they can stop in time. the parked vehicle is not the cause of the accident - it is the driver of the other vehicle who has caused it due to inappropriate driving.

 

Will you please accept that an inanimate stationary object does not cause accidents no matter what the scenario.

 

If it blows up - well the cause is whatever caused the car to blow up - faulty workmanship, corrosion etc - it is not the car.

What if it gets blown in the wind by a hurricane - well that's the wind. Not the car.

See?

[gyzmo]

It will only play a part in that it happened to be there. It will be as culpable as a skip or wall.

[gyzmo]

I think I qualified the "playing a part" bit by stating it is only because of its presence - i.e, that if it was not there it would not be run into regardless. It does nothing to contribute to the accident

[gyzmo]

[gyzmo]

The problem is when people blindly re-iterate the same point without any regards to what is being said. In other words, banging head against a brick wall. It would be different if those who disagree raised counterarguments or questioned details, which did happen but then reverted to old ground.

 

I am a stickler for what I say. I have had disagreements with other members - some on matter of preference, others on matters of law or fact. The diffence is being able to say that one is the correct position and being able to back it up, or saying that ones own position is wrong in the face of other evidence.

 

That has unfortunately not happened here. The problem has occurred because people simply wanted to hear what they wanted to hear. After reiterating the same point over and over, people, rightly or wrongly, get het up.