Norwich Union wont check other cars details

[JonCris]

Reclaimant is correct

 

If you cause damage to another vehicle whether it's taxed, insured or MOT'd or even illegally parked is irrelevant........you are still liable

 

Otherwise we'll have people bragging "Oh I smashed that guys car up but because it's uninsured or untaxed or not MOT'd I don't have to pay" ....... yeah right

 

If it isn't taxed or insured or not MOT'd that's a matter for the authorities not someone trying to escape their responsibilities

 

& the OP's insurers are quite right in not getting involved in some sort of vendeta against the innocent party

 

Why on earth is the OP reporting this owner to the police they are the victim of the OP's wifes negligence for christ sake. Why are they trying to cause more grief for THEIR victim

 

I'm sorry but I hope the victim gets wind & sues the butt of the OP for any & all uninsured losses he can think of

[JonCris]

So it was a case of tit for tat

 

As for their appalling conduct then you should make a complaint to the police.............What you should not do is make trouble for them for no other reason than you want to........also if they are the sort of people you describe aren't you taking a risk they might damage yours

 

Also why should a person lose all rights because they commit a traffic offence

 

I'm sorry but you won't get a lot of sympathy from me. I have seen it argued far to often that because a motorist was badly parked, or untaxed the negligent 3rd party thinks they can escape responsibility for their behaviour

[JonCris]

1st of all CAG member or not I do hope they aren't going to breach the Data Protection Act

 

2nd your insurer might refuse to pay but the 3rd party can still sue you (I know I would) & if they do your insurer having already refused may leave you swinging in the wind

 

& frankly you would only have yourself to blame as had you let the insurer sort it without fuss then that would have been the end of the matter

[JonCris]

Also what did it matter what his insurance reference was or was not....you hit him

[JonCris]

JonCris

no Data Protection breach, I am here as a representative of NU, dazzlin and I have been corresponding by email and I have passed his details onto the claim department to discuss.

 

Becca

 

 

As you probably won't accept a strangers advice (nor should you) I respectfully suggest you seek the advice of your data controller before you transmit, even via PM, any further data about a 3rd party on this site

[JonCris]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[JonCris]

because it ain't the law of the land & thank gawd for that.....of course the cops were sympathetic......they are the cops...but even they don't get to make up the rules

 

As I have pointed out if the law was changed to the way you want many many injustices would be suffered by Innocent people.........you should never get away with causing damage to someone else's property then claim exemption from liability because the other guy wasn't insured

[JonCris]

dazzlin, do you actually read what people are posting? Direct Line are a pretty big player in the insurance business, why on earth would they have contacted your insurer's if they didn't insure the vehicle that you hit? I think it is fairly obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that the vehicle WAS INSURED.

 

Using your logic, if I was parked illegally on double yellow lines and you carelessly hit my vehicle, then you would no doubt blame me for being parked illegally for your careless driving? I think you live on another planet to the rest of the people who have contributed to this post!

 

Believe it or not Chester that has actually been tried........driver came around corner struck car parked on DYL & tried to blame the other driver cos he was parked on DYL.......some folks attitude just beggars belief

[JonCris]

In that case, you have most definitely been talking to someone who knows absolutely nothing about road traffic law and insurance!

 

 

I agree chester

 

The OP wants to find some way of blaming the victim no matter what:evil:

[JonCris]

Yes gyzmo

We are all trying to help each other fight the injustices that are perpetrated against many here & someone comes on here expecting that we will support their attempt to commit an injustice to their victim beggars belief.........I wonder why they thought that??

[JonCris]

here is my 2p worth

 

Yes this person is wrong in hitting the car regardless of it being taxed, insured etc. there is no way of getting out of that and they have admitted it.

 

However, does being a victim allow that person to 1/ hike up the costs by doing the work themselves and adding bits on and/or 2/ abuse and threaten the (for the want of a better word) offender. NO it does not. after all it was an accident.

 

From all I can see the poster became a victim when the original victim became abusive and they need the details in order to pursue this.

 

This probably wont be a popular view but there are some double standards being displayed here i.e. the original victim can break the law and have an untaxed car on the road but still be able to claim for damages done to it, but it appears that the OP can't cause an accident and bring an abusive and threatening person to justice.

 

To the person who suggested that they keep quiet to avoid further reprisals - would you tell a child who is being bullied at school to keep quiet to avoid further action??????

 

The point I find most confusing is: - If the owner of the uninsured car is not known then who is going to be paid out.

 

What can I say but utter rubbish.......& having seen the comments of the OP is it little wonder that the victim threatened him if he displayed the same mind set as here

 

The victim was the victim & will always remain the victim & if the victim threatened the negligent driver's husband then that's another matter all to together.........to suggest the victims own unrelated actions negated his right to compensation is frankly utter drivel

 

Senario...........idiot negligent driver runs into my car whilst unattended.........I arrive & call the driver an idiot who should not be on the road & in my frustration I threaten him when he gets snotty without actually doing anything.....result I now can't expect the idiot to pay for my damage.....yeah right

 

As for the cost of the repair that's between the insurer who's paying & the 3rd party

 

"After all it was only an accident" Once again there is no such thing as an 'accident' were there is negligence. In other words it was not unavoidable

 

Badger without knowing the exact circumstances of the case you mention it's impossible to comment other than that here it was not the same The OP struck a parked unattended vehicle

[JonCris]

"An accident is a result of unforeseen circumstances".......

 

The circumstances as described here by the OP........are NOT unforeseen & therefore are NOT an accident....it has been caused by the negligent actions of the driver of the moving vehicle striking a parked & unattended one.....call it what you like dazzling but an accident it ain't

 

Also so what if he does have something to hide it's a matter for the police & none of your business. Also it doesn't alter the fact that your wife is the negligent party & he's the victim

[JonCris]

The police now refer to themselves as 'Crash' Investigators & describe what were often referred to accidents as incidents. A term which can cover everything from a terrorist bombing to a minor traffic collision

[JonCris]

Negligent driving does NOT constitute an accident & if the driver of one vehicle hits another vehicle which is parked & in this case unattended then that is negligence......otherwise why admit fault........

 

Only an act of God can result in an accident..........eg unfortunate driver has unforeseen heart attack from undiagnosed heart condition causing them to lose control & collide with another........IS an accident........if the heart condition is known of by the driver & they have a collision as a result of a heart attack then that is not an accident....it's a foreseeable incident

[JonCris]

you need to look in the dictionary. my wife neglectic her rear view mirror resulting in an accident occurring due to her carelesness!!!

 

Quite..........so it wasn't an accident......as according to you your wife neglected to look in her mirror..........A failure to act does not constitute an accident & I suggest YOU look in the OED....again

[JonCris]

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.

[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