Re: Interesting developing situation
- From: Clive George <clive@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:21:21 +0000
On 14/01/2011 20:02, McKevvy wrote:
On Jan 14, 3:22 pm, cynic_...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Cynic) wrote:A friend of mine is involved in an interesting vehicle accident
situation, which I will recount.
Last November his next-door neighbour moved to a new house in the same
estate. He asked for advice about moving, and my friend recommended
he hire a van from a faily well-known high-street vehicle hire company
my friend's father had used a few months previously, as their hire
rates were very reasonable. The neighbour duly hired a large
tail-lift van from that company - coincidentally the same van my
friend's father had previously hired.
During the move, the neighbour reversed the van into the side of my
friend's car, which was parked in a designated parking bay at the
time. My friend heard the crunch from his house, and went out to
investigate. The neighbour was extremely apologetic and promised to
report the accident and sort out the claim with the company the car
hire firm had insured it with. The tail lift of the large van had
ridden up over the bonnet of my friend's car and done some pretty
hefty damage. My friend reported the accident to his insurance
company as his policy obliges him to do, and they promised to sort it
all out with the van's insurers and asked who the van was insured
My friend then contacted the hire company to get the van's insurance
details, but they told him the hirer had not reported any accident and
so they were not prepared to give any details, so my friend (who found
out his neighbour's new address) got the police involved. A policeman
inspected the damage to my friend's car and also went to the car hire
company to inspect the van (which had not been damaged but showed
paint scraped from the car) and satisfied himself that the evidence
was consistent with the accident as my friend had described. The
policeman then visited the van's driver at his new address, who
immediately admitted the accident, and said that he had indeed
reported it to the car hire company. The hire company still denied
previous knowlege of the accident, but gave the driver some accident
forms to fill out which he did. The police report correctly states
that the accident was entirely the fault of the van driver, and told
my friend that the insurance companies would now deal with it and it
was not a police matter.
After being given the run-around for over a month by the vehicle hire
company, who stated that only the company owner - who was *never*
available - could deal with insurance matters, my friend was told by
his insurers that he would have to pay the 300 excess and would be
losing his NCB because his insurers had been unable to find out any
insurance details from the hire company despite several phone calls,
letters and emails and so would be paying for the repair as a claim on
his insurance. They stated that they would be suing the car hire
company's owner personally, and that as soon as they recovered the
money my friend would get his excess and NCB back. They did however
also state that it was a criminal offence to refuse to supply
insurance details and so my friend should contact the police again.
My friend did so. The police at first insisted that it was an
insurance matter and nothing to do with them, but after two weeks of
harrassing the police with phone calls and personal visits, the police
admitted that it was indeed a criminal offence and they would
My friend received a call from the police yesterday. It turns out
that the car hire company have only a trade insurance that does not
cover either hire vehicles or large vans.
So I will await the outcome with interest.
Legally, who in this case is responsible for paying for the damage to
my friend's car (which is all my friend is concerned about). The
driver, who it seems was uninsured, or the hire company who led the
driver to believe that he was insured (and indeed charged him for
insurance that was never provided).
My friend recently had to renew his insurance, and was mortified to
see that the premiums have increased a huge amount due to the claim,
when he had been looking forward to a reduction this year from his
NCB. As he is a young driver (21) the amount is very significant. He
has been told that he will get it all back after his insurance company
recovers its costs from the guilty party. He cannot actually get his
car repaired yet because he cannot afford the excess, and so is
off-road and very significantly inconvenienced by the whole thing.
Sounds like the company is to blame and he could persue criminal
liability through them.
On a related note I'd like to bring to attention of the group an
aspect of hire van insurance. I was driving an artic with a 45ft
trailer one saturday morning and delivering to a store in Edinburgh.
The loading bay of the store is in a right turn off an access road
from Morningside Road. The access road is a very tight fit indeed and
when I was delivering there one day there was a hire van which was
doing a house removal parked on the access road. Because the van was a
bit wider than cars it jutted out a bit and I happened to go too close
to it when I turned right to get into the store.
The result was that the rear end of the trailer gouged a line in the
aluminium side of the hire van and smashed the mirror. Although I
immediately admitted liability (how could I deny it??), the driver of
the van had hired it with his credit card. I later found out that he
had been charged an excess of £500 which was written in the small
print REGARDLESS of who was responsible.
Can't he then make a claim against your insurer for that money?
- Prev by Date: Re: Should people who sneeze or cough in public without covering their mouths be arrested?
- Next by Date: Re: Interesting developing situation
- Previous by thread: Re: Interesting developing situation
- Next by thread: Re: Interesting developing situation