Realistically, whats my chance of loosing this one?
Discussion
aw51 121565 said:
What sort of vehicle was it, I'm guessing it was not a normal car or van with 'normal' handbrake operation? 
I nearly got taken out by a Mk3 Mondeo on my bike, rode into the work car park and and it started to move just as I passed it, thought it was just someone lining their car up into a space until I parked up and realised the car was abandoned in the middle of the car park (luckily there was nothing for it to roll into). This was ~15minutes after they'd parked it.At the same car park I heard of 2 other incidents where exactly the same happened, one just lightly bumped, no damage, the other did a fair bit of damage.
So yes it is 'normal' cars with 'normal' handbrakes and it's pretty common.
This is why I *always* park in gear.
jellypig said:
astra estate.
What year was it? I've seen loads of reports of Astras rolling away both with conventional handbrakes and the new ones with electrically applied brakes.IIRC Vauxhall say people aren't using the conventional handbrakes correctly - they're supposed to be applied while the footbrake is firmly pressed.
...very good
LoonR1 said:
Not a cat in hell's chance of losing (note the spelling).
Plenty of posturing around this, but no way will it stick. So you're sorted on liability, of course that doesn't mean you can get a credit hire car and be guaranteed to win. Quantum and liability are two very different things.
If so then why is the insurer deliberately pissing him about?Plenty of posturing around this, but no way will it stick. So you're sorted on liability, of course that doesn't mean you can get a credit hire car and be guaranteed to win. Quantum and liability are two very different things.
PurpleMoonlight said:
If so then why is the insurer deliberately pissing him about?
Why? Because their customer will be claiming all sorts of reasons why they aren't at fault. Much like the spurious defences that people throw up on here. In fact I'm pretty sure this daft "it wasn't me, my handbrake failed" rubbish has been supported as it was a PH member who forgot to put his handbrake on. Or would you prefer insurers did what they know the outcome will be and b
ks to the customer?Yes that's right, because insurers love to hold up claims and make sure we pay out loads more than necessary by dragging it out and letting people go into Credit Hire and litigate.
We don't chase lost causes and the idea that an insurer would put this kind of idea into their customers mind is ridiculous.
We don't chase lost causes and the idea that an insurer would put this kind of idea into their customers mind is ridiculous.
LoonR1 said:
Yes that's right, because insurers love to hold up claims and make sure we pay out loads more than necessary by dragging it out and letting people go into Credit Hire and litigate.
We don't chase lost causes and the idea that an insurer would put this kind of idea into their customers mind is ridiculous.
And yet they are doing just that by not settling a claim you say they will know 100% they will be liable for.We don't chase lost causes and the idea that an insurer would put this kind of idea into their customers mind is ridiculous.
Oh FFS are you being deliberately obtuse?
They will be standing by their customers version of events to start with, whilst working hard to explain to their custom that there is no chance of success and trying to get them to change their mind.
If unsuccessful the. They will exercise their surrogates rights and accept liability. However, they'll lose a customer who will come on here slagging off his insurers for not fighting to harder and everyone on here will agree.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
They will be standing by their customers version of events to start with, whilst working hard to explain to their custom that there is no chance of success and trying to get them to change their mind.
If unsuccessful the. They will exercise their surrogates rights and accept liability. However, they'll lose a customer who will come on here slagging off his insurers for not fighting to harder and everyone on here will agree.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
LoonR1 said:
They will be standing by their customers version of events to start with, whilst working hard to explain to their custom that there is no chance of success and trying to get them to change their mind.
Why waste money on a mechanical inspection then if they are 100% liable regardless of the results?PurpleMoonlight said:
Why waste money on a mechanical inspection then if they are 100% liable regardless of the results?
LoonR1 said:
Because they aren't liable if it can be proven. It won't be proven though and so the customer has wasted everyone's time with this bullst story trying to save their NCD.
Well, given its a fleet vehicle, I'd hope that the mech inspection is to prevent it happening again either to that or another in the fleet. And believe me, had my car not "gotten in the way" it would have been a lot more serious. t story trying to save their NCD. And as for "story" , I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve the other driver regarding the handbrake. He was confident infront of me, and again infront of supervisor who he summoned.
jellypig said:
Well, given its a fleet vehicle, I'd hope that the mech inspection is to prevent it happening again either to that or another in the fleet. And believe me, had my car not "gotten in the way" it would have been a lot more serious.
Wonder if the employer will be notifying the Health & Safety Executive?jellypig said:
Well, given its a fleet vehicle, I'd hope that the mech inspection is to prevent it happening again either to that or another in the fleet. And believe me, had my car not "gotten in the way" it would have been a lot more serious.
And as for "story" , I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve the other driver regarding the handbrake. He was confident infront of me, and again infront of supervisor who he summoned.
Then if you've no reason to disbelieve him, you're on your own as who is going to take the blame? There's no negligence and without negligence you don't have anyone to claim off. On that basis and given what you asked earlier, the answer is you are 100% likely to lose. And as for "story" , I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve the other driver regarding the handbrake. He was confident infront of me, and again infront of supervisor who he summoned.
LoonR1 said:
Then if you've no reason to disbelieve him, you're on your own as who is going to take the blame? There's no negligence and without negligence you don't have anyone to claim off. On that basis and given what you asked earlier, the answer is you are 100% likely to lose.
You should become an MP.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff