Minor accident in taxi - Door opened into another taxi.
Discussion
But he has NOT admitted it.
Opening the door and making contact with the wing mirror is on record with the insurer from the time of the accident...
It doesn't look possible that the door could even make contact with the front bumper (lower).
So, why is bumper damage (that wasn't present at the time) being claimed for?
Should he have denied it all and not given details?
What if they were claiming for damage to the opposite side of the car that couldn't be touched?
The bumper wasn't touched so why should he roll over and pay for it? Admitting opening the door and hitting the wing mirror isn't admitting to damaging a different part of the car that wasn't touched, surely?
So, it goes to court and he loses... What happens? Would that impact him being a director of a company, like a CCJ?
Opening the door and making contact with the wing mirror is on record with the insurer from the time of the accident...
It doesn't look possible that the door could even make contact with the front bumper (lower).
So, why is bumper damage (that wasn't present at the time) being claimed for?
Should he have denied it all and not given details?
What if they were claiming for damage to the opposite side of the car that couldn't be touched?
The bumper wasn't touched so why should he roll over and pay for it? Admitting opening the door and hitting the wing mirror isn't admitting to damaging a different part of the car that wasn't touched, surely?
So, it goes to court and he loses... What happens? Would that impact him being a director of a company, like a CCJ?
I doubt they will be successful in suing a member of the public for being negligent by opening a door when the vehicle is parked up and they have reached the destination.
If they opened it when the vehicle was in motion or sat in the middle lane of a 3 lane set of traffic lights, it would be a bit different.
Arkell v. Pressdram in this case methinks.
If they opened it when the vehicle was in motion or sat in the middle lane of a 3 lane set of traffic lights, it would be a bit different.
Arkell v. Pressdram in this case methinks.
dom9 said:
But he has NOT admitted it.
Opening the door and making contact with the wing mirror is on record with the insurer from the time of the accident...
It doesn't look possible that the door could even make contact with the front bumper (lower).
So, why is bumper damage (that wasn't present at the time) being claimed for?
Should he have denied it all and not given details?
What if they were claiming for damage to the opposite side of the car that couldn't be touched?
The bumper wasn't touched so why should he roll over and pay for it? Admitting opening the door and hitting the wing mirror isn't admitting to damaging a different part of the car that wasn't touched, surely?
So, it goes to court and he loses... What happens? Would that impact him being a director of a company, like a CCJ?
Yes he has. It's here in bold for you in one of your earlier postsOpening the door and making contact with the wing mirror is on record with the insurer from the time of the accident...
It doesn't look possible that the door could even make contact with the front bumper (lower).
So, why is bumper damage (that wasn't present at the time) being claimed for?
Should he have denied it all and not given details?
What if they were claiming for damage to the opposite side of the car that couldn't be touched?
The bumper wasn't touched so why should he roll over and pay for it? Admitting opening the door and hitting the wing mirror isn't admitting to damaging a different part of the car that wasn't touched, surely?
So, it goes to court and he loses... What happens? Would that impact him being a director of a company, like a CCJ?
He won't get a CCJ unless he chooses not to pay, if /when he loses.
dom9 said:
And so it rumbles on...
That is the response to a long email from 10+ days ago, incorporating a lot of the points made here.
Clearly none of the questions asked (such as please show pictures of damage before and after etc) have been answered and it is just another blind demand.
He was VERY clear in that he admitted opening the door and making contact with the WING MIRROR but denied making contact with any of the rest of the car.
They have failed to answer why the demand is so late in coming or why the repair was performed so long after the accident.
It looks to me like a bit of 'bully' tactics - but do you have any comments on a response to this one?
That is the response to a long email from 10+ days ago, incorporating a lot of the points made here.
Clearly none of the questions asked (such as please show pictures of damage before and after etc) have been answered and it is just another blind demand.
He was VERY clear in that he admitted opening the door and making contact with the WING MIRROR but denied making contact with any of the rest of the car.
They have failed to answer why the demand is so late in coming or why the repair was performed so long after the accident.
It looks to me like a bit of 'bully' tactics - but do you have any comments on a response to this one?
Morris Orman Hearle Solicitors said:
Good morning,
We refer to the above claim and to your email below.
· We note your admission of liability to opening the car door and making contact to our client’s vehicle. We have previously provided you with a paid invoice showing that damage was sustained to our client’s vehicle.
As such we continue to pursue a cheque to the value of £375.00 made payable to ‘XXX’ as a result of your negligence.
Unless we receive your satisfactory response within 7 days, we will have no choice but to commence immediate proceedings which will be served on you directly. Please accept this letter as the notice to which you are entitled under S.152 of the Road Traffic Act, 1988.
Kind Regards,
We refer to the above claim and to your email below.
· We note your admission of liability to opening the car door and making contact to our client’s vehicle. We have previously provided you with a paid invoice showing that damage was sustained to our client’s vehicle.
As such we continue to pursue a cheque to the value of £375.00 made payable to ‘XXX’ as a result of your negligence.
Unless we receive your satisfactory response within 7 days, we will have no choice but to commence immediate proceedings which will be served on you directly. Please accept this letter as the notice to which you are entitled under S.152 of the Road Traffic Act, 1988.
Kind Regards,
LoonR1 said:
But admitting opening the door is not the same as admitting the damage to the bumper.The bit in bold says as much.
You haven't answered the questions. Does admitting opening the door mean he is responsible for any damage found on any part of the door?
As the bit in bold says - he hit the mirror (which looks to be the ONLY part the door could hit) and is being told he has damaged the bumper, which doesn't look possible.
So, how is admitting opening the door, with the express caveat that he only made contact with the mirror, admitting to damaging a different part of the car?
Again - what if he was claiming for, as an example, a boot respray? Because he said he opened the door into the mirror, he should pay for that?
Loon is right. He's admitted to opening the door and causing damage, so he's on a hiding to nothing trying to argue what damage he did and didn't do.
Why is he even dealing with this. Why hasn't he passed it on to his travel (he was coming back from Heathrow, possibly travel insurance in force) or his household insurance to deal with for him. They provide personal tp liability cover.
Why is he even dealing with this. Why hasn't he passed it on to his travel (he was coming back from Heathrow, possibly travel insurance in force) or his household insurance to deal with for him. They provide personal tp liability cover.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Loon is right. He's admitted to opening the door and causing damage, so he's on a hiding to nothing trying to argue what damage he did and didn't do.
Why is he even dealing with this. Why hasn't he passed it on to his travel (he was coming back from Heathrow, possibly travel insurance in force) or his household insurance to deal with for him. They provide personal tp liability cover.
Now, that's a good question!Why is he even dealing with this. Why hasn't he passed it on to his travel (he was coming back from Heathrow, possibly travel insurance in force) or his household insurance to deal with for him. They provide personal tp liability cover.
Will ask that!
However - he hasn't admitted damage... In fact, it was agreed at the scene there was no damage!
Surely if there is damage on a part of the car he didn't touch and stated he didn't touch - he can't be responsible?
I don't get this at all - no one will answer why, if 'damage' was found on a part of the car he didn't touch, he should be liable!
If I had a head-on crash with a car, would I be responsible for a dent on the boot that wasn't there at the time?
You guys are suggesting he rolls over and pays for damage he didn't cause - am I understanding that correctly?
dom9 said:
Now, that's a good question!
Will ask that!
However - he hasn't admitted damage... In fact, it was agreed at the scene there was no damage!
Surely if there is damage on a part of the car he didn't touch and stated he didn't touch - he can't be responsible?
I don't get this at all - no one will answer why, if 'damage' was found on a part of the car he didn't touch, he should be liable!
If I had a head-on crash with a car, would I be responsible for a dent on the boot that wasn't there at the time?
You guys are suggesting he rolls over and pays for damage he didn't cause - am I understanding that correctly?
He shouldn't be liable for damage he didn't cause, however, the problem is the fact that he HAS admitted to making contact with the other vehicle, so unless he can categorically prove the damage he actually caused had nothing to do with any other damage, real or not, then it's going to be difficult to argue against.Will ask that!
However - he hasn't admitted damage... In fact, it was agreed at the scene there was no damage!
Surely if there is damage on a part of the car he didn't touch and stated he didn't touch - he can't be responsible?
I don't get this at all - no one will answer why, if 'damage' was found on a part of the car he didn't touch, he should be liable!
If I had a head-on crash with a car, would I be responsible for a dent on the boot that wasn't there at the time?
You guys are suggesting he rolls over and pays for damage he didn't cause - am I understanding that correctly?
LoonR1 said:
Then enjoy your day in court. It looks likely that they'll pursue it. You're on a sticky wicket IMO.
Whilst you are probably right in your argument that he may lose, he still shouldn't pay. However if someone admits to hitting my mirror and I say I need a new engine, you as an insurer would probably feel pretty comfortable. I'd say he was denying causing the damage they are claiming for. I therefore don't think it's as cut and dry as you are making out. The chances of them sending lawyers to small claims court for £350 are small. Without being able to get costs back they will lose out either way. Therefore they have a reasonable chance of folding. Again as an insurer would you instruct solicitors to court over this for that much money?
The costs to him for letting it go to court for £350 are very small. Therefore he doesn't have a lot to lose.
And small claims court is always a gamble. If the judge sees him as the honest bloke who tried to put things right, and them as the company trying to rip him off he has a reasonable chance of winning.
At least let it run to mediation. I bet they would give a fair chunk of at that stage for them not to have to send solicitors to his local court.
Small claims court is usually in the little persons favour. It was designed to be like that. You only have to show it was more likely that you didn't cause that damage for you to win. They know this and are probably blowing smoke up your mates bum. I wouldn't pay a penny until I'd been told to by a county court judge.
Centurion07 said:
He shouldn't be liable for damage he didn't cause, however, the problem is the fact that he HAS admitted to making contact with the other vehicle, so unless he can categorically prove the damage he actually caused had nothing to do with any other damage, real or not, then it's going to be difficult to argue against.
With some effort I think it should be easy to prove that he couldn't possibly have done it. The door just doesn't look like it could have contacted the bumper, which is being claimed for. Could arrange for two cars of the same type to meet at the location and prove this!? Surely they must have some proof of the damage? The only thing that has been provided is a hand-written receipt a long time after the alleged damage was caused.Surely he can't prove he didn't do it unless they provide details i.e. height of the damage so this can be matched to the door. They simply MUST give more details, no? The receipt says nothing about the damage just that some repair was performed.
He didn't touch the door/ wing so I guess it'll go to court and he'll pay if he loses! But yes, he'll want his day as why on Earth should he give someone £375 for something he, with certainty, didn't do?
photosnob said:
Whilst you are probably right in your argument that he may lose, he still shouldn't pay. However if someone admits to hitting my mirror and I say I need a new engine, you as an insurer would probably feel pretty comfortable. I'd say he was denying causing the damage they are claiming for. I therefore don't think it's as cut and dry as you are making out.
The chances of them sending lawyers to small claims court for £350 are small. Without being able to get costs back they will lose out either way. Therefore they have a reasonable chance of folding. Again as an insurer would you instruct solicitors to court over this for that much money?
The costs to him for letting it go to court for £350 are very small. Therefore he doesn't have a lot to lose.
And small claims court is always a gamble. If the judge sees him as the honest bloke who tried to put things right, and them as the company trying to rip him off he has a reasonable chance of winning.
At least let it run to mediation. I bet they would give a fair chunk of at that stage for them not to have to send solicitors to his local court.
Small claims court is usually in the little persons favour. It was designed to be like that. You only have to show it was more likely that you didn't cause that damage for you to win. They know this and are probably blowing smoke up your mates bum. I wouldn't pay a penny until I'd been told to by a county court judge.
This is what I was thinking, pretty much.The chances of them sending lawyers to small claims court for £350 are small. Without being able to get costs back they will lose out either way. Therefore they have a reasonable chance of folding. Again as an insurer would you instruct solicitors to court over this for that much money?
The costs to him for letting it go to court for £350 are very small. Therefore he doesn't have a lot to lose.
And small claims court is always a gamble. If the judge sees him as the honest bloke who tried to put things right, and them as the company trying to rip him off he has a reasonable chance of winning.
At least let it run to mediation. I bet they would give a fair chunk of at that stage for them not to have to send solicitors to his local court.
Small claims court is usually in the little persons favour. It was designed to be like that. You only have to show it was more likely that you didn't cause that damage for you to win. They know this and are probably blowing smoke up your mates bum. I wouldn't pay a penny until I'd been told to by a county court judge.
I once got a taxi to Gatwick & on the way (early hours of the morning) the driver hit a fox at approx 70mph & smashed one of his fog lights & damage to the bumper. The car was fine to drive & we got to the airport no problem at all. As I was about to get out he told me that I need to pay for the repairs to his car because it was my fault as he was taking me to the airport. My words exactly were "go f
k yourself" I never did hear anything!
They have insurance for such things & they can not expect a passenger to pay unless it's deliberate damage.
k yourself" I never did hear anything!They have insurance for such things & they can not expect a passenger to pay unless it's deliberate damage.
Centurion07 said:
He shouldn't be liable for damage he didn't cause, however, the problem is the fact that he HAS admitted to making contact with the other vehicle, so unless he can categorically prove the damage he actually caused had nothing to do with any other damage, real or not, then it's going to be difficult to argue against.
Actually this is the rubbish the other sides solicitors are trying to pull. He has to prove nothing. He has admitted hitting a wing mirror. It is for THEM to prove on the balance of probabilities that he caused the damage they are claiming for. As I said in my response to LoonR1's post - if someone rear ends me I still have to prove that this caused my whole engine to need replacing. I'd be asking for the engineers report to say how the damage is caused, I'd be firing a lot of smoke at them. And the time delay in making the claim is pretty much worthless. But the fact that they did work before informing him isn't. How did they mitigate his losses? Why was the car left so long? Was it drivable? I'd be firing lots of rubbish at them. Indeed if they go as far as issuing a claim I'd be putting in CPR requests for this (can't remember the right part at the moment).
You need to be as slippery as possible. He didn't cause the damage, but make there life as hard as possible and they will go away.
In the grand scheme of things it might be more than £350 worth of hassle. But the tone of that letter annoyed me and probably did the OP. I'd want to give them the runaround as much as possible.
As always the joyful thing here is, that it will cost them more to pursue than to right off. I'd pay the small fee as a tax to cost these idiots money. I have a very very strong feeling that they will never step foot near a court room. As soon as they see the threats and intimidation are not working they will usually give up.
boobles said:
I once got a taxi to Gatwick & on the way (early hours of the morning) the driver hit a fox at approx 70mph & smashed one of his fog lights & damage to the bumper. The car was fine to drive & we got to the airport no problem at all. As I was about to get out he told me that I need to pay for the repairs to his car because it was my fault as he was taking me to the airport. My words exactly were "go fk yourself" I never did hear anything!
They have insurance for such things & they can not expect a passenger to pay unless it's deliberate damage.
That's terrible advice. But in this case I'd say go with it for reasons that you haven't gone into. If the driver did claim on the insurance they would be within their rights to chase the negligent party for the cost of this. But he didn't cause the damage they are saying - and I think they are trying it on. So he needs to muck them around. k yourself" I never did hear anything!They have insurance for such things & they can not expect a passenger to pay unless it's deliberate damage.
The key is negligence rather than intention. It could easily be argued that the OP's mate was negligent. However that doesn't mean they can have his pants down. If he didn't cause the damage he needs to have a bit of a scrap with them. But the wing mirror could be entirely down to the OP's mate.
boobles said:
I once got a taxi to Gatwick & on the way (early hours of the morning) the driver hit a fox at approx 70mph & smashed one of his fog lights & damage to the bumper. The car was fine to drive & we got to the airport no problem at all. As I was about to get out he told me that I need to pay for the repairs to his car because it was my fault as he was taking me to the airport. My words exactly were "go fk yourself" I never did hear anything!
They have insurance for such things & they can not expect a passenger to pay unless it's deliberate damage.
What your legal basis for this assertion? You weren't negligent when he hit the fox. But if you cause damage thru negligence, even though it's not deliberate, what case law are you relying on to show you shouldn't have to pay? k yourself" I never did hear anything!They have insurance for such things & they can not expect a passenger to pay unless it's deliberate damage.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What your legal basis for this assertion? You weren't negligent when he hit the fox. But if you cause damage thru negligence, even though it's not deliberate, what case law are you relying on to show you shouldn't have to pay?
I guess what I meant was - if I were to deliberatly damage a taxi (another words kick it or something) then I would expect to have to pay. If one of my friends accidently opened my door onto another car, I wouldn't expect them to pay as I have insurance for this. A taxi is no different in my opinion. I am not saying it's right but I suspect if the taxi driver were to take it to court, he probably wouldn't win.boobles said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What your legal basis for this assertion? You weren't negligent when he hit the fox. But if you cause damage thru negligence, even though it's not deliberate, what case law are you relying on to show you shouldn't have to pay?
I guess what I meant was - if I were to deliberatly damage a taxi (another words kick it or something) then I would expect to have to pay. If one of my friends accidently opened my door onto another car, I wouldn't expect them to pay as I have insurance for this. A taxi is no different in my opinion. I am not saying it's right but I suspect if the taxi driver were to take it to court, he probably wouldn't win.It wasn't the taxi drivers friend who opened the door, it was his customer. If you were giving a lift to someone in your office, someone you didn't know and had no relationship with, someone who to be frank you just didn't care about, and someone who was leaving so you'd never meet them again, and they opened their door to get out and accidentally but negligently smashed it into a lamppost, you might not want to claim on your comp cover and lose your bonus and pay your excess. You might expect them to pay.
Why shouldn't they?
If you take your argument to it's logical conclusion, if someone crashes into the back of you, they shouldn't have to pay. After all, they didn't do it on purpose and you have insurance to cover it!!!
boobles said:
The way I see it (rightly or wrongly) a taxi is just another form of public transport.
Mothers with buggies damage busses every single day trying to get them in & out but they are not asked to pay for any damage. I really don't see a taxi being any different to be honest.
Suppose it depends on the reason the damage i.e. willful, negligent or accidental.Mothers with buggies damage busses every single day trying to get them in & out but they are not asked to pay for any damage. I really don't see a taxi being any different to be honest.
If a mother lost the plot and smashed a window with said buggy then I'm sure they would insist on her paying for the damage.
vxr8mate said:
Suppose it depends on the reason the damage i.e. willful, negligent or accidental.
If a mother lost the plot and smashed a window with said buggy then I'm sure they would insist on her paying for the damage.
Exactly right.... The OP's friend admitted doing it but also stated that it was a pure accident.If a mother lost the plot and smashed a window with said buggy then I'm sure they would insist on her paying for the damage.
People don't walk around the streets with insurance but we do have cover for our vehicles.
If the OP's friend is happy to pay for the damage, so be it.
boobles said:
The way I see it (rightly or wrongly) a taxi is just another form of public transport.
Mothers with buggies damage busses every single day trying to get them in & out but they are not asked to pay for any damage. I really don't see a taxi being any different to be honest.
It is reasonable to expect a bus to be able to stand up to the wear and tear of everyday use, which would include getting buggies on and off. If I went on to a bus with a javelin and accidentally smashed a window with it, the bus company may well ask me to pay. because it isn't reasonable to expect a bus to be javelin proof.Mothers with buggies damage busses every single day trying to get them in & out but they are not asked to pay for any damage. I really don't see a taxi being any different to be honest.
I don't think it's reasonable for a taxi driver to expect passengers to open doors without checking that it's clear to do so. It's reasonable for a passenger in a taxi to take care not to damage the taxi.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff