Someone hit our car in a car park, but...

[oyster]

Garvin said:

Although your insurance company may load your next premiums as you are now considered a 'higher risk' (a scam if ever there was one) the additional premiums, even over a couple of years, are unlikely to come anywhere near the repair costs. This option involves minimum hassle.

Where's the scam?

If you put your vehicle in positions where it's more likely to be hit then the risk is greater. A public car park is one such place.

[PAULJ5555]

oyster said:

Garvin said:

Although your insurance company may load your next premiums as you are now considered a 'higher risk' (a scam if ever there was one) the additional premiums, even over a couple of years, are unlikely to come anywhere near the repair costs. This option involves minimum hassle.

Where's the scam?

If you put your vehicle in positions where it's more likely to be hit then the risk is greater. A public car park is one such place.

Yes never park your car in a public carpark (why would you anyway), its just not fair on the insurance companies.

[balls-out]

Woody3 said:

...
The car park is watched over by CCTV, but we are unable to get any footage, as we aren't the police or an insurance company. Oh, and we've only got 5 days left to obtain it, until it gets deleted.

...

That's an awful attitude from whoever owns the CCTV, why are they not prepared to help you? threaten to make a noise with the local paper?

I assume freedom of information request can't be used to cover this?

[Hugo a Gogo]

presumably when a car mounts the pavement and runs over a bus queue, he's ok too 'because he's not on a road'

[marshalla]

balls-out said:

Woody3 said:

...
The car park is watched over by CCTV, but we are unable to get any footage, as we aren't the police or an insurance company. Oh, and we've only got 5 days left to obtain it, until it gets deleted.

...

That's an awful attitude from whoever owns the CCTV, why are they not prepared to help you? threaten to make a noise with the local paper?

I assume freedom of information request can't be used to cover this?

DPA would be the right bit of legislation, not FOI, but DPA is also probably why they're not willing to give footage to a member of the public.

[balls-out]

marshalla said:

DPA would be the right bit of legislation, not FOI, but DPA is also probably why they're not willing to give footage to a member of the public.

DPA for images taken on public access land? I find that really surprising - there is no private information being stored here and they are not publishing the pictures, merely sharing it with a single party.

Edited by balls-out on Thursday 20th November 17:08

[marshalla]

balls-out said:

marshalla said:

DPA would be the right bit of legislation, not FOI, but DPA is also probably why they're not willing to give footage to a member of the public.

DPA for images taken on public access land? I find that really surprising there is no private information being stored here?

That's the point - the images of the people are covered by DPA as they are personal identifiers.

FOI only applies to public authorities and, even then, definitely not to personal data.

[StuntmanMike]

PAULJ5555 said:

Just to be clear-

Its ok to use a mobile phone whilst driving forward the back 10 inches as long as you are in the lines of a bay.

What about drunk people sleeping in cars with the keys in the barrel. - ok in a bay?

[Garvin]

oyster said:

Garvin said:

Although your insurance company may load your next premiums as you are now considered a 'higher risk' (a scam if ever there was one) the additional premiums, even over a couple of years, are unlikely to come anywhere near the repair costs. This option involves minimum hassle.

Where's the scam?

If you put your vehicle in positions where it's more likely to be hit then the risk is greater. A public car park is one such place.

Cars are generally for driving from A to B, not for driving full circle from A back to A and back to its cosy garage to be locked up nice and tight. Therefore one has to conclude that the car has to be parked somewhere at B when doing whatever it is at B. This parking will either be on someone else's drive/private land, by the side of a road or, heaven forbid, in a public car park. The risk of this normal activity is included in the basic premium paid and is based on some sort of average risk. Now the person who drives and parks his car every day of every year in a car park and never had anyone drive into his P&J is happy as his premiums tend to decrease each year, or at least they don't get loaded. The chap who drives his car once a year and on that day parks in that self same car park is unlucky in that Mr Numpty happens along and prangs his perfectly parked car. Who actually is the higher risk and who gets his premium loaded?

[MagneticMeerkat]

oyster said:

Garvin said:

Although your insurance company may load your next premiums as you are now considered a 'higher risk' (a scam if ever there was one) the additional premiums, even over a couple of years, are unlikely to come anywhere near the repair costs. This option involves minimum hassle.

Where's the scam?

If you put your vehicle in positions where it's more likely to be hit then the risk is greater. A public car park is one such place.

Does anyone actually have any evidence or genuine experience of this happening. The only reason I ask is that I was involved in a non-fault accident in the summer and it's made no difference to my insurance premium. The company were fine about it, as was the other driver who admitted liability.

It's had no apparent effect on my risk profile.

[Garvin]

MagneticMeerkat said:

oyster said:

Garvin said:

Although your insurance company may load your next premiums as you are now considered a 'higher risk' (a scam if ever there was one) the additional premiums, even over a couple of years, are unlikely to come anywhere near the repair costs. This option involves minimum hassle.

Where's the scam?

If you put your vehicle in positions where it's more likely to be hit then the risk is greater. A public car park is one such place.

Does anyone actually have any evidence or genuine experience of this happening. The only reason I ask is that I was involved in a non-fault accident in the summer and it's made no difference to my insurance premium. The company were fine about it, as was the other driver who admitted liability.

It's had no apparent effect on my risk profile.

Firstly, it depends on your insurance company which is why I say 'may' in the earlier post. Secondly, have you had a renewal since the incident to make a judgement. Thirdly, insurance premiums have in general, or so I am told, reduced this year by quite an amount so if your renewal premium didn't reduce chances are it has been loaded.

[Hungry Pigeon]

Shockingly bad conclusion from plod! Other party has admitted being there, and admitted that they weren't aware they had a crash doing 500 hundred pounds of damage to a 3K car. If that's not driving without due care, then I don't know what is!

I do hope you lodge a complaint OP. Whoever wrote the letter needs a good talking to!

[GC8]

Bigends said:

I left a note on a car in our Tescos car park after i'd seen another car scrape down its side pulling out of a space next to it.Police took it all the way to court and he was convicted. To my knowledge I was the only witness.

I had a similar experience with South Yorkshire police in a Tesco car park. They were all over it and even took the CCTV footage identifying the driver, on top of my photograph of them doing it.

[Woody3]

Just to update this thread (thought I already had - apologies).

Car has been repaired and, as far as we are aware, been settled with the other party's insurance company at no cost to us.

Regarding the police letter, I've still got it, but haven't made a complaint; in all honesty, I don't fully understand what is right or wrong - I'd be quite out of my depth.

Anyway, thanks again for all of the replies and advice.