Car hit by Hertz rental. Can I deal directly with Hertz?
Discussion
Pontoneer said:
LoonR1 said:
Handbrake failure? Really? How often does stuff like that really happen. Clue: I know an answer and it will be a lot nearer the actual industry wide answer than your guess will be.
As for not declaring, why not? Surely it "all goes towards the profile"
I imagine handbrake failures happen surprisingly often : I know of one friend whose uninsured car rolled off his driveway and across the road into his neighbour's car ( he paid for the damage out of his own pocket ) ; last year I returned to my parked car in Glasgow and , before I could drive off , the car in front just started rolling backwards and came to rest against my bumper ! I couldn't go anywhere , waited about half an hour then called the police on 101 , they sent a couple of beat cops round who managed to contact the owner , he appeared very sheepishly and waffled about his handbrake being on , once the car was moved I confirmed there was no damage to mine and I didn't want to pursue it further ; I don't know what transpired between the cops and the young man after I left .As for not declaring, why not? Surely it "all goes towards the profile"
What bemuses me is that people still leave cars relying solely on handbrakes , which are unreliable contraptions at best : in the case of my mate's Herald which rolled off the drive it was a broken cable ; the Clio which rolled into my car was , I'm guessing , a case of handbrake working on discs which cooled down and contracted , thus reducing contact pressure ... In all cases , it is a simple matter to also leave the car in gear and , if on a particularly steep hill , to turn the wheels so that they would lock against the kerb if the car moved . Failure to take these simple and obvious precautions is , in my book , negligent , and I suspect the two cops might have said something along these lines to the Clio driver .
Since a lot of the time , these things will just result in low speed 'nudges' and no damage , insurers may not hear about them ?
Most instances of claimed mechanical failure aren't and are simply people failing in their ability to drive or use parts of it correctly. The amount of times we hear "the tyre was defective", no it was damaged by your driving and not checked, or "the brakes failed", no they didn't you just drove into them whilst on your phone etc.
The list goes on, reality is that mechanical components rarely fail catastrophically unless they are badly maintained. That's not to say it doesn't happen, just that it's not often.
LoonR1 said:
I have NOT said that premiums will never rise. I've said that all premiums do NOT automatically rise. Some go up, some stay the same and some go down.
This. My renewal doubled as I had an on-going claim, although the insurance company were confident the other party would accept liability as I had dashcam proof.I couldn't afford that so did a meerkat and although I had to get quotes with an 'at fault' claim (as it wasn't settled yet), the quote I went with had a much lower excess for about £20 more than the previous year's insurance.
Some load it, some don't, always compare!
LoonR1 said:
They don't happen surprisingly or unsurprisingly often. I doubt the sheepish person in your second example had applied the handbrake fully. How long ago is the Herald story from?
Most instances of claimed mechanical failure aren't and are simply people failing in their ability to drive or use parts of it correctly. The amount of times we hear "the tyre was defective", no it was damaged by your driving and not checked, or "the brakes failed", no they didn't you just drove into them whilst on your phone etc.
The list goes on, reality is that mechanical components rarely fail catastrophically unless they are badly maintained. That's not to say it doesn't happen, just that it's not often.
No argument .Most instances of claimed mechanical failure aren't and are simply people failing in their ability to drive or use parts of it correctly. The amount of times we hear "the tyre was defective", no it was damaged by your driving and not checked, or "the brakes failed", no they didn't you just drove into them whilst on your phone etc.
The list goes on, reality is that mechanical components rarely fail catastrophically unless they are badly maintained. That's not to say it doesn't happen, just that it's not often.
The Herald incident was about 30 years ago - it was a project car my mate was doing up on his driveway and hardly in peak mechanical condition - the snapped cable was evident though .
As for the Clio , the handbrake lever was pulled about halfway up , how well it was applied I don't know , although the car was there when I parked , and just bad luck in the timing of my return that I had got into my car and was just putting my belt on when it started rolling back slowly ! At least it didn't pick up any speed and no damage occurred . The guy waffled about applying the brake 'fully' and I wasn't getting into a pointless argument since I had no damage .
Pontoneer said:
No argument .
The Herald incident was about 30 years ago - it was a project car my mate was doing up on his driveway and hardly in peak mechanical condition - the snapped cable was evident though .
As for the Clio , the handbrake lever was pulled about halfway up , how well it was applied I don't know , although the car was there when I parked , and just bad luck in the timing of my return that I had got into my car and was just putting my belt on when it started rolling back slowly ! At least it didn't pick up any speed and no damage occurred . The guy waffled about applying the brake 'fully' and I wasn't getting into a pointless argument since I had no damage .
Fully in agreement then. The Herald was badly maintained, so the negligence still rests with the owner and the Clio sounds like the handbrake was just on, but not enough to hold the car. It certainly didn't fail, if the car didn't pick up speed as that's the only thing holding it back from the effects of gravity. The Herald incident was about 30 years ago - it was a project car my mate was doing up on his driveway and hardly in peak mechanical condition - the snapped cable was evident though .
As for the Clio , the handbrake lever was pulled about halfway up , how well it was applied I don't know , although the car was there when I parked , and just bad luck in the timing of my return that I had got into my car and was just putting my belt on when it started rolling back slowly ! At least it didn't pick up any speed and no damage occurred . The guy waffled about applying the brake 'fully' and I wasn't getting into a pointless argument since I had no damage .
LoonR1 said:
Alfa numeric said:
In 2008 my car was hit by a van in a carpark. The van driver didn't stop and I didn't get the registration. I rang the insurance company who directed me to their local authorised repairer- they had a look at it and quoted me a price that was less than my excess, so I borrowed a car for a few days, paid for the repair and didn't make a claim.
The following year my insurer told me that because I'd had an accident in the year my premium was going up. I can't remember exactly how much it went up by but I do remember that it was in the hundreds of pounds. So it does happen.
How many times do I have to say the same thing?The following year my insurer told me that because I'd had an accident in the year my premium was going up. I can't remember exactly how much it went up by but I do remember that it was in the hundreds of pounds. So it does happen.
I have NOT said that premiums will never rise. I've said that all premiums do NOT automatically rise. Some go up, some stay the same amd some go down, despite this statement people seem incapable of understanding it.
LoonR1 said:
Fully in agreement then. The Herald was badly maintained, so the negligence still rests with the owner and the Clio sounds like the handbrake was just on, but not enough to hold the car. It certainly didn't fail, if the car didn't pick up speed as that's the only thing holding it back from the effects of gravity.
It is certainly a known failing with handbrake mechanisms which act on discs that if a car is parked after being driven a distance , such that the discs are hot , and the handbrake applied , then the discs can cool down over a period of time and contract , thus reducing the grip of the pads on the discs - I suspect that is what happened to Mr Clio .The above is the reason why some manufacturers , even though their cars have all roux disc brakes , take the trouble to have integrated drums for parking brakes : as it cools down a drum will contract and tighten its grip on the shoes .
Pontoneer said:
LoonR1 said:
Fully in agreement then. The Herald was badly maintained, so the negligence still rests with the owner and the Clio sounds like the handbrake was just on, but not enough to hold the car. It certainly didn't fail, if the car didn't pick up speed as that's the only thing holding it back from the effects of gravity.
It is certainly a known failing with handbrake mechanisms which act on discs that if a car is parked after being driven a distance , such that the discs are hot , and the handbrake applied , then the discs can cool down over a period of time and contract , thus reducing the grip of the pads on the discs - I suspect that is what happened to Mr Clio .The above is the reason why some manufacturers , even though their cars have all roux disc brakes , take the trouble to have integrated drums for parking brakes : as it cools down a drum will contract and tighten its grip on the shoes .
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The idea that failing handbrakes are an issue in the calculation of insurance premiums is just too ridiculous for words.
Automatic electric handbrakes will sort this out anyway. 
Except some cars don't apply then if you take your seatbelt off before switching the engine off. Cue cars rolling about everywhere!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff