Farmer claiming for damaged fence

[Ken_Code]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

By the same token, if the insurers are slow to pay, the farmer can sue the driver for the money.

Now you're adding in different things to the scenario, like failure to pay when you've said you will.

No, it’s you who’s doing that.

As per the OP the driver has offered to repair the fence himself, not to pay for it.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

OverSteery said:

Gary C said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The farmer can insist his fence is repaired to a decent standard but he can't demand driver's insurance pays for it. The insurance is there to pick up the bills for damage caused by their policyholder/driver, but only if their policyholder/driver asks them to. The policyholder/driver is quite entitled to pay for the damage himself.

Of course he can

Use the MIDB and make a claim for loss. Just needs the reg of the car

Might be harder to prove but he has the right to claim no matter what the insured desires.

I would be interested to know the correct answer on this. I had always assumed that the driver, being responsible for the damage, could pay to resolved it without insurance if he wanted to. Insurance usually is a contract for the protection of the policy holder, but I know car insurance is a bit unique.

My answer is the correct answer. There's nothing in contract law that makes motor insurance a special case. The tp aspect of your car insurance is a contract for the insurer to pick up your tp liability for damage caused. But nothing in law means you have to call on that contract. If I cause damage, I can choose to pay for it, even though I have a contract where my insurance will pay it. Because my insurance only have to pay for it.....IF I DON'T WANT TO PAY IT.

I've got a window cleaner and I might choose to pay him in advance to clean my windows for a year. But when he shows up, I'm allowed to say "don't bother this time, I've got the ladder out anyway to fix the gutter, so I'll do my own windows today". That's fine.

[Pit Pony]

The insurance company will have to replace like with like.

Where will they get 3 rotten posts and some very Rusty barbed wire from to replace what was there.

In any case the driver should counter-sue, and claim that the mud was clearly placed on the road by the farmer, and therefore he's responsible for causing the crash.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Ken_Code said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

By the same token, if the insurers are slow to pay, the farmer can sue the driver for the money.

Now you're adding in different things to the scenario, like failure to pay when you've said you will.

No, it’s you who’s doing that.

As per the OP the driver has offered to repair the fence himself, not to pay for it.

I think we've already established to farmer is entitled to a professional repair. That's not being disputed I should hope. All I'm refuting is the claim that it has to go thru the driver's insurance. It doesn't. The driver is entitled to pay for the professional repair himself, if he wants to.

[Its Just Adz]

What until it's fixed anx crash through it again.
That'll show him.

[TonyF1]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Ken_Code said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

By the same token, if the insurers are slow to pay, the farmer can sue the driver for the money.

Now you're adding in different things to the scenario, like failure to pay when you've said you will.

No, it’s you who’s doing that.

As per the OP the driver has offered to repair the fence himself, not to pay for it.

I think we've already established to farmer is entitled to a professional repair. That's not being disputed I should hope. All I'm refuting is the claim that it has to go thru the driver's insurance. It doesn't. The driver is entitled to pay for the professional repair himself, if he wants to.

This isn’t about who pays it’s about trying to hide the fact the 18 year old has had an accident from the insurance company which is the aim here.

[Gary C]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Gary C said:

But surely none of this makes any difference

The Farmer can still go straight to the insurance company and make a claim no matter what the driver wishes him to do.

Their are procedures for the Farmer to obtain his insurance details regardless of the driver not giving him the details and the driver cant prevent this, all he needs is the registration.

Gary C, if I find out the name of your insurance co, go to them and ask them to repair my car that you hit (even though I've never met you or had an accident with you), would you expect your insurer to do that, willy nilly? Of course not. They'd come to you and say "Twig says you hit his car on 2nd April, and wants £3K for repair. What say you?" At which point you can say a) Twig's a liar. b) It's true, it's all my fault, please pay him . c) It's true, but don't worry, Ill pay him out of my own pocket.

If you did hit me, I need to be compensated. But I don't get to choose who picks up the bill. Just so long as it's not me.

But thats the point, they still made a claim and it will affect his insurance which is what this is about ?

[Ken_Code]

TonyF1 said:

This isn’t about who pays it’s about trying to hide the fact the 18 year old has had an accident from the insurance company which is the aim here.

I think that that’s a reasonable assumption.

I doubt though that the OP will be back to cast any light on it.

[jan8p]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

jan8p said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The farmer can insist his fence is repaired to a decent standard but he can't demand driver's insurance pays for it. The insurance is there to pick up the bills for damage caused by their policyholder/driver, but only if their policyholder/driver asks them to. The policyholder/driver is quite entitled to pay for the damage himself.

If the farmer approaches the insurance company, they will settle the claim with him (if it's valid and proven). They won't ask the policyholder's permission first, they have a liability to the farmer.

Not if the accident hasn't been reported to them. How do the even know the farmer is telling the truth. They will contact their policyholder for an explanation who can then say "I'm responsible, but I will pay the farmer myself."

All of us have the right to be fully compensated for damage done to our property by a third party. But none of us has the right to demand who provides that compensation. Just so long as someone does.

Of course they will. They have a legal obligation to deal with 3rd party claims. They will indeed contact the policyholder to verify whatever details they want to verify, but they will deal with the claim if the farmer insists.

All the farmer will say is 'I don't want to deal with them directly, I'm dealing with you as the insurer of the vehicle that crashed through my fence."

Think of all the car vs. car incidents where one party would much prefer not to go through the insurance and deal with it via cash but the other wants it dealt with officially. You aren't entitled to decide.

[MustangGT]

jan8p said:

Of course they will. They have a legal obligation to deal with 3rd party claims. They will indeed contact the policyholder to verify whatever details they want to verify, but they will deal with the claim if the farmer insists.

You aren't entitled to decide.

Please provide legislation to back your claim. If the driver wants to pay himself, and does so, there is no reason for the insurance company to pay out. The driver simply says to the company I will deal with it myself. The only recourse to go to the insurance company is when the driver fails to pay.

[Gareth79]

MightyBadger said:

Your son smashed the fence, the farmer gets to decide how it is repaired.

But not how much they get paid. For example if the farmer repaired it themselves using a (say) 3x £10 posts and 20m of wire in 2 hours, would they be entitled to bill £5,000 for it? (For the sake of argument, let's assume the field was unused at the time)

MustangGT said:

jan8p said:

Of course they will. They have a legal obligation to deal with 3rd party claims. They will indeed contact the policyholder to verify whatever details they want to verify, but they will deal with the claim if the farmer insists.

You aren't entitled to decide.

Please provide legislation to back your claim. If the driver wants to pay himself, and does so, there is no reason for the insurance company to pay out. The driver simply says to the company I will deal with it myself. The only recourse to go to the insurance company is when the driver fails to pay.

Reading my policy wording, it includes the following text:

"When we can act on your behalf:

We’re entitled to do either of the following:

> Take over and carry out the negotiation,
defence or settlement of any claim in your
name, or in the name of any other person
covered by this policy."

Which to my reading is that if somebody called my insurer and said I had damaged their property, they would be entitled to settle it by making a payment, without my agreement.

Edited by Gareth79 on Thursday 11th April 13:50

[EddieSteadyGo]

Gareth79 said:

Reading my policy wording, it includes the following text:

"When we can act on your behalf:

We’re entitled to do either of the following:

> Take over and carry out the negotiation,
defence or settlement of any claim in your
name, or in the name of any other person
covered by this policy."

Which to my reading is that if somebody called my insurer and said I had damaged their property, they would be entitled to settle it by making a payment, without my agreement.

That's my understanding too. Basically the farmer can choose whether he wants to settle the claim via the insurance company or let the driver fix/pay for it directly.

[Gareth79]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Gareth79 said:

Reading my policy wording, it includes the following text:

"When we can act on your behalf:

We’re entitled to do either of the following:

> Take over and carry out the negotiation,
defence or settlement of any claim in your
name, or in the name of any other person
covered by this policy."

Which to my reading is that if somebody called my insurer and said I had damaged their property, they would be entitled to settle it by making a payment, without my agreement.

That's my understanding too. Basically the farmer can choose whether he wants to settle the claim via the insurance company or let the driver fix/pay for it directly.

Not really, the insurer is in control, not the farmer. The insurer could phone the policyholder who could say they are dealing with it, and then they could tell the farmer to only call back if the policyholder refuses to pay. I think in practice they will deal with it directly unless the policyholder makes a formal approach to not deal with it (where various FCA stuff might kick in).

[EddieSteadyGo]

Gareth79 said:

Not really, the insurer is in control, not the farmer. The insurer could phone the policyholder who could say they are dealing with it, and then they could tell the farmer to only call back if the policyholder refuses to pay. I think in practice they will deal with it directly unless the policyholder makes a formal approach to not deal with it (where various FCA stuff might kick in).

It's the farmer's choice whether to claim via the insurance company or to accept a private arrangement. The liability is with the insurance company - they have the obligation to make the farmer "whole" again. The policyholder can't intervene, formally or otherwise, and insist they want to settle the claim directly - otherwise the whole insurance system couldn't function.

Let's say for example the farmer wasn't happy with the policyholder's resolution. The farmer would have recourse to the Financial Ombudsman (not the FCA from my understanding). The Financial Ombudsman investigates but gets told by the insurance company the policyholder insisted on dealing with the farmer directly.... where would that leave the insurance company, or the ombudsman, or the farmer?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Gareth79 said:

Not really, the insurer is in control, not the farmer. The insurer could phone the policyholder who could say they are dealing with it, and then they could tell the farmer to only call back if the policyholder refuses to pay. I think in practice they will deal with it directly unless the policyholder makes a formal approach to not deal with it (where various FCA stuff might kick in).

It's the farmer's choice whether to claim via the insurance company or to accept a private arrangement. The liability is with the insurance company - they have the obligation to make the farmer "whole" again. The policyholder can't intervene, formally or otherwise, and insist they want to settle the claim directly - otherwise the whole insurance system couldn't function.

Let's say for example the farmer wasn't happy with the policyholder's resolution. The farmer would have recourse to the Financial Ombudsman (not the FCA from my understanding). The Financial Ombudsman investigates but gets told by the insurance company the policyholder insisted on dealing with the farmer directly.... where would that leave the insurance company, or the ombudsman, or the farmer?

This is 100% wrong. Insurance is a contract. The contract is between the policyholder and the insurer. That's why the farmer is called the third party, because parties 1 & 2 and the 2 people who have the contract. Anyone else getting involved is a third party. That's why, as we've read lots of times on PH, you want your insurer to deal with the tp claim, but they don't do it, or are slow in doing it, or are arguing about the level of compensation due, the tp sues the driver, not the drivers insurance co. Because the insurance co caused him no damage and have no obligation to any tp. Their obligation is to their policyholder, to settle tp damage their policyholder causes. A tp has no claim against the drivers insurance, because he has no contract with the drivers insurer.

Everyone has the right to be compensated fairly, but no one has the right to insist that compensation comes from a preferred choice. If the driver wants to compensate the farmer fully, then the farmer doesn't have the right to insist the insurer does it. And so long as he gets his money, why should he.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Gary C said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Gary C said:

But surely none of this makes any difference

The Farmer can still go straight to the insurance company and make a claim no matter what the driver wishes him to do.

Their are procedures for the Farmer to obtain his insurance details regardless of the driver not giving him the details and the driver cant prevent this, all he needs is the registration.

Gary C, if I find out the name of your insurance co, go to them and ask them to repair my car that you hit (even though I've never met you or had an accident with you), would you expect your insurer to do that, willy nilly? Of course not. They'd come to you and say "Twig says you hit his car on 2nd April, and wants £3K for repair. What say you?" At which point you can say a) Twig's a liar. b) It's true, it's all my fault, please pay him . c) It's true, but don't worry, Ill pay him out of my own pocket.

If you did hit me, I need to be compensated. But I don't get to choose who picks up the bill. Just so long as it's not me.

But thats the point, they still made a claim and it will affect his insurance which is what this is about ?

But if the driver pays out of his own pocket, he will keep his no claims bonus, despite having had a claim, and hopefully disclosing that he's had a claim that he settled privately.

[Ken_Code]

If I were the farmer and the kid hadn’t come straight round the next day to ask how much he wanted, and to pay it, I’d likely just get on to their insurers and see what they said.

An eighteen year-old who’s just trashed a car and is likely about to be struggling with excess and / or the whole cost of replacement isn’t someone I’d want to bother chasing.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Gareth79 said:

Reading my policy wording, it includes the following text:

"When we can act on your behalf:

We’re entitled to do either of the following:

> Take over and carry out the negotiation,
defence or settlement of any claim in your
name, or in the name of any other person
covered by this policy."

Which to my reading is that if somebody called my insurer and said I had damaged their property, they would be entitled to settle it by making a payment, without my agreement.

And what if you didn't cause the damage? What if there was no accident and the tp is a scammer, or took down the reg no wrong so has the wrong person/insurance co.

No insurer should be settling without recourse to their policyholder. If their policy holder says "Yes, I did cause the damage, and you say the guy I hit wants £3000. That sounds fair, I will contact him now and pay it myself", then that's absolutely fine. The tp cannot say "I don't want your £3000, I want your insurer's £3000".

[PorkInsider]

This is printed at the bottom of my car insurance certificate:



Presumably the same on all policies, so I'd make use of that if I was the farmer and save myself the hassle.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Ken_Code said:

If I were the farmer and the kid hadn’t come straight round the next day to ask how much he wanted, and to pay it, I’d likely just get on to their insurers and see what they said.

An eighteen year-old who’s just trashed a car and is likely about to be struggling with excess and / or the whole cost of replacement isn’t someone I’d want to bother chasing.

Maybe so. But if the kid did have the money, the farmer has no right to insist his insurers paid instead of the kid.