RE: PH Blog: you bend you mend
Discussion
AyBee said:
hairykrishna said:
People who are saying 'this could have happened at any time' should read the court judgement. Mr Hales provided a statement to the insurance company saying, essentially, that it was driver error and he caused the damage.
It's harsh that he's got stuck with a massive bill but I don't see why Mr Piper should pay for it just because he's richer.
If you were a millionaire, would you rather see someone you lent your car to (so are obviously familiar with) homeless or suck it up knowing that at least he's still got his house?It's harsh that he's got stuck with a massive bill but I don't see why Mr Piper should pay for it just because he's richer.
Dr Boxcat said:
Taken from the judgement
--
The Defendant himself composed a signed and dated (3 June 2009) detailed
note for Octane’s insurers relatively shortly after the incident. This included
the frank admission that:
"There was no fault apparent with the car before this incident, and I admit
the damage to the engine was caused by my failure to select the gear
correctly”.
--
thats kinda the end of it. poor Mark, what an awful situation to be in.
I'm so glad that a few of the contributors here have actually bothered to read that. Mark Hales finds himself in a very difficult position and that's a real shame- but the way I see it, he made an admission of fault and then, upon realising that 'Octane' wouldn't foot the bill and did not have an insurance policy covering mechanical failure, he changed tact slightly...--
The Defendant himself composed a signed and dated (3 June 2009) detailed
note for Octane’s insurers relatively shortly after the incident. This included
the frank admission that:
"There was no fault apparent with the car before this incident, and I admit
the damage to the engine was caused by my failure to select the gear
correctly”.
--
thats kinda the end of it. poor Mark, what an awful situation to be in.
P2BS said:
And... since the guy has since sold the car, does anyone know if he made money on it & got nailed for capital gains tax?
There is no CGT due on this type of asset. If your Merc eventually becomes fashionable and you sell it for a lot more than you paid for it, you won't be liable for CGT on that either.AyBee said:
will_ said:
AyBee said:
He can f
k right off with the "loss of use" claim though - surely if it was just about the repair costs, he wouldn't have been claiming for loss of use?
I don't see what the issue is with the "loss of use" claim. Why shouldn't that form part of the claim if it fact it represented a loss which was just as real as the £40k paid out to rebuild the engine?k right off with the "loss of use" claim though - surely if it was just about the repair costs, he wouldn't have been claiming for loss of use?It was only £10k, or 5 days' earnings if the usual fee was £2k per day. Hardly excessive.
According to the judgement (para 47) the car "was actually hired out periodically by the Claimant" and a schedule of events was provided.
Is there any reason why David Piper should be out of pocket for the loss of use but not for the engine repair? Exactly the same principle applies.
If you read the judgement, available on BAILLIE then Hales is the author of his own misfortune. He reportedly complained that there was a problem with the gearbox, but carried on driving after. In court he alleged there was mechanical failure, but has not had the gearbox examined to provide evidence. He was told to not worry but if as he says that it was a major problem, why carry on driving.
Here is link to judgement.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/B1.htm...
Here is link to judgement.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/B1.htm...
95% of the points raised above are addressed if you read the judgement in full. http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/piperhales.pdf
How many of us have been happy to let a mate take a spin of our P&J on track? I know I have. I was passengering in someone else's car when we encountered, (but happily missed) my own car which was facing us in the middle of a slippy chicane one damp February day at Bedford.
Mechanical failure/driver error... either issue could have a big dent on your friendship!
Mechanical failure/driver error... either issue could have a big dent on your friendship!
I love MH's columns in Octane, and have never heard of Piper til now. Just wiki'd him and he's 82 yrs old!!! Will he even be alive next month let alone by the time the car is repaired? You'd think that a bloke who had as fortunate a life as Piper has had, and someone so probably close to the end of their life would be a bit more magnanimous. A mate of mine asked if he could sit on my bike and move it out the garage - I foolishly said yes. He dropped it and a bit of plastic broke (not the fairing though). Anyway, he was absolutely skint and couldn't afford to pay a penny so just accepted his apology and moved on - and I'm not a millionaire! Would I have been within my rights to go after him? Yes but what about compassion and mercy? I suppose car racers, or at least Mr. Piper aren't gentlemen after all!!!
The article knocks lawyers, but actually had lawyers been instructed by the magazine and/or Mark Hales, the risks could have been properly dealt with. Big legal costs arise out of uncertainties, if things are recorded in black and white up front then the number of possible arguments falls away and so does the cost of any litigation (or indeed the chances of any litigation at all).
I'm sure some terms could have been put together for less than the cost of some insurance, and such terms could have been used by the magazine/Mark each time they tested a car.
Lawyers do have a role you know, other than taking money off people...
I'm sure some terms could have been put together for less than the cost of some insurance, and such terms could have been used by the magazine/Mark each time they tested a car.
Lawyers do have a role you know, other than taking money off people...
Jumboross said:
95% of the points raised above are addressed if you read the judgement in full. http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/piperhales.pdf
I've read it and it changed my opinion on the case.It's a rubbish set of circumstances and I sympathise with everyone involved.
angryBMWdriver said:
V12 Migaloo said:
Perhaps Hales should have paid the AA to give it the once over.
facepalm.When the AA look over a 2006 Toyota Yaris, the report they produce contains very little fact and quite a lot of backside covering so you can't sue them if the car blows up... This is a near priceless prototype sports racing car! Do you really thing the freakin' AA will look at it? Jeeez. I wonder if you're the sort of person who doesn't clear the snow from his car before driving Migaloo?
I do think the distinction needs to be drawn between crashing and mechanical failure in this thread. You bend it you mend it sounds to me very much like a crash scenario. If the engine lets go, then the circumstances are somewhat different.
However... The crux of this case is that the owner claimed that the driver missed a gear which over revved the engine, whereas the driver claimed the engine dropped out of gear. Not a common or garden occurrence as such, so I doubt it will put many Journo's off of taking this sort of risk in the future.
Surely the insurance that you took out on the Atom and the Noble Chris was in fact insurance against accident, not against mechanical failure? Surely Noble and Ariel would have to resolve the issue themselves as they are manufacturers of brand new cars which should survive pretty much anything that a semi competent driver can throw at them? The situation is very very different for a privately owned 40 year old classic prototype racing car. Even so, the owner is a bit of a pratt for taking it this far IMO.
will_ said:
Terminator X said:
will_ said:
Terminator X said:
Quite frankly the litigation that goes on these days is an embarrassment whether it be this particular case or the cocks chasing piss easy £5k payouts for whiplash "injuries" (never understood what they're actually getting a payment for?). Change in the Law is required to stop it imho as it quite clearly will continue to get worse and worse ...
TX.
What would you suggest?TX.
TX.
Have you read the judgement? What aspect of it do you think is embarassing?
te defence it certainly seems to me like he couldn't afford to defend himself properly. stty way of behaving imho. Finally this is a quite frankly a frightening decision for all of us, heaven forbid that I crash in to the car of someone considerably better off than myself only to find that my insurance company scarpers leaving me with a hefty bill to pay ...TX.
MarJay said:
angryBMWdriver said:
V12 Migaloo said:
Perhaps Hales should have paid the AA to give it the once over.
facepalm.When the AA look over a 2006 Toyota Yaris, the report they produce contains very little fact and quite a lot of backside covering so you can't sue them if the car blows up... This is a near priceless prototype sports racing car! Do you really thing the freakin' AA will look at it? Jeeez. I wonder if you're the sort of person who doesn't clear the snow from his car before driving Migaloo?
I do think the distinction needs to be drawn between crashing and mechanical failure in this thread. You bend it you mend it sounds to me very much like a crash scenario. If the engine lets go, then the circumstances are somewhat different.
However... The crux of this case is that the owner claimed that the driver missed a gear which over revved the engine, whereas the driver claimed the engine dropped out of gear. Not a common or garden occurrence as such, so I doubt it will put many Journo's off of taking this sort of risk in the future.
Surely the insurance that you took out on the Atom and the Noble Chris was in fact insurance against accident, not against mechanical failure? Surely Noble and Ariel would have to resolve the issue themselves as they are manufacturers of brand new cars which should survive pretty much anything that a semi competent driver can throw at them? The situation is very very different for a privately owned 40 year old classic prototype racing car. Even so, the owner is a bit of a pratt for taking it this far IMO.
will_ said:
AyBee said:
will_ said:
AyBee said:
He can fk right off with the "loss of use" claim though - surely if it was just about the repair costs, he wouldn't have been claiming for loss of use?
I don't see what the issue is with the "loss of use" claim. Why shouldn't that form part of the claim if it fact it represented a loss which was just as real as the £40k paid out to rebuild the engine?k right off with the "loss of use" claim though - surely if it was just about the repair costs, he wouldn't have been claiming for loss of use?It was only £10k, or 5 days' earnings if the usual fee was £2k per day. Hardly excessive.
According to the judgement (para 47) the car "was actually hired out periodically by the Claimant" and a schedule of events was provided.
Is there any reason why David Piper should be out of pocket for the loss of use but not for the engine repair? Exactly the same principle applies.
Terminator X said:
This particular case is embarrassing as the owner should have sucked it up imho rather than pursue the driver through the courts. Also how unfair is it for a millionaire to pursue a journalist through the courts knowing full well that it will likely bankrupt the guy (once all the court costs are accounted for) if it doesn't go his way - looking at the ste defence it certainly seems to me like he couldn't afford to defend himself properly. stty way of behaving imho. Finally this is a quite frankly a frightening decision for all of us, heaven forbid that I crash in to the car of someone considerably better off than myself only to find that my insurance company scarpers leaving me with a hefty bill to pay ...
TX.
Ah, so rich people should suck up the mistakes of people less well off.te defence it certainly seems to me like he couldn't afford to defend himself properly. stty way of behaving imho. Finally this is a quite frankly a frightening decision for all of us, heaven forbid that I crash in to the car of someone considerably better off than myself only to find that my insurance company scarpers leaving me with a hefty bill to pay ...TX.
The wealth of the respective parties is irrelevant to the "fairness" of the decision or indeed the proceedings being commenced.
Have you read the judgement?
AyBee said:
will_ said:
AyBee said:
will_ said:
AyBee said:
He can fk right off with the "loss of use" claim though - surely if it was just about the repair costs, he wouldn't have been claiming for loss of use?
I don't see what the issue is with the "loss of use" claim. Why shouldn't that form part of the claim if it fact it represented a loss which was just as real as the £40k paid out to rebuild the engine?k right off with the "loss of use" claim though - surely if it was just about the repair costs, he wouldn't have been claiming for loss of use?It was only £10k, or 5 days' earnings if the usual fee was £2k per day. Hardly excessive.
According to the judgement (para 47) the car "was actually hired out periodically by the Claimant" and a schedule of events was provided.
Is there any reason why David Piper should be out of pocket for the loss of use but not for the engine repair? Exactly the same principle applies.
I understand where you are coming from but can't really distinguish the objection to one head of claim but not the other, based on the same facts. I certainly don't see why David Piper should "f
k right off with" it.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff