RE: PH Blog: you bend you mend

[will_]

philbennett said:

Guys you missed my point, which was its all very well saying we need some written agreement and then highlighting the odd point here and there. In the end however someone would need to actually draft this agreement and have it robust enough for it to stand up in court to reflect everyones intentions.

Compared to some of the agreements that some of the posters on this thread have probably drafted (and some have probably signed) it would be fairly simple.

It would also be a lot cheaper than playing "wait and see and hope" and having to sell your home if you get sued.

I take your point about wanting to undertake a proper test, but that is what the track is for.

[philbennett]

will_ said:

Do you not think that is completely insane?

Upon reflection perhaps but when you are 10 years younger and invincible clearly I didn't because I did it. There is a lot of trust involved and you believe that given there is a Ferrari 360 CS available for you to drive someone clearly agreed to something.

Like I said I'm not arguing against some agreement, it might be a good thing but the content of such a thing would be entirely more difficult thing to achieve.

Someone asked about manufacturer v private owner and of course there is a difference. For example in writing this:-

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/4371...

I damaged the exhaust after a landing and then got the replacement stuck on the beach. Renault didn't moan because I made that car a legend by calling it the best hot hatch ever built - and I genuinely meant it.

[therealpigdog]

philbennett said:

Guys you missed my point, which was its all very well saying we need some written agreement and then highlighting the odd point here and there. In the end however someone would need to actually draft this agreement and have it robust enough for it to stand up in court to reflect everyones intentions.

[LaurasOtherHalf]

Man is this thread still going?

It's not going to change anything, hell evo this month took a private individuals metro 6R4 out for a blast. Dead simple, they'll have given the owner a photocopied sheet that says "we insure the car against accident damage, you insure that mechanical failure is covered, whether by driver error or some other occurance".

Both parties sign on the dotted line & away you go.

[10 Pence Short]

philbennett said:

Guys you missed my point, which was its all very well saying we need some written agreement and then highlighting the odd point here and there. In the end however someone would need to actually draft this agreement and have it robust enough for it to stand up in court to reflect everyones intentions.

As for 3rd party liability yes I am aware that if I shunt on a motorway at 90mph claims get paid but that wasn't my contention. I suggest that if you have someone sign for a significant corporate entity that authorises this type of behaviour then I doubt very much that the matter ends there. Of course nobody might want to sign authorising this stuff and we are back where we started and it sits back with the driver/journo.

Its not a reflection that people engaging in this activity are above scrutiny and normal process doesn't apply. Its a reflection that these things are not straight forward and actually speaking for myself you take a pride in ones work and I always had the feeling that if I said "this was the best handling car" then it really was because I'd been at the limit.

If you're doing things as part of your job, your employer can potentially be held vicariously liable for your actions, anyway. A written agreement 'signing off' a road test or what not isn't required nor would it necessarily protect either party.

What we're discussing is individuals or commercial entities hiring other people's property. All that is being suggested is that hiring someone's property, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, without a written agreement as to almost any foreseeable eventuality, is madness. It's the kind of madness that sees you lose your house and life savings.

If the end result is the risk to the hirer or hiree not being worth the reward, then so be it. I doubt Hales thinks the pennies he got for his article justify the hundreds of thousands his lack of prior agreement cost.

As for your comments about how you 'made' a hot hatch, well, maybe that kind of delusional thinking is part of the problem?

[philbennett]

10 Pence Short said:

All that is being suggested is that hiring someone's property, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, without a written agreement as to almost any foreseeable eventuality, is madness. It's the kind of madness that sees you lose your house and life savings.

Sure and in that context Mark was unlucky.

10 Pence Short said:

As for your comments about how you 'made' a hot hatch, well, maybe that kind of delusional thinking is part of the problem?

In what way??

[AJB]

philbennett said:

As for 3rd party liability yes I am aware that if I shunt on a motorway at 90mph claims get paid but that wasn't my contention. I suggest that if you have someone sign for a significant corporate entity that authorises this type of behaviour then I doubt very much that the matter ends there. Of course nobody might want to sign authorising this stuff and we are back where we started and it sits back with the driver/journo.

The point I was trying to make is that signing off as to who is responsible (eg the manufacturer signing to say "it's our problem if it gets damaged in any way", or the publisher signing to say "we'll pay if we damage it in any way") is completely separate to the publisher signing off exactly how the car will be used.

Yes, no publisher can ever sign anything which authorises driving over 70mph in the UK on a road, but they could still have a signed agreement about responsibility for damage regardless of what speed it was caused at.

A manufacturer might want to impose some conditions (eg we'll cover accidental damage as long as speed limit not exceeded, or we'll cover damage on the road but not on a track), and the publisher might be happy to sign that. Even then, the publisher is accepting responsibility for fixing the car if the journalist chooses to go over 70mph, but they're not authorising that behaviour.

[DonkeyApple]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

Man is this thread still going?

It's not going to change anything, hell evo this month took a private individuals metro 6R4 out for a blast. Dead simple, they'll have given the owner a photocopied sheet that says "we insure the car against accident damage, you insure that mechanical failure is covered, whether by driver error or some other occurance".

Both parties sign on the dotted line & away you go.

But there are two different structures at play and both have arguably differing levels of accepted responsibilities.

At the one end you have the structure where the journalist is invited to drive the car in exchange for the article, for several benefits to the owner as well as the journalist/publisher. In these cases money doesn't change hands and the owner would be wise to research whether the journalist is a wrecker or a lover.

The second is where the journalist 'hires' a car in order to derive an income.

This is why this sorry affair really isn't going to have any impact. Most journos are invited by owners or manufacturers and in the case of the latter, in essence 'paid' to drive the car. The corporate 'jolly' in exchange for hopefully a favourable marketing piece is uneffected by this.

In the case of the contract hire situation, this event has really just clarified the situation and I suspect very many owners are happy that it will result in some journos who aren't up to scratch not taking the risk and others being more careful than they have been getting in recent years. There are more than a few owners who are sick to death of having keys chucked back at the end of the day by someone who has fked something and walked away.

At best this event is a wake up call to all involved.

[Ali_T]

Yes, it's that thread again. Just had an e-mail from Mr. Hales fund. Those supporting Piper in this might want to read it. Personally, I think this is truly ludicrous. I don't know the man at all, but his actions are presenting him in an an extremely unpleasant and vindictive light...

"To everybody who has been kind enough to donate...

Apologies again for this round robin email, and also to those kind people I may have missed last time.

Thank you all so much for your generosity and support in this unpleasant matter. Your contributions allowed me to keep the fight going for a bit longer, and to survive while it was all going on. It’s amazing how these things completely take over your life and working productively is one of the first things that suffers.

I use the past tense in the context of the fight, because on June 11th Piper purchased the last piece of his retribution and succeeded in making me bankrupt.

Piper has now spent nearly £80,000 in his efforts to bankrupt me and has refused all offers to settle. A group headed by the CEO of Nick Mason’s businesses had organised some serious fund raising activities and Nick and others had kindly underwritten a minimum of £50,000. This was on the table, plus whatever surplus came from the fundraising, plus anything remaining in your fund. Piper refused the offer saying he would continue with the bankruptcy proceedings.

I have the interview with the Official Receiver on Tuesday. I’ll let you know how it goes.

Thanks again

Mark"

[MJK 24]

Ali_T said:

Yes, it's that thread again. Just had an e-mail from Mr. Hales fund. Those supporting Piper in this might want to read it. Personally, I think this is truly ludicrous. I don't know the man at all, but his actions are presenting him in an an extremely unpleasant and vindictive light...

"To everybody who has been kind enough to donate...

Apologies again for this round robin email, and also to those kind people I may have missed last time.

Thank you all so much for your generosity and support in this unpleasant matter. Your contributions allowed me to keep the fight going for a bit longer, and to survive while it was all going on. It’s amazing how these things completely take over your life and working productively is one of the first things that suffers.

I use the past tense in the context of the fight, because on June 11th Piper purchased the last piece of his retribution and succeeded in making me bankrupt.

Piper has now spent nearly £80,000 in his efforts to bankrupt me and has refused all offers to settle. A group headed by the CEO of Nick Mason’s businesses had organised some serious fund raising activities and Nick and others had kindly underwritten a minimum of £50,000. This was on the table, plus whatever surplus came from the fundraising, plus anything remaining in your fund. Piper refused the offer saying he would continue with the bankruptcy proceedings.

I have the interview with the Official Receiver on Tuesday. I’ll let you know how it goes.

Thanks again

Mark"

I don't know quite what to say to that.

[Ali_T]

Yes, it's that thread again. Just had an e-mail from Mr. Hales fund. Those supporting Piper in this might want to read it. Personally, I think this is truly ludicrous. I don't know the man at all, but his actions are presenting him in an an extremely unpleasant and vindictive light...

"To everybody who has been kind enough to donate...

Apologies again for this round robin email, and also to those kind people I may have missed last time.

Thank you all so much for your generosity and support in this unpleasant matter. Your contributions allowed me to keep the fight going for a bit longer, and to survive while it was all going on. It’s amazing how these things completely take over your life and working productively is one of the first things that suffers.

I use the past tense in the context of the fight, because on June 11th Piper purchased the last piece of his retribution and succeeded in making me bankrupt.

Piper has now spent nearly £80,000 in his efforts to bankrupt me and has refused all offers to settle. A group headed by the CEO of Nick Mason’s businesses had organised some serious fund raising activities and Nick and others had kindly underwritten a minimum of £50,000. This was on the table, plus whatever surplus came from the fundraising, plus anything remaining in your fund. Piper refused the offer saying he would continue with the bankruptcy proceedings.

I have the interview with the Official Receiver on Tuesday. I’ll let you know how it goes.

Thanks again

Mark"

[Ali_T]

Yes, it's that thread again. Just had an e-mail from Mr. Hales fund. Those supporting Piper in this might want to read it. Personally, I think this is truly ludicrous. I don't know the man at all, but his actions are presenting him in an an extremely unpleasant and vindictive light...

"To everybody who has been kind enough to donate...

Apologies again for this round robin email, and also to those kind people I may have missed last time.

Thank you all so much for your generosity and support in this unpleasant matter. Your contributions allowed me to keep the fight going for a bit longer, and to survive while it was all going on. It’s amazing how these things completely take over your life and working productively is one of the first things that suffers.

I use the past tense in the context of the fight, because on June 11th Piper purchased the last piece of his retribution and succeeded in making me bankrupt.

Piper has now spent nearly £80,000 in his efforts to bankrupt me and has refused all offers to settle. A group headed by the CEO of Nick Mason’s businesses had organised some serious fund raising activities and Nick and others had kindly underwritten a minimum of £50,000. This was on the table, plus whatever surplus came from the fundraising, plus anything remaining in your fund. Piper refused the offer saying he would continue with the bankruptcy proceedings.

I have the interview with the Official Receiver on Tuesday. I’ll let you know how it goes.

Thanks again

Mark"

[LaurasOtherHalf]

MJK 24 said:

I don't know quite what to say to that.

That we've still only heard one (possibly biased) side of the story?

[Lurking Lawyer]

I suppose you have to question Mr Piper's motivation.

I confess that I had pretty limited sympathy for Mr Hales when the story first came to light - he was naïve, he gambled and he lost. Saying one thing to insurers and another in court made him appear rather opportunistic too.

I can understand Mr Piper not wanting to be out of pocket, and so bringing the claim. If, however, his agenda goes beyond that then I think the end result is that neither of the parties comes out of this covered in glory. If he had wanted financial recompense, it sounds as if the larger part of this judgment and costs order could have been met from the fundraising. The complete willingness to negotiate, and the intent to make Mr Hales bankrupt, does suggest a desire for a pound of flesh rather than just to be put back in the position he would have been in.....

Still, for all of that, it's a perfectly legitimate tactic for a judgment creditor. There's no obligation to negotiate, nor does the law examine the motives in petitioning for a debtor's insolvency. If the money is owed, the debtor is fair game.

I suspect that little respect Mr Piper may have retained in motoring circles will rapidly evaporate, if what is said in the round-robin e-mail is true.

[will_]

One man's "bankruptcy" is another man getting what he feels he is owed, a position that a court has agreed with.

It's a bit late to start trying to negotiate now.

I don't see why Piper should have been out of pocket for the engine repair; and I don't see why he should now be out of pocket for his legal costs.

It takes two parties fighting to drive up legal costs, not just one.

[RDMcG]

well...nobody will ever drive a Piper car again. Would you?...so his cars will not show up anywhere in the near future.

[hairykrishna]

Ali_T said:

Yes, it's that thread again. Just had an e-mail from Mr. Hales fund. Those supporting Piper in this might want to read it. Personally, I think this is truly ludicrous. I don't know the man at all, but his actions are presenting him in an an extremely unpleasant and vindictive light...

"To everybody who has been kind enough to donate...

Apologies again for this round robin email, and also to those kind people I may have missed last time.

Thank you all so much for your generosity and support in this unpleasant matter. Your contributions allowed me to keep the fight going for a bit longer, and to survive while it was all going on. It’s amazing how these things completely take over your life and working productively is one of the first things that suffers.

I use the past tense in the context of the fight, because on June 11th Piper purchased the last piece of his retribution and succeeded in making me bankrupt.

Piper has now spent nearly £80,000 in his efforts to bankrupt me and has refused all offers to settle. A group headed by the CEO of Nick Mason’s businesses had organised some serious fund raising activities and Nick and others had kindly underwritten a minimum of £50,000. This was on the table, plus whatever surplus came from the fundraising, plus anything remaining in your fund. Piper refused the offer saying he would continue with the bankruptcy proceedings.

I have the interview with the Official Receiver on Tuesday. I’ll let you know how it goes.

Thanks again

Mark"

No, one persons presentation of his actions present him in an unpleasant light. Mr Hales says Piper has "spent nearly £80,000 in his efforts to bankrupt me". Another way to put that would be "spent nearly £80k trying to obtain the money owed to him".

[Lotus 50]

I'm not particularly siding with anyone and did contribute to the Hales fund. However, it could equally be said that Hales and his mates publicising their side of the story using their ready access to the media was also vindictive.

A sorry tale.

[heightswitch]

Piper really wants an arm and a leg doesn't he !!!
N.

[Lotus 50]

Depends on how close the offer was to the original cost of fixing the Porsche and the add on legal costs - If I recall correctly somewhere in the region of 140-150k in total. If the offer was £70-80k then there's a significant gap. Shame the offer wasn't made earlier before the legal costs got to the point they have.