Mark Hales...

[freedman]

405dogvan said:

freedman said:

Trust someone who wrecks your car, admits it wqas his fault when he thought the insurers would pay, then renages, totally changing his story?

I don't really think it's possible to attribute blame for something which happens to an antique racing car anymore than I'd blame a soldier for 'damaging' a gun I gave him to fight a war with - st happens...

freedman said:

Could have dealt with the whole thing for under 40k (which he would have been able to afford with ease)but chjsoe to have his day in court where he just embarrassed himself

I don't think his defense was much cop - but I disagree with your assessment that he could afford £40K as the initial demand for £35K has driven him into bankruptcy so that suggests otherwise.

If you cannot see that this whole situation casts a shadow over the future of these things being USED as opposed to living in the garages of overentitled assholes - you're deluded.

If you think that's a better way for things to be - you're in the wrong forum.

Firstly if you actually believe that a bill for 35k or 40k would bankrupt someone who has about 3 paying careers and owned two private planes until recent months, then you are the one who is deluded

I have no doubt Hales is considerably better off than myself, but 35k would certainly not bankrupt me, so so to suggest it would bankrupt him is laughable

I happen to be in a forum which is discussing Mark Hales, so I think I'm in exactly the right place ta.

I'm just no part of the 'isnt Hales hard done' by gang, who refuse to believe anything could possibly be his fault, no matter how many irrefutable facts are presented

As for 'I don't really think it's possible to attribute blame for something which happens to an antique racing car' Its pretty easy when the driver admits in writing it was his fault

'Save Hales' from himself maybe, the whole problem is of his own making, he needs to man up and stop blaming everyone else

[405dogvan]

I believe MH has already debunked your belief he owned a couple of planes - and my point, which you're missing or outright avoiding, isn't really that he could or couldn't have afforded the money but that I see no reason he should pay it anyway.

His taking the thing to court was almost required for the integrity of his profession - if he'd not done it he'd have opened the floodgates...

If he'd hooned the car around, done donuts and loads of 11's I might think differently - but what he did is 'drive it', which is what he was there to do (no-one was in any illusion about THAT!?) and I think there's an important principle which surrounds not making people individually responsible for the knock-on-effect of doing their jobs - esp when there is more at stake than most people would ever risk.

In your world, the only people who'll be driving old racecars are independently-wealthy types who probably OWN them anyway - you couldn't even begin to get insurance against 'making a mistake when driving an old racing car' and so they'll all moulder away in barns

Where, ironically, their values will plummet because people will forget they exist, there'll be no point keeping them running - their purpose will diminsh - they'll die, in effect...

I really cannot believe you cannot see past 'Mark Hales' and 'David Piper' and see the bigger issue of 'car enthusiasts losing across the board' here.

[RYH64E]

sanf said:

The key thing on bankruptcy for a defendant is to have no property - as this gets pulled in as part of the assets.

There has been talk of Hales losing his house, so it would appear that he has (or had) some property.

I don't understand how the amounts of money involved would lead to bankruptcy for someone who has had a relatively successful career, especially considering reports that friends of Hales had raised/offered about £50k towards the costs. The court decided in Piper's favour and made an award of costs and damages, I guess Piper has become frustrated with what he sees as willful avoidance of payment.

[RYH64E]

405dogvan said:

I believe MH has already debunked your belief he owned a couple of planes - and my point, which you're missing or outright avoiding, isn't really that he could or couldn't have afforded the money but that I see no reason he should pay it anyway.

It went to court and Hales lost, it's no longer a case of 'why should he have to pay?' or whether Piper was right or wrong, it's a case of complying with the court order or facing the consequences.

[freedman]

405dogvan said:

I believe MH has already debunked your belief he owned a couple of planes - and my point, which you're missing or outright avoiding, isn't really that he could or couldn't have afforded the money but that I see no reason he should pay it anyway..

The court said he had to pay it, whether you think that is right or wrong is irrelevant

I do not believe he has debunked anything, are you suggesting he didnt own any planes?

Or a multi hunderd k house in Lincs? or is apartner in the trackdriver business, or has income as a journo, driver coach, and driver for Nick Mason etc . That he had 50k raised to support him?

But no, he's just a peniless bloke who's been shafted, or at least thats what he and his campaign team are trying to make everyone believe

Dont worry, they'll be along soon.....

[Globs]

405dogvan said:

Piper has been a MASSIVE MASSIVE asshole about this - if he didn't want his precious toys damaged he should

a - not lend them to anyone
or
b - ensure they're properly insured by SOMEONE

If you cannot see that this whole situation casts a shadow over the future of these things being USED as opposed to living in the garages of overentitled assholes - you're deluded.

If you think that's a better way for things to be - you're in the wrong forum.

This is my view too.

Mark has been a bit of a tit since, but fundamentally Piper should have just manned up and had it fixed.
Hounding drivers through the courts to get a rather small sum because they may or may not have made a mistake shouldn't have a place in any hobby.

I predict less people will be keen to drive any cars that Piper is associated with now.

[RichB]

405dogvan said:

I really cannot believe you cannot see past 'Mark Hales' and 'David Piper' and see the bigger issue of 'car enthusiasts losing across the board' here.

I think you make some very good points, unfortunately in this saga it seems people have taken sides and refuse to see another person's point of view. Mine is that Piper should have been prepared for, and ready to accept, the potential consequence of his car being driven on the track, else do not loan it out or simply drive it oneself. I have however almost been called a heretic elsewhere on Pistonheads for suggesting it

[williamp]

Globs said:

405dogvan said:

Piper has been a MASSIVE MASSIVE asshole about this - if he didn't want his precious toys damaged he should

a - not lend them to anyone
or
b - ensure they're properly insured by SOMEONE

If you cannot see that this whole situation casts a shadow over the future of these things being USED as opposed to living in the garages of overentitled assholes - you're deluded.

If you think that's a better way for things to be - you're in the wrong forum.

This is my view too.

Mark has been a bit of a tit since, but fundamentally Piper should have just manned up and had it fixed.
Hounding drivers through the courts to get a rather small sum because they may or may not have made a mistake shouldn't have a place in any hobby.

I predict less people will be keen to drive any cars that Piper is associated with now.

It may be a hobby to you and I. To Piper and Hales, it is business. And if my buisness involved being closely associated with historically significant items, either paintings, cars, houses or somesuch, I would make sure appropriate insurance was in place beforehand, if not paid for insurance, then at least an agreement-formally- that you bend it, you mend it. Its your role to ensure you are happy with the condition before it goes into your care. It must be returned in the same condition.

[Life Saab Itch]

williamp said:

It may be a hobby to you and I. To Piper and Hales, it is business. And if my buisness involved being closely associated with historically significant items, either paintings, cars, houses or somesuch, I would make sure appropriate insurance was in place beforehand, if not paid for insurance, then at least an agreement-formally- that you bend it, you mend it. Its your role to ensure you are happy with the condition before it goes into your care. It must be returned in the same condition.

from my experience of running cars for people, the usual deal is thus:

You crash it, you mend it.
You over-rev it, you pay a set amount(pre-agreed) towards an engine overhaul. This is monitored by a data-logger.
If the engine blows when there has been no abuse seen on the data-logger, it is the owner's problem.


Mark Hales should have refused to drive the car until the gear linkage issue was sorted.
David Piper should have listened to a highly experienced driver tell him that the car was jumping out of gear.
David Piper should have had full insurance for the event.
Mark Hales should have had his own "trackday insurance" for the event.
Octane Magazine should not have let Hales get in the car until they were sure that he was properly protected by the insurance.





A little aside;

When Alex Brundle was crashing his way through his season in Formula Palmer Audi, Martin wanted him to get some experience of Castle Combe before going there in the FPA. A Formula Renault was hired for the.day with people to run it and Martin took out insurance. Martin, realising that Alex was pretty good at crashing, also took out a policy against the excess on the original insurance.


Alex crashed twice that day and the insurance for everything cost less than the excess would have been on the original policy.

Hales should have made sure he was covered in the same way.

[405dogvan]

williamp said:

It may be a hobby to you and I. To Piper and Hales, it is business. And if my buisness involved being closely associated with historically significant items, either paintings, cars, houses or somesuch, I would make sure appropriate insurance was in place beforehand, if not paid for insurance, then at least an agreement-formally- that you bend it, you mend it. Its your role to ensure you are happy with the condition before it goes into your care. It must be returned in the same condition.

Wonderful misty-eyed idealism - in reality it's not even vaguely possible to expect journalists (not a highly paid career at the best of times) to pay for insurance against them making a mistake/a possible mechanical gremlin on a classic racing car worth a 7 figure sum (or even some worth rather less).

As a risk, the cars are just an unknown - there's no system for inspecting the condition of a classic racer - not even something as basic as an MOT is required - and I've read a few tales of people who've driven classic which were, to put it mildly, 'deathtraps'. No insurer would take-on that risk - they'd want the cars extensively inspected and documented and - it would just be an expensive farce.

Something the anti-Hales people are forgetting here is that people lend cars to journos/magazines for one of 2 reasons

1 - because they're spirited enthusiasts who like to see their car in print/share it with the world
2 - because it increases it's sale price/finds buyers for it

The high percentage of cars featured in mags which end with "this car is for-sale presently, please contact..." is testament to the latter so painting this as "a nice old man loaned his super-valuable car and someone trashed it" is skewing the picture rather a lot.

[RichB]

405dogvan said:

... people are forgetting here is that people lend cars to journos/magazines for one of 2 reasons

1 - because they're spirited enthusiasts who like to see their car in print/share it with the world
2 - because it increases it's sale price/finds buyers for it

The high percentage of cars featured in mags which end with "this car is for-sale presently, please contact..." is testament to the latter so painting this as "a nice old man loaned his super-valuable car and someone trashed it" is skewing the picture rather a lot.

Now you'll be in trouble

[405dogvan]

RichB said:

I think you make some very good points, unfortunately in this saga it seems people have taken sides and refuse to see another person's point of view. Mine is that Piper should have been prepared for, and ready to accept, the potential consequence of his car being driven on the track, else do not loan it out or simply drive it oneself. I have however almost been called a heretic elsewhere on Pistonheads for suggesting it

I have to take the side of the car enthusiast/journalist here because I'm only here because I love cars, love to see them being driven, love to read about the ones I'll never drive/own or perhaps even lay eyes on.

I'm old enough to know that 'handshakes' are a bad idea tho and that you get things IN WRITING. It's probably true that journos have ridden their luck for too long, I think Harrismonkey even said that in his piece about this - but at the same time, Piper must realise the likely ramifications of what he's doing.

For a few years now I've done a bit of work for someone who repairs/buys/sells cars for some 'local notables' - old wealth - and I've seen how these people operate. Within their own circles they lend stuff and if it's harmed it's repaired or replaced without question but that's not actually how everyone thinks or works and not everyone can actually DO that.

The fact there was no agreement upfront reflects badly on both parties but I think it leaves Piper holding the baby - quite frankly. It's only his ability to hire the best lawyers which gets him his 'victory' here - normally, if you lend things and they get broken - you lose...

[Graham]

to those saying Mark should have been insured. he was, but only in case of accident damage, not mechanical faillure.

you cant insure against mechanical damage. even accident insurance is very expensive.

[freedman]

Graham said:

to those saying Mark should have been insured. he was, but only in case of accident damage, not mechanical faillure.

And he certainly wasnt insured agaisnt mechanical failure brought about by him miss shifting, by his own admission

[footsoldier]

As someone posted earlier, the judge was pretty clear on where the blame lay, and who changed story to suit an insurance claim. 'Creative, self-motivated, inconsistent, ncredible...'

Anyone should first read at least from para 38, page 13 before getting on the high horse about Piper being to blame.

http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/piperhales.pdf

The original claim/award was for £47k. Hales has tried to be too clever for his own good all the way through.

[405dogvan]

Just to be clear - I'm not suggesting David Piper is 'in the wrong' because that's an impossible thing for me (or anyone else apart from him and MH) to know

What I'm suggesting - from the evidence I've read and particularly his lack of comment on the topic - is that he's "being an asshole".

End of the day it's come down to the usual arbiter of 'who has the better lawyers' - e.g. who's richer - no surprises there.

I believe you can take stuff like this back to very basic principles of common sense, self-reliance and hard-nosed reality tho - in this case that's

"If you lend someone something - it might get broken - you might get paid - you might not - life sucks sometimes - get over it, learn, move on"...

Look at this another way, if he'd made MH sign a contract which said "if you bend it, you mend it" his Porsche would have stayed in the garage (and probably sold for considerably less) and he KNOWS that...

If this st continues, a lot of people are going to see their expensive toys dropping in value, in fact, because it's only the anticipation of seeing them being used which makes them worth owning...

[coppice]

I have said before that all the verbal fencing about the perceiced rights and wrongs is utterly irrelevant. All that should have happened is a written and clear understanding of who was responsible for taking which risk and then the risks backed by insurance or at least an eyes open knowledge of what would happen if something went wrong.With a forty year old temeperamental racing car - who would have thought it ? Mind you if even the bloody FIA cannot write a rule book properly to cover in season tyre testing then why am I so surprised?

[Globs]

coppice said:

I have said before that all the verbal fencing about the perceiced rights and wrongs is utterly irrelevant. All that should have happened is a written and clear understanding of who was responsible for taking which risk and then the risks backed by insurance or at least an eyes open knowledge of what would happen if something went wrong.With a forty year old temeperamental racing car - who would have thought it ? Mind you if even the bloody FIA cannot write a rule book properly to cover in season tyre testing then why am I so surprised?

In this case the repair was around 3% of the value of the car.
I've paid bills of 25% to renovate some bits of my cars in the past.

To put this in context it's like spending £600 on a £20k Ford Mondeo for a new set of tyres.
Quite why I'd want to chase someone through the courts for that type of margin I have no idea.

[RYH64E]

If Hales had won the court case people would be saying that's an end to it, the judge has decided, but Piper won (and won convincingly, read the transcript), the only thing to do now is pay up and move on (or appeal, if he's really brave). It would appear that Hales supporters have stumped up £50k, I can't believe that he can't find the rest, and if he's tried moving assets then things could get worse.

[eccles]

I Think if I was a 'well respected' professional motoring journalist who regularly drove other people very expensive cars with responsibility of who pays should it go wrong defined by a mere handshake in the paddock before I set off, I would make sure either I had some sort of very comprehensive insurance or my limited company was definitely the one in the frame.
I can't think of any other job where you expose yourself to so much financial risk on the 'shake of the hand' or a 'gentlemans agreement',and you'd have to be incredibly naive to think a gentlemans agreement is something that couldn't be gone back on.