Hit and run advice
Author
Discussion

matrignano

Original Poster:

4,702 posts

241 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
Bit of background: my car has been vandalised several times in the past and last year I had to put through 2 claims to get it fixed.
Given the police never bothered finding the culprits, I had to take the hit, and my insurer told me that next time I claim they'll cancel my insurance.
This is effectively game over - won't be able to insure my car anymore (at a reasonable price anyway) and will have to sell it.

Last week I ordered a takeaway and the delivery driver from the restaurant reversed into my car. Front bumper damaged. I was on the phone to him at the time, so heard the bang and my car's alarm go off through the phone, as well as seeing the whole thing from my living room.
When I got out of the house to confront the driver, he refused any liability and left the scene without leaving the details.
The takeaway restaurant has been completely uncooperative, claiming they only use scooters for delivers.

Submitted a report to the police and they (again) can't be bothered to investigate, although the driver committed a criminal offence by not leaving his details at the scene of the accident.

Now I am worried that if I claim through my insurance, they may or may not investigate, or they may not find conclusive CCTV evidence, in which case they would process my claim but then they would cancel my insurance.

In the meantime I've requested driver's/owner's details to the DVLA and CCTV evidence from Council and a nearby office.

What is my best course of action from here?
Should I open a civil case against the driver?
Give all details to my Insurer?
Insist that the Police get off their arse for once? (for the record, have suffered over £15k of damage/loss throughout the years and never once have they investigated anything)

Mk3Spitfire

2,921 posts

159 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
Any CCTV near by? Any neighbours see it? Have you been round to the takeaway shop to see if they have a car outside, hopefully with traces of your paint on it? Was this collision on the public road, or some kind of off street parkibg bay/entrance etc?

Also, how do you mean the Police "couldn't be bothered" to find who damaged your car? Do you mean they couldn't, as there was no evidence of who did it? Or did you tell them who it was and they did nothing?
And also, what did they say to you when you reported this incident?

matrignano

Original Poster:

4,702 posts

241 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
Mk3Spitfire said:
Any CCTV near by? Any neighbours see it? Have you been round to the takeaway shop to see if they have a car outside, hopefully with traces of your paint on it? Was this collision on the public road, or some kind of off street parkibg bay/entrance etc?

Also, how do you mean the Police "couldn't be bothered" to find your car? Do you mean they couldn't, as there was no evidence of who did it? Or did you tell them who it was and they did nothing?
And also, what did they say to you when you reported this incident?
Plenty - live in central London, car was parked on public road. I've requested CCTV to the Council and will check what nearby offices/restaurants/shops I can also ask to.

I've been round to the takeaway shop and found the car parked outside! Its rear bumper is covered in scratches so hard to determine which one "belongs" to my car...

Police's advice was to contact my insurance. In other words, they won't bother looking at CCTV and prosecuting the driver.

Edited by matrignano on Tuesday 24th March 13:09

Mk3Spitfire

2,921 posts

159 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
matrignano said:
Plenty - live in central London, car was parked on public road. I've request it to the Council and will check what nearby offices/restaurants/shops I can also ask to.

I've been round to the takeway shop and found the car parked outside! Its rear bumper is covered in scratches so hard to determine which one "belongs" to my car...

Police's advice was to contact my insurance. In other words, they won't bother looking at CCTV and prosecuting the driver.
Did the car have the take always stickers etc on it? And did you take pictures? If nothing else, it shows they were lying about not using cars for deliveries.
Police get a lot of these complaints. A lot of the time they get followed up. According to PH it appears that lots of times they don't. Maybe they looked at it and decided for whatever reason not to take action.
If you find some cracking CCTV though, they might re-evaluate it. Good luck.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

208 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
Your I surer can't simply cancel your policy during a policy year due to claims you've had. You've either got completely the wrong end of the stick or you're making it up.

Either way, if you try to deal with Thai yourself then your insurer will probably decline to handle the claim when you go back to ten cap in hand having made a complete fk up of the process. Your suggestions so far show that a fk up is not far away.

matrignano

Original Poster:

4,702 posts

241 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
Your I surer can't simply cancel your policy during a policy year due to claims you've had. You've either got completely the wrong end of the stick or you're making it up.

Either way, if you try to deal with Thai yourself then your insurer will probably decline to handle the claim when you go back to ten cap in hand having made a complete fk up of the process. Your suggestions so far show that a fk up is not far away.
All right keyboard warrior, take a relaxing suppository!
Refuse to renew, not cancel. Either way implications would be pretty significant for me. 3 at fault claims in less than 12 months means I'd become persona non grata for pretty much any insurer.

Foliage

3,861 posts

153 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
matrignano said:
All right keyboard warrior, take a relaxing suppository!
Refuse to renew, not cancel. Either way implications would be pretty significant for me. 3 at fault claims in less than 12 months means I'd become persona non grata for pretty much any insurer.
Nope, Ive had 3 fault claims within 12 months, I still had insurance, it was a tad more expensive but I still had it. I had protected no claims tho.

Course of action - ring your insurance company give them the other cars details, say you saw it happen. Let your insurer deal with it initially, you have to realise that YOU are paying the insurance company to provide you with a service, they may try to give the impression they are doing you a favour but they aren't, you are paying for insurance, if they push to put it down as a fault claim then you just by pass them and get a company that will pursue the other parties insurance on your behalf.

Edited by Foliage on Tuesday 24th March 13:37

pacoryan

671 posts

262 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
For a damaged bumper? How much is your excess in relation to the cost of private repair? Even if you needed to replace the whole skin it must be a valuable car to make it worth claiming on.


matrignano

Original Poster:

4,702 posts

241 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
Foliage said:
Nope, Ive had 3 fault claims within 12 months, I still had insurance, it was a tad more expensive but I still had it. I had protected no claims tho.

Course of action - ring your insurance company give them the other cars details, say you saw it happen. Let your insurer deal with it initially, you have to realise that YOU are paying the insurance company to provide you with a service, they may try to give the impression they are doing you a favour but they aren't, you are paying for insurance, if they push to put it down as a fault claim then you just by pass them and get a company that will pursue the other parties insurance on your behalf.

Edited by Foliage on Tuesday 24th March 13:37
If it goes down to a fault claim, and given I'm close to renewal, I run the risk of them refusing to renew, which is what I'm trying to avoid

matrignano

Original Poster:

4,702 posts

241 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
pacoryan said:
For a damaged bumper? How much is your excess in relation to the cost of private repair? Even if you needed to replace the whole skin it must be a valuable car to make it worth claiming on.
It's a matter of principle. I'm fed up of people mistaking my car for a punching ball.

For once I know who's done it, and I want them to pay for it.

Frankly I don't care about the bumper, and I can live with it scratched.

What I'd really like is for the Police to take action and prosecute this guy. But I can hardly force them, can I?

Foliage

3,861 posts

153 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
matrignano said:
If it goes down to a fault claim, and given I'm close to renewal, I run the risk of them refusing to renew, which is what I'm trying to avoid
Surely if the insurance company your currently with is being an arse your not going to give them any more of your money. Companies aren't here to do you a favour they exist purely to make a profit. So who cares if they refuse to give you a renewal quote, not your loss is it.

matrignano

Original Poster:

4,702 posts

241 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
Foliage said:
Surely if the insurance company your currently with is being an arse your not going to give them any more of your money. Companies aren't here to do you a favour they exist purely to make a profit. So who cares if they refuse to give you a renewal quote.
Yes...but they are more than 50% cheaper than the next best Insurance company!

Foliage

3,861 posts

153 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
matrignano said:
Yes...but they are more than 50% cheaper than the next best Insurance company!
"Next BEST"? they are obviously an awesome insurance company if they put vandalism down as a fault claim and threaten you with none renewal, they are cheap because they are st.

Spangles

1,441 posts

216 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
matrignano said:
Foliage said:
Surely if the insurance company your currently with is being an arse your not going to give them any more of your money. Companies aren't here to do you a favour they exist purely to make a profit. So who cares if they refuse to give you a renewal quote.
Yes...but they are more than 50% cheaper than the next best Insurance company!
And now you know why.

matrignano

Original Poster:

4,702 posts

241 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
Foliage said:
"Next BEST"? they are obviously an awesome insurance company if they put vandalism down as a fault claim and threaten you with none renewal, they are cheap because they are st.
If they can't find who did the damage, how else can they treat it but a fault claim?

Mk3Spitfire

2,921 posts

159 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
matrignano said:
It's a matter of principle. I'm fed up of people mistaking my car for a punching ball.

For once I know who's done it, and I want them to pay for it.

Frankly I don't care about the bumper, and I can live with it scratched.

What I'd really like is for the Police to take action and prosecute this guy. But I can hardly force them, can I?
So you didn't know who did the first two crim dams? Is it possible then that the police were unable to prosecute anyone as opposed to "refused" to?

Foliage

3,861 posts

153 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
matrignano said:
If they can't find who did the damage, how else can they treat it but a fault claim?
I've had a couple of instances where my car has been damage obviously by a pedestrian not another vehicle and have made a claim, in both instances (brick through window but nothing taken & a boot shaped dent in wing) I didn't have to pay any excess and it wasn't recorded as a fault claim, both marked down as vandalism, both with different insurers.

matrignano

Original Poster:

4,702 posts

241 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
Mk3Spitfire said:
So you didn't know who did the first two crim dams? Is it possible then that the police were unable to prosecute anyone as opposed to "refused" to?
Police refused to view/search for any CCTVs as this was low priority for them.
So yes, they refused

Devil2575

13,400 posts

219 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
matrignano said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
So you didn't know who did the first two crim dams? Is it possible then that the police were unable to prosecute anyone as opposed to "refused" to?
Police refused to view/search for any CCTVs as this was low priority for them.
So yes, they refused
I had a collision with another car about 10 years ago and the other driver was uninsured. After he gave me false details I went to the Police station who pretty much told me that they were unlikely to persue it as no one was injured. The did give me a follow up call to say that they had spoken to the owner who was not the driver but she claimed not to know who was using it. To be fair to the Police though, they do have plenty to do and this is what insurance is for. I chalked it up to experience.

matrignano

Original Poster:

4,702 posts

241 months

Tuesday 24th March 2015
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
I had a collision with another car about 10 years ago and the other driver was uninsured. After he gave me false details I went to the Police station who pretty much told me that they were unlikely to persue it as no one was injured. The did give me a follow up call to say that they had spoken to the owner who was not the driver but she claimed not to know who was using it. To be fair to the Police though, they do have plenty to do and this is what insurance is for. I chalked it up to experience.
I've had enough "experience", hence why I want action.

Any actual advice on my recommended course of action please?