Car hit whilst at dealer

[dukeboy749r]

Today I went to collect my car from a dealer - it was in for first MoT, final service and check over prior to the lease ending on Monday.

Seemingly literally just before I arrived an older chap scraped past the rear bumper of my car and has taken the pain off in a few places - not deep as in V shaped, but sufficient to have taken off layers of paint in places.

The dealership have an onsite smart repair chap who said it is about £350 worth of damage.

To be fair to the chap who hit the car he 'fessed up and reported it to the reception team. He has left his details.

My question is do you think the dealer should be sorting this on their insurance or is this down to me to try and fix before the handover (Tuesday next week) and then try and resolve with the chap who hit me.

To be clear, I neither saw the accident nor the person who hit the car in the dealer's car park.

Many thanks

[Megaflow]

The dealer should sort it on their insurance because the car was in their care at the time.

A similar thing happened to my last car, it was in for some warranty work and somebody missed judged the disabled persons parking place next door to it and took out the n/s front wing and door.

The dealership had already sought authority to repair before they rang me and the work was done the following week while I was away with work and they delivered the car back to my house. It took literally no involvement from me apart from dropping the car off the morning I went away.

[clockworks]

The dealer should do the right thing and sort it out for you.

My car was hit while in for new tyres. The shop owner had put the car out on the road, and it was hit by another customer who was pulling into the workshop. The owner arranged for me to take it to the best local paintshop, and they billed him direct. My car was in his care, so he took responsibility.

[V8 Stang]

Why should it be on the dealers insurance??

The chap who hit you is the one (or his insurance) who should be paying, he even confessed - so will be expecting it.

[750turbo]

£350? The Dealer should suck it up, get it sorted asap and try and retrieve the value from the old boy.

Their excess will be far higher than the cost of repair - Going back over 20 years ago, ours was £2k from memory!!!

[The_Nugget]

For balance, today I reversed in to a dealers car so swings and roundabouts!

[KungFuPanda]

Why is everyone of the view that the dealer should be sorting it?

The old boy was the negligent one so it should be him or his insurers who sort it out.

In theory if you were to take the dealership to Court, what allegations of negligence would you be making against them?

[stevemcs]

When you park in a dealers car park isn't it at your own risk ?the same as if you go shopping or park in the train station. If the dealer damaged it then yes they should pay but not if a customer damages it.

[anonymous-user]

The legal position is this -

(1) The dealer had a duty to take reasonable care of the car.
(2) There is no indication in the facts stated that the dealer did not take reasonable care of the car.
(3) The dealer is on that basis not liable for the damage.
(4) The driver of the car that caused the damage was careless, and is liable for the damage. His carelessness speaks for itself. His age is, by the way, irrelevant.

The situation is just as it would have been if the damage had occurred out on the road. The fact that the car was at the dealer is immaterial on the facts stated.

[williamp]

But isnt it that the dealers insurance should claim from the third party, not the OP's insurance claiming from the third party??

[Alucidnation]

Does it really matter?

[KungFuPanda]

Just go straight to the old boy’s insurers directly. They’ll authorise repairs at whichever bodyshop the OP chooses and will give him a like for like vehicle whilst his is off the road.

[anonymous-user]

williamp said:

But isnt it that the dealers insurance should claim from the third party, not the OP's insurance claiming from the third party??

Think that one through. Your suggestion has no logical foundation.

The dealer is insured against loss and also against liability. The dealer has suffered no loss. The dealer has incurred no liability. The dealer's insurance is irrelevant.

[dukeboy749r]

Thanks everyone for your comments.

My desire for clarification was not should the dealer pay - but more should they not be sorting this?

The old boy has accepted liability - he’s happy to cover any smart repair (seemingly in the order of £350 from the smart repair agent onsite).

So far, so good. Except - they have no capacity to repair the car prior to it going back to the finance company next week.

Claiming against the old guy’s insurance is the way it will go - but since his excess is seemingly more than the likely cost of the repair, I’m not minded to get him the cost of the repair plus the additional premium he will face. It’s some scratches in a tight car park - not a wilful attempt to damage my car.

I suppose I was hoping the dealer would have just been willing to go that extra mile. If because I don’t want any come back of the chap renegading on his agreement I should notify my insurance.

Now both us will be penalised (come renewal time), for a minor sink and some unfortunate timing (the car will be uninsured from the day it is collected, so with little prospect of remedy beforehand I’m snookered into making it formal).

Appreciate the comments.

Edited to add - I was not meaning to suggest the dealer should pay, only that they should be negotiating with the chap who caused the accident, not me.

[martinbiz]

Breadvan72 said:

The legal position is this -

(1) The dealer had a duty to take reasonable care of the car.
(2) There is no indication in the facts stated that the dealer did not take reasonable care of the car.
(3) The dealer is on that basis not liable for the damage.
(4) The driver of the car that caused the damage was careless, and is liable for the damage. His carelessness speaks for itself. His age is, by the way, irrelevant.

The situation is just as it would have been if the damage had occurred out on the road. The fact that the car was at the dealer is immaterial on the facts stated.

This.

The dealer car park is public place which the public have access to and the RTA applies, if someone had their car hit in a Tesco car park would they think to try and make a claim against Tesco??? Why anyone would even consider that the car park owner is in anyway responsible is beyond me.

Edited by martinbiz on Thursday 17th September 21:14

[stevemcs]

How about take the £350 and hope the dehire damage is the same amount ?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Breadvan72 said:

Think that one through. Your suggestion has no logical foundation.

The dealer is insured against loss and also against liability. The dealer has suffered no loss. The dealer has incurred no liability. The dealer's insurance is irrelevant.

Does it not depend on the contract between the OP and the dealership? As part of their Ts & Cs, the dealership may agree to accept full responsibility for customers' cars whilst in their care. custody and control. And having accepted liability under contract, may have taken out insurance to cover that liability. So if the Op's car is hit by a meteor in the dealer's car park, the dealer, and their insurer, are liable.

If that were the case, the dealer needs to sort it out and then claim back off the guy that hit the Op's car. If not, then it's down to the OP to either claim off his own insurance or the tp's insurance.

[Fastdruid]

dukeboy749r said:

So far, so good. Except - they have no capacity to repair the car prior to it going back to the finance company next week.

If it's going back next week I'd be tempted just to leave it to the finance company to define how much it will be and tell the old boy that's how much it'll be.

From what I've heard there is the risk with a smart repair that the inspection company will spot it and you'll then have top pay again to fix it "properly".

[anonymous-user]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Breadvan72 said:

Think that one through. Your suggestion has no logical foundation.

The dealer is insured against loss and also against liability. The dealer has suffered no loss. The dealer has incurred no liability. The dealer's insurance is irrelevant.

Does it not depend on the contract between the OP and the dealership? As part of their Ts & Cs, the dealership may agree to accept full responsibility for customers' cars whilst in their care. custody and control. And having accepted liability under contract, may have taken out insurance to cover that liability. So if the Op's car is hit by a meteor in the dealer's car park, the dealer, and their insurer, are liable.

If that were the case, the dealer needs to sort it out and then claim back off the guy that hit the Op's car. If not, then it's down to the OP to either claim off his own insurance or the tp's insurance.

There is no point in positing scenarios that do not occur in real life. A party that has someone else's property in its custody takes on no more than a duty to take reasonable care of the property. The likelihood that a car dealer would have a standard term under which it accepts liability regardless of whether or not it was careless is remote, because such a term would make no commercial sense.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 18th September 05:29

[SmoothCriminal]

Who is your lease with?

Have you looked at the damage matrix for when you return the car?.

You could tell the old boy there is no time to repair so he can take the option of paying the invoice to the lease company or you go through his insurance.