Had an accident, want some advice please.
Discussion
Today I was reversing out of an on road, end parking space, at the same time a car was reversing from a carpark.
I ended up hitting his 3/4 panel.
The guy was very keen to say he would settle for cash, and not involve insurance.
We exchanged numbers, and he said he will call me with a quote to repair, and we can take it from there.
Getting home I did an AskMid check, and the car shows as insured, but as a 3 door l spec, when the car was a coupe/cabrio version. I also checked the tax and MOT, and the MOT ran out earlier this year.
So potentially uninsured, and no MOT.
What would you say to him when, and if he calls?
And would you inform the police?
I ended up hitting his 3/4 panel.
The guy was very keen to say he would settle for cash, and not involve insurance.
We exchanged numbers, and he said he will call me with a quote to repair, and we can take it from there.
Getting home I did an AskMid check, and the car shows as insured, but as a 3 door l spec, when the car was a coupe/cabrio version. I also checked the tax and MOT, and the MOT ran out earlier this year.
So potentially uninsured, and no MOT.
What would you say to him when, and if he calls?
And would you inform the police?
cjs racing. said:
The guy was very keen to say he would settle for cash, and not involve insurance.
We exchanged numbers, and he said he will call me with a quote to repair, and we can take it from there.
Hold on. You were on the road and he was pulling out onto the road from a car park. You are both going backwards. But you are on the road and he is entering the road (a bit like pulling out from a side street). It is clearly his fault then ?We exchanged numbers, and he said he will call me with a quote to repair, and we can take it from there.
Regardless, if he has no MOT then he shouldn't be on the road. So he shouldn't have been there for you to hit. Same as driving with no insurance or licence. Ergo it's his fault in any event.
He is going to call you with a quote to repair ? Why would he do that. Surely you should be getting a repair quote for your car and letting him have it so he can give YOU the cash ?
Edited by OddCat on Monday 8th May 15:31
OddCat]js racing. said:
The guy was very keen to say he would settle for cash, and not involve insurance.
We exchanged numbers, and he said he will call me with a quote to repair, and we can take it from there.
quote]
Hold on. You were on the road and he was pulling out onto the road from a car park. You are both going backwards. But you are on the road and he is entering the road (a bit like pulling out from a side street). It is clearly his fault then ?
Regardless, if he has no MOT then he shouldn't be on the road. So he shouldn't have been there for you to hit. Same as driving with no insurance or licence. Ergo it's his fault in any event.
He is going to call you with a quote to repair ? Why would he do that. Surely you should be getting a repair quote and letting him have it so he can give you the cash ?
Yes I was on the road, he was reversing onto it, both traveling backwards.We exchanged numbers, and he said he will call me with a quote to repair, and we can take it from there.
quote]
Hold on. You were on the road and he was pulling out onto the road from a car park. You are both going backwards. But you are on the road and he is entering the road (a bit like pulling out from a side street). It is clearly his fault then ?
Regardless, if he has no MOT then he shouldn't be on the road. So he shouldn't have been there for you to hit. Same as driving with no insurance or licence. Ergo it's his fault in any event.
He is going to call you with a quote to repair ? Why would he do that. Surely you should be getting a repair quote and letting him have it so he can give you the cash ?
No damage to my old tank, just him with a stoved in 3/4.
cjs racing. said:
I assumed as I hit the side of his car, I would be found at fault, as he was out onto the bit of road I was reversing into a second or so before me.
So would this be a 50/50 at best, even without all the no insurance and MOT stuff.
....well in that case you pay for yours and he can pay for his own. Job done ! So would this be a 50/50 at best, even without all the no insurance and MOT stuff.
Of course he was keen to settle for cash. He shouldn't have been on the road. I imagine he'd be keen to settle simply for the police not being involved. He doesn't know (yet) that you know he had no MOT. I imagine he may decide to let it go once he gets wind of that..........
If he was reversing out on to the road, the accident was his fault. I'll bet he would settle for cash!
Tell him you've discussed it with your Insurer and it's their view that he's 100% at fault, ask him how he wants to proceed and then say nothing.
I'll bet that he wants to forget the whole thing. Come back to us with his reply!
Tim
Tell him you've discussed it with your Insurer and it's their view that he's 100% at fault, ask him how he wants to proceed and then say nothing.
I'll bet that he wants to forget the whole thing. Come back to us with his reply!
Tim
OddCat said:
cjs racing. said:
I assumed as I hit the side of his car, I would be found at fault, as he was out onto the bit of road I was reversing into a second or so before me.
So would this be a 50/50 at best, even without all the no insurance and MOT stuff.
....well in that case you pay for yours and he can pay for his own. Job done ! So would this be a 50/50 at best, even without all the no insurance and MOT stuff.
OddCat said:
Regardless, if he has no MOT then he shouldn't be on the road. So he shouldn't have been there for you to hit. Same as driving with no insurance or licence. Ergo it's his fault in any event.
No MOT and no insurance may mean that he shouldn't be on the road but it doesn't mean that the third party shouldn't be compensated if the OP is liable. Edited by OddCat on Monday 8th May 15:31
The criminal element of the lack of MOT and insurance is a totally separate matter.
If the OP is at fault, he's still at fault and will need to either report the matter to his insurers or settle the third party claim directly whilst still informing his insurers for information proposes only.
If it goes 50/50 each party do not bear their own costs. Each party pays half of the other's repair costs or outlay. Just imagine how fair it would be if one party was driving a Ferrari and another in a 20 year old Skoda and they each just bore their own repair costs???
KungFuPanda said:
No MOT and no insurance may mean that he shouldn't be on the road but it doesn't mean that the third party shouldn't be compensated if the OP is liable.
The criminal element of the lack of MOT and insurance is a totally separate matter.
If the OP is at fault, he's still at fault and will need to either report the matter to his insurers or settle the third party claim directly whilst still informing his insurers for information proposes only.
If it goes 50/50 each party do not bear their own costs. Each party pays half of the other's repair costs or outlay. Just imagine how fair it would be if one party was driving a Ferrari and another in a 20 year old Skoda and they each just bore their own repair costs???
It's insured, just not got an MOT, which means bugger all in reality. The criminal element of the lack of MOT and insurance is a totally separate matter.
If the OP is at fault, he's still at fault and will need to either report the matter to his insurers or settle the third party claim directly whilst still informing his insurers for information proposes only.
If it goes 50/50 each party do not bear their own costs. Each party pays half of the other's repair costs or outlay. Just imagine how fair it would be if one party was driving a Ferrari and another in a 20 year old Skoda and they each just bore their own repair costs???
Gavia said:
KungFuPanda said:
No MOT and no insurance may mean that he shouldn't be on the road but it doesn't mean that the third party shouldn't be compensated if the OP is liable.
The criminal element of the lack of MOT and insurance is a totally separate matter.
If the OP is at fault, he's still at fault and will need to either report the matter to his insurers or settle the third party claim directly whilst still informing his insurers for information proposes only.
If it goes 50/50 each party do not bear their own costs. Each party pays half of the other's repair costs or outlay. Just imagine how fair it would be if one party was driving a Ferrari and another in a 20 year old Skoda and they each just bore their own repair costs???
It's insured, just not got an MOT, which means bugger all in reality. The criminal element of the lack of MOT and insurance is a totally separate matter.
If the OP is at fault, he's still at fault and will need to either report the matter to his insurers or settle the third party claim directly whilst still informing his insurers for information proposes only.
If it goes 50/50 each party do not bear their own costs. Each party pays half of the other's repair costs or outlay. Just imagine how fair it would be if one party was driving a Ferrari and another in a 20 year old Skoda and they each just bore their own repair costs???
Gavia said:
It's insured, just not got an MOT, which means bugger all in reality.
Aren't a lot of Insurance policies subject to a valid mot? So potentially could be uninsured. If it's showing as a 3 door on askMID when it's a cabrio could they potentially be stolen plates? Unless cabrios show up as 3 door.
eezeh said:
Aren't a lot of Insurance policies subject to a valid mot? So potentially could be uninsured.
If it's showing as a 3 door on askMID when it's a cabrio could they potentially be stolen plates? Unless cabrios show up as 3 door.
Not as far as I'm aware on the MOT front. A car can easily show up as slightly different on MID. Everyone's clutching at straws here. If it's showing as a 3 door on askMID when it's a cabrio could they potentially be stolen plates? Unless cabrios show up as 3 door.
Woah woah WOAH.
HOLD UR HORSES M9
Secondly, ask MID or similar are not 100% accurate. It's much more common than you may think to get car models mixed up, EG labelled as Auto if they are manual, or convertible if they are not.
Certainly if it's not got an MOT that doesn't really mean much in reality.
HOLD UR HORSES M9
pim said:
Agree with previous post you where both at fault.The other driver is illegally on the road needs reporting.
Don't pay him a penny.
Firstly settling cash is fine in many cases for low value it's preferable.Don't pay him a penny.
Secondly, ask MID or similar are not 100% accurate. It's much more common than you may think to get car models mixed up, EG labelled as Auto if they are manual, or convertible if they are not.
Certainly if it's not got an MOT that doesn't really mean much in reality.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff