Car park ding, insurance question
Discussion
Car insurance question. Quite some time back now managed to make minor contact with another vehicle in a car park. My fault, really bloody annoyed with myself as this was the only damage ever done to any vehicle in my driving career , owner or 3rd party vehicles, at least outside of motorsport related stuff. Basically trying to fit a large vehicle through a clearly marginal space, to save what? Effing idiot. No damage to mine, but some scuffs and transfer of mud onto bumper of the other, a cheap 16 Yr old very shiny hatchback but in really really good nick, maybe worth 1k.
Other driver not present, go into supermarket, get call put out, nice lady rocks up, I fess up, we go out, show her, friendly conversation, apologise profusely, get thanks for being honest, her suggestion we shouldn't claim but sort it out with cash.
My response was I am contractually obliged to report this so will be doing so, or words to that effect. Reported, no damage my side, but assigned as an at fault incident, fair enough. Expected to get reamed for other vehicle written off, hire car, what have you. Get text couple days after from her saying they've reported it to their insurance.
Now months later insurance co now informed me case closed as no claim has been made by any party, no effect on ncd, though that depends on status in future in case something changes, again understand that, fair enough. (Clearly they'll up premium anyway, my thoughts) But that in future when dealing with insurance companies will have to mention it, but refer to it as a "no fault incident."
Maybe a result, maybe the damage was just mud which wiped off, pretty certain not the case. Somewhat confused how something I admit was my fault can be defined as 'no fault'.
Other driver not present, go into supermarket, get call put out, nice lady rocks up, I fess up, we go out, show her, friendly conversation, apologise profusely, get thanks for being honest, her suggestion we shouldn't claim but sort it out with cash.
My response was I am contractually obliged to report this so will be doing so, or words to that effect. Reported, no damage my side, but assigned as an at fault incident, fair enough. Expected to get reamed for other vehicle written off, hire car, what have you. Get text couple days after from her saying they've reported it to their insurance.
Now months later insurance co now informed me case closed as no claim has been made by any party, no effect on ncd, though that depends on status in future in case something changes, again understand that, fair enough. (Clearly they'll up premium anyway, my thoughts) But that in future when dealing with insurance companies will have to mention it, but refer to it as a "no fault incident."
Maybe a result, maybe the damage was just mud which wiped off, pretty certain not the case. Somewhat confused how something I admit was my fault can be defined as 'no fault'.
I damaged another car in a car park. I misjudged my swing and scraped the side of their car. I owned up, and agreed to pay cash. She booked the car into a repair place. I turned up with cash (a couple of hundred), and paid the repairer. I got her to sign a ‘full and final settlement’. I informed my insurance company of a ‘private settlement’, and my insurer kept a note on file, in case they made a claim later. There was no effect on premiums after that. Apart from my original fault of hitting her car, everything went smoothly and hassle-free, with no further consequences.
I don’t know if any of that helps.
ETA: perhaps the other party had just reported it to their insurer as a precaution in case further damage came to light. So perhaps they thought any repair was minor and not worth the trouble of getting it repaired, especially as you had been honest. Karma does pay back sometimes.
I don’t know if any of that helps.
ETA: perhaps the other party had just reported it to their insurer as a precaution in case further damage came to light. So perhaps they thought any repair was minor and not worth the trouble of getting it repaired, especially as you had been honest. Karma does pay back sometimes.
Edited by Pica-Pica on Wednesday 28th February 12:01
Supermarket car parks are not defined as "roads" do despite being a public place it is essentially private land.
Contractually obliged to whom - insurance company? Where do you draw the line though - you don't report every stone chip entailed. I would say you are not obliged, fair wear and tear.
Contractually obliged to whom - insurance company? Where do you draw the line though - you don't report every stone chip entailed. I would say you are not obliged, fair wear and tear.
Random_Person said:
Supermarket car parks are not defined as "roads" do despite being a public place it is essentially private land.
Contractually obliged to whom - insurance company? Where do you draw the line though - you don't report every stone chip entailed. I would say you are not obliged, fair wear and tear.
A stone chip is not an RTA so not even close as an anology and for the purposes of insurance a car park to which the public have access strangely is a public place, who owns it and whether or not it is a road is irrelevantContractually obliged to whom - insurance company? Where do you draw the line though - you don't report every stone chip entailed. I would say you are not obliged, fair wear and tear.
To suggest you can drive around a car park and randomly hit other cars and it be classed as fair wear and tear is frankly ridiculous
Edited by martinbiz on Wednesday 28th February 12:49
Random_Person said:
Supermarket car parks are not defined as "roads" do despite being a public place it is essentially private land.
Contractually obliged to whom - insurance company? Where do you draw the line though - you don't report every stone chip entailed. I would say you are not obliged, fair wear and tear.
[info just plucked from thin air]Contractually obliged to whom - insurance company? Where do you draw the line though - you don't report every stone chip entailed. I would say you are not obliged, fair wear and tear.
Random_Person said:
Supermarket car parks are not defined as "roads" do despite being a public place it is essentially private land.
Contractually obliged to whom - insurance company? Where do you draw the line though - you don't report every stone chip entailed. I would say you are not obliged, fair wear and tear.
A supermarket car park would be classed as a highway in reference to Road Traffic Act. Contractually obliged to whom - insurance company? Where do you draw the line though - you don't report every stone chip entailed. I would say you are not obliged, fair wear and tear.
Also you may want to read your insurance policy for T&Cs to see what your obligations are in relation to collisions etc
If someone scraped my car slightly in a supermarket car park, took the trouble to find me and was polite about it there is zero chance I would be making an insurance claim. It would be different if I wasn't driving a shed but one more scratch is neither here nor there. Maybe she felt similarly.
monthou said:
If someone scraped my car slightly in a supermarket car park, took the trouble to find me and was polite about it there is zero chance I would be making an insurance claim. It would be different if I wasn't driving a shed but one more scratch is neither here nor there. Maybe she felt similarly.
But there isn’t a one size fits all.If I had a scrape down the side of my car, it would probably result in a claim as I would expect the finish to be as previous.
Knowing how some people think this would be about £50 from Bobs paint shop it might come as a shock when the actual cost is presented.
pavarotti1980 said:
Random_Person said:
Supermarket car parks are not defined as "roads" do despite being a public place it is essentially private land.
Contractually obliged to whom - insurance company? Where do you draw the line though - you don't report every stone chip entailed. I would say you are not obliged, fair wear and tear.
A supermarket car park would be classed as a highway in reference to Road Traffic Act. Contractually obliged to whom - insurance company? Where do you draw the line though - you don't report every stone chip entailed. I would say you are not obliged, fair wear and tear.
Also you may want to read your insurance policy for T&Cs to see what your obligations are in relation to collisions etc
Great outcome for FiF though.
You are wrong. Public places and roads differ.
A car park is not a road. Supermarket scrapes are of no interest to most, scrapes in such places are fair wear and tear and can be sorted directly, as the land is private. Its still a public place open to the public, but it is not a road.
Look up Griffin v Squires 1958 if you can be bothered. Or if you can't, speak to a legal professional rather than rely on PH where only 0.0005% of the population post - and usually incorrectly.
A car park is not a road. Supermarket scrapes are of no interest to most, scrapes in such places are fair wear and tear and can be sorted directly, as the land is private. Its still a public place open to the public, but it is not a road.
Look up Griffin v Squires 1958 if you can be bothered. Or if you can't, speak to a legal professional rather than rely on PH where only 0.0005% of the population post - and usually incorrectly.
Random_Person said:
You are wrong. Public places and roads differ.
A car park is not a road. Supermarket scrapes are of no interest to most, scrapes in such places are fair wear and tear and can be sorted directly, as the land is private. Its still a public place open to the public, but it is not a road.
Look up Griffin v Squires 1958 if you can be bothered. Or if you can't, speak to a legal professional rather than rely on PH where only 0.0005% of the population post - and usually incorrectly.
What is your point in relation to the thread?A car park is not a road. Supermarket scrapes are of no interest to most, scrapes in such places are fair wear and tear and can be sorted directly, as the land is private. Its still a public place open to the public, but it is not a road.
Look up Griffin v Squires 1958 if you can be bothered. Or if you can't, speak to a legal professional rather than rely on PH where only 0.0005% of the population post - and usually incorrectly.
Random_Person said:
You are wrong. Public places and roads differ.
A car park is not a road. Supermarket scrapes are of no interest to most, scrapes in such places are fair wear and tear and can be sorted directly, as the land is private. Its still a public place open to the public, but it is not a road.
Look up Griffin v Squires 1958 if you can be bothered. Or if you can't, speak to a legal professional rather than rely on PH where only 0.0005% of the population post - and usually incorrectly.
I certainly don't be relying on you for accurate information. A car park is not a road. Supermarket scrapes are of no interest to most, scrapes in such places are fair wear and tear and can be sorted directly, as the land is private. Its still a public place open to the public, but it is not a road.
Look up Griffin v Squires 1958 if you can be bothered. Or if you can't, speak to a legal professional rather than rely on PH where only 0.0005% of the population post - and usually incorrectly.
If you can be bothered check out the RTA and then you may realise you were wrong and continue to be.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff