Hit by uninsured (private) electric scooter

[BOH]

My car was hit by a privately owned e-scooter
- I.e. one being ridden on the road illegally. With some detective work, I managed to get the scrot’s details.

I have CCTV footage in which we admits he was totally to blame and an independent witness to corroborate my statement.

My insurance company said since the scooter rider is a vulnerable road user, it will be recorded as a fault accident on my part. The car has been declared a total loss.

As far as I know the rider was uninjured and obviously uninsured. He was also very keen to avoid police involvement.

I have the feeling the insurer is mainly seeking to avoid a personal injury claim from the rider.

Has anyone had similar experiences or advice they could share.

Edited by BOH on Tuesday 2nd April 22:47

[joropug]

Insurer likely taking that stance because:

A) The pedestrians/cyclists/motor cyclists will always be vulnerable - Less likely to go their way

B) There's no chance of a recovery

is the damage really that bad? Total loss seems extreme. If you have a repair quote, give it to him, with x amount of days to pay or will go to police/court

Don't have to follow through with it but driving without insurance could be a real possibility which could cost more than the repairs.

[Richtea1970]

A write off after being hit by a e-scooter? What is it, a £500 shed ?

[Aretnap]

In insurance jargon "fault" means that your insurer didn't recover the costs of repairs from the other party involved. It is only loosely related to the concept of culpability for the accident. As the scooter driver was uninsured your insurers are unlikely to think that pursuing him for costs is a good use of their resources so yes it's highly likely to end up as a fault claim regardless of the circumstances of the accident.

(In approving liability the actual circumstance of the accident are much more important than whether you get him to say the words "that was my fault" - what actually happened?)

[Foss62]

Aretnap said:

In insurance jargon "fault" means that your insurer didn't recover the costs of repairs from the other party involved. It is only loosely related to the concept of culpability for the accident. As the scooter driver was uninsured your insurers are unlikely to think that pursuing him for costs is a good use of their resources so yes it's highly likely to end up as a fault claim regardless of the circumstances of the accident.

(In approving liability the actual circumstance of the accident are much more important than whether you get him to say the words "that was my fault" - what actually happened?)

This seems like really unfortunate use of the term ‘vulnerable road user’ by the insurer - contributing to all the myths around this subject.
The ‘hierarchy’ is around the duty of care being greater the higher the potential of the vehicle to cause harm. It doesn’t mean that a pedestrian can’t be held responsible for a collision with a bicycle, and a lorry is always at fault if in collision with a car etc.

[Far Cough]

Why won't the insurer issue proceedings against the "At Fault" party , the reasons above seem petty and don't follow logic or common sense.

...and if they don't , there is nothing stopping you from issuing proceedings unless the parents etc can be approached for payment ?

[Dingu]

Far Cough said:

Why won't the insurer issue proceedings against the "At Fault" party , the reasons above seem petty and don't follow logic or common sense.

...and if they don't , there is nothing stopping you from issuing proceedings unless the parents etc can be approached for payment ?

A scrote on an illegal bike is unlikely to have anything to sue for. Rule 1 of pursuing costs, make sure they have it else it’s pointless.

[Far Cough]

Appreciate that but the companies flat refusal without even exploring the issue is causing me a problem. He might live in a mansion and have wealthy parents.

[Simpo Two]

Dingu said:

Far Cough said:

Why won't the insurer issue proceedings against the "At Fault" party , the reasons above seem petty and don't follow logic or common sense.

...and if they don't , there is nothing stopping you from issuing proceedings unless the parents etc can be approached for payment ?

A scrote on an illegal bike is unlikely to have anything to sue for. Rule 1 of pursuing costs, make sure they have it else it’s pointless.

Generally yes, but isn't this what we pay 'Motorist's Legal Protection' for? Or is that discarded if the culprit is 'vulnerable' with no money? Should be allowed to get it from the parents, it might teach them all a lesson.

'Vulnerable' in this case might mean 'officially a bit dim'.

[E-bmw]

Far Cough said:

Appreciate that but the companies flat refusal without even exploring the issue is causing me a problem. He might live in a mansion and have wealthy parents.

They are quite simply weighing up the odds of success.

Little likelihood of success & even less likelihood of getting anything back all for lots of outlay, why would they.

[Far Cough]

E-bmw said:

They are quite simply weighing up the odds of success.

Little likelihood of success & even less likelihood of getting anything back all for lots of outlay, why would they.

It's no wonder the situation is perpetuated then. If in this case they went after the rider and parents if a kid and made it very public , perhaps people would think twice about buying the things or how they are used

[Rusty Old-Banger]

Richtea1970 said:

A write off after being hit by a e-scooter? What is it, a £500 shed ?

Does it matter? It's his car, and through no fault of his own it's likely to be taken from him - or have a permanent cat marker on it. I've seen a £6k car written off for having a (painted, heated, electric) wing mirror smashed off and a crease put in the door/sill by something equally lightweight hitting it. (Sill damage means many underwriters automatically consider it a Cat S.)

[Retroman]

Remind your insurance company that although they are more vulnerable you are only at fault if you are partially liable and that would require negligence on your part, then invite them to explain where and how you were negligent.

[BOH]

FYI It’s just a 16-plate Alfa Giulietta I use almost exclusively for my commute to/from the airport. Except the day I did the school run in it. Not worth a huge amount, but reliable and necessary transport. Don’t want the hassle of buying a replacement.

Although an e-scooter doesn’t sound very formidable, this one was of sturdy steel construction, the rider was at least 18 stone and probably doing 15 mph. So a reasonable amount of kinetic energy, channeled through a hard object - at least the scooter, but maybe not his wibbly-wobbly body.

He hit around the near side front wheel area; the wing, front bumper, front part of the under tray & wheel arch liner need replacing. Additionally the front edge of the passenger door has been dinged.

[Bill]

BOH said:

FYI It’s just a 16-plate Alfa Giulietta I use almost exclusively for my commute to/from the airport. Except the day I did the school run in it. Not worth a huge amount, but reliable and necessary transport. Don’t want the hassle of buying a replacement.

Although an e-scooter doesn’t sound very formidable, this one was of sturdy steel construction, the rider was at least 18 stone and probably doing 15 mph. So a reasonable amount of kinetic energy, channeled through a hard object - at least the scooter, but maybe not his wibbly-wobbly body.

He hit around the near side front wheel area; the wing, front bumper, front part of the under tray & wheel arch liner need replacing. Additionally the front edge of the passenger door has been dinged.

Sounds ideal, assuming it drives still and there are no sharp edges. Take the payout less whatever they want for the car and keep using it.

The police might be interested in the scooterist, particularly if he left without giving his details, but the insurers probably don't think it's worth pursuing.

[qwerty360]

BOH said:

He hit around the near side front wheel area; the wing, front bumper, front part of the under tray & wheel arch liner need replacing. Additionally the front edge of the passenger door has been dinged.

Note - simply riding illegally isn't negligence on its own so doesn't make the scooter rider liable. (See drivers found not liable despite driving without ever having a licence! Replace a private scooter with a rented one and it becomes legal without changing any facts about how the accident happened so isn't relevent to fault...)


Near side front wheel/door could easily be you turning across them or pulling out, which would, per HW code, be at least partially your liability (filtering down the inside of a vehicle is questionable, but HW code requires drivers allow for it and give way...)

Of course it could also be them failing to give way at a side road and going into the side of your car. Until you explain what happened, we can't say who is at fault


Even more so if they were on a cycle path etc (whether they are legally allowed to use it, at 15mph they are no quicker or harder to see than a bicycle that you need to give way to)


It is relatively easy to find examples where witnesses will blaim cyclists (or scooters, being very similar) and happily proclaim they are at fault, only to get told by the insurer/courts that the statement they have given is effectively two parts; What happened and opinion on fault; The court cares about what happened and will point out that there opinion on fault is wrong...

edit: Even admission at scene will have limited value - scooter rider could argue stress/injury.


And this is all combined with the likelihood that any case will have injury to scooter rider being claimed and plausibly that the scooter rider has limited assets to persue for damage.

Edited by qwerty360 on Wednesday 3rd April 13:42

[Aretnap]

Simpo Two said:

Generally yes, but isn't this what we pay 'Motorist's Legal Protection' for? Or is that discarded if the culprit is 'vulnerable' with no money? Should be allowed to get it from the parents, it might teach them all a lesson.

Not really. Motor legal protection is primarily there to help you claim for your uninsured losses (eg personal injury). If you make a claim on your insurance then you've had your losses covered and it becomes your insurers job to try to reclaim their own costs, or not. Whether you have MLP or not becomes irrelevant - the insurer will make a judgement based on their own interests, as they're doing it for their own benefit, not yours.

Even where MLP is relevant it can generally only be used where there is a reasonable (ie better than 50%) chance of recovery, and that would would be assessed both in terms of the circumstances of the accident but also how likely the perp is to have the means to cover any award. No insurer is going to sell you a policy which will let you pursue a doomed and pointless legal claim out of sheer bloody-mindedness.

Parents are not generally liable for the actions of their children any more than you're liable for your cousin's bad driving. The basics rule in tort law (with a handful of exceptions) is that you're liable for your own actions, not those if other people.

[OutInTheShed]

As far as the insurance company is concerned, the OP's car was hit by an uninsured object.
Doesn't matter if it's a deer, a meteorite or a PH director on a scooter or turbo e-bike.

The insurance company will therefore pay out with no realistic chance of getting its money back.
That's a 'fault claim' on the OP's record.

The OP could attempt to sue the scooter rider, but the law is slow, expensive and fickle.
The OP could attempt to ensure the scooter rider is prosecuted.

Just because the scooter 'should not have been there' doesn't mean the other party is blame free.
The outcome might have been exactly the same if the PBD was on a legal bike.

So if the OP wants to make waves, he should be absolutely sure everyone would agree he was taking Due Care and all that.

The kind of person who thinks it's OK to ride an illegal uninsured motor vehicle is quite likely to lie about events.

[Simpo Two]

Aretnap said:

Simpo Two said:

Generally yes, but isn't this what we pay 'Motorist's Legal Protection' for? Or is that discarded if the culprit is 'vulnerable' with no money? Should be allowed to get it from the parents, it might teach them all a lesson.

Not really. Motor legal protection is primarily there to help you claim for your uninsured losses (eg personal injury). If you make a claim on your insurance then you've had your losses covered and it becomes your insurers job to try to reclaim their own costs, or not. Whether you have MLP or not becomes irrelevant - the insurer will make a judgement based on their own interests, as they're doing it for their own benefit, not yours.

Even where MLP is relevant it can generally only be used where there is a reasonable (ie better than 50%) chance of recovery, and that would would be assessed both in terms of the circumstances of the accident but also how likely the perp is to have the means to cover any award. No insurer is going to sell you a policy which will let you pursue a doomed and pointless legal claim out of sheer bloody-mindedness.

Parents are not generally liable for the actions of their children any more than you're liable for your cousin's bad driving. The basics rule in tort law (with a handful of exceptions) is that you're liable for your own actions, not those if other people.

Thanks for the clarification. I do consider however that in the case of a child the parents should be partly liable because they were responsible for bringing the brat up. If such a thing were enacted it might help a bit.

[QBee]

Around where I live, the unenthusiasm of the scooter rider to get further involved would most likely be because he had nicked the scooter in question.

And in my recent experience, your own insurance company's operative will write off anything rather than actually have to do any work.
My X Trail was involved in a skirmish with a taxi before Christmas and ended up with a dent in the painted plastic rear bumper, nothing more. Not interested in seeing pictures, Aviva simply offered me the Copart valuation of the car, which was 43.2% of the real value. I politely suggested they Foxtrot Oscar and withdrew my claim.

I will keep driving the car with dent in place until I spot a maroon X Trail T30 bumper on Ebay/Marketplace/Gumtree or wherever. That willl teach me to buy a boring common colour next time......instead of a boring uncommon colour.