Aggravated TWOC, whose insurance to claim on?

[Emeye]

Tonight some scrotes were nicking a transit pickup from across the road when the police turned up and they abandoned it, leaving it to roll into our parked car causing damage. After a chase, they managed to catch the fkers.

Question is, whose insurance do I claim on? Ours, or the owner of the transit?

The damage isn't massive, but until the morning I won't know how bad. Along with scrapes and dents in the plastic, it looks like the front bumper has been pushed in as the light is sticking proud.

Thing is, our excess might not make it worth claiming.

Cheers.

[davepoth]

Emeye said:

Tonight some scrotes were nicking a transit pickup from across the road when the police turned up and they abandoned it, leaving it to roll into our parked car causing damage. After a chase, they managed to catch the fkers.

Question is, whose insurance do I claim on? Ours, or the owner of the transit?

The damage isn't massive, but until the morning I won't know how bad. Along with scrapes and dents in the plastic, it looks like the front bumper has been pushed in as the light is sticking proud.

Thing is, our excess might not make it worth claiming.

Cheers.

You claim off the truck that hit you - let their insurers sort it out.

[parapaul]

Surely the van will only be insured with the named drivers at the wheel?

[Noger]

Scrotes identified - their insurance
Scrotes not identified - MIB

[slinky]

Noger said:

Scrotes identified - their insurance
Scrotes not identified - MIB

How would the scrotes be insured on the vehicle they were attempting to steal?
I would have said that the claim is, unfortunately, against the policy in force against the transit, therefore that of the owners.

Report to your insurer, they'll decide.

[Emeye]

Sorry, but what is MIB?

I need to be clear on whose insurance is liable, because I don't want to start a claim and then get stitched up with an expensive repair that may be close to the excess and will also increase my insurance quote next year!

If I am going to be liable then sadly not going through my insurance may be the most economic option.

[slinky]

Emeye said:

Sorry, but what is MIB?

I need to be clear on whose insurance is liable, because I don't want to start a claim and then get stitched up with an expensive repair that may be close to the excess and will also increase my insurance quote next year!

If I am going to be liable then sadly not going through my insurance may be the most economic option.

MIB = Motor Insurance Bureau

If the offending vehicle is owned and insured at the point of impact, then the policy in force on that vehicle is the one which should pay out. The "third party" element of an insurance policy is there to cover loss by a third party, in this case, you!

[catman]

Emeye said:

Sorry, but what is MIB?

I need to be clear on whose insurance is liable, because I don't want to start a claim and then get stitched up with an expensive repair that may be close to the excess and will also increase my insurance quote next year!

If I am going to be liable then sadly not going through my insurance may be the most economic option.

Even if you do make a successful claim against the van owner, it will probably increase your premium next year!

Tim

[Noger]

slinky said:

How would the scrotes be insured on the vehicle they were attempting to steal?
I would have said that the claim is, unfortunately, against the policy in force against the transit, therefore that of the owners.

Report to your insurer, they'll decide.

I meant the transit's insurance. If occupants identified (doesn't have to be driver) then transit insurers become RTA insurers and must deal.

Otherwise you must make a claim under the untraced drivers agreement with the MiB.

[slinky]

Noger said:

I meant the transit's insurance. If occupants identified (doesn't have to be driver) then transit insurers become RTA insurers and must deal.

Otherwise you must make a claim under the untraced drivers agreement with the MiB.

Read the OP again.

Failed TWOC leads to unoccupied vehicle hitting OP's car.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

slinky said:

Noger said:

I meant the transit's insurance. If occupants identified (doesn't have to be driver) then transit insurers become RTA insurers and must deal.

Otherwise you must make a claim under the untraced drivers agreement with the MiB.

Read the OP again.

Failed TWOC leads to unoccupied vehicle hitting OP's car.

Noger is correct. If you are injured or your property (including vehicle) is damaged by a stolen vehicle, you claim from the Motorists Insurance Bureau if the thieves are unknown. But if the thieves are apprehended, then you claim off the insurance of the stolen vehicle. Which seems really unfair on the owners of the stolen vehicle because they've done nothing wrong, but that's the way it works.

So the Transit insurers will pay for your damage and then try, probably without any luck, to reclaim their outlay from the thieves.

[vonhosen]

slinky said:

Noger said:

I meant the transit's insurance. If occupants identified (doesn't have to be driver) then transit insurers become RTA insurers and must deal.

Otherwise you must make a claim under the untraced drivers agreement with the MiB.

Read the OP again.

Failed TWOC leads to unoccupied vehicle hitting OP's car.

But what he says still applies.
Failed TWOCers can still potentially be caught & identified, then if they aren't it's MIB.

[slinky]

vonhosen said:

slinky said:

Noger said:

I meant the transit's insurance. If occupants identified (doesn't have to be driver) then transit insurers become RTA insurers and must deal.

Otherwise you must make a claim under the untraced drivers agreement with the MiB.

Read the OP again.

Failed TWOC leads to unoccupied vehicle hitting OP's car.

But what he says still applies.
Failed TWOCers can still potentially be caught & identified, then if they aren't it's MIB.

Failed in the sense that they failed to take the vehicle, therefore, in my eyes (and under the gaze of an insurer) it falls under vandalism, not TWOC.. Therefore it does fall to the owner of the vehicle, not the MIB..

[Phil Dicky]

slinky said:

vonhosen said:

slinky said:

Noger said:

I meant the transit's insurance. If occupants identified (doesn't have to be driver) then transit insurers become RTA insurers and must deal.

Otherwise you must make a claim under the untraced drivers agreement with the MiB.

Read the OP again.

Failed TWOC leads to unoccupied vehicle hitting OP's car.

But what he says still applies.
Failed TWOCers can still potentially be caught & identified, then if they aren't it's MIB.

Failed in the sense that they failed to take the vehicle, therefore, in my eyes (and under the gaze of an insurer) it falls under vandalism, not TWOC.. Therefore it does fall to the owner of the vehicle, not the MIB..

I would argue the fact the vehicle moved is twoc....taken without owners consent , as I remember the distance the vehicle moves is irrelevant?

[vonhosen]

Phil Dicky said:

slinky said:

vonhosen said:

slinky said:

Noger said:

I meant the transit's insurance. If occupants identified (doesn't have to be driver) then transit insurers become RTA insurers and must deal.

Otherwise you must make a claim under the untraced drivers agreement with the MiB.

Read the OP again.

Failed TWOC leads to unoccupied vehicle hitting OP's car.

But what he says still applies.
Failed TWOCers can still potentially be caught & identified, then if they aren't it's MIB.

Failed in the sense that they failed to take the vehicle, therefore, in my eyes (and under the gaze of an insurer) it falls under vandalism, not TWOC.. Therefore it does fall to the owner of the vehicle, not the MIB..

I would argue the fact the vehicle moved is twoc....taken without owners consent , as I remember the distance the vehicle moves is irrelevant?

Indeed they are responsible for it moving.

[rash_decision]

I would speak to the owner of the van. If the damagae is minimal, he may well be willing to sort it for you rather than go through insurance. He too will have an excess and a premium hike next year if he makes a claim. Worth speaking about??

Unfortunately, even with it being no fault of your own, if you go through insurance, your insurance will go up next year as you are now a "statistic!". (That's the excuse my insurer gave me!!).

[Emeye]

Thanks for the replies. I'll call my insurance company - looking in the daylight I'm hopefully the damage will just be re-adjusting the bumper and the paintwork.

It's a shame I have to claim on anyone's insurance. The transit belongs to the company my neighbour works for, and the police recovered that for forensics - I was surprised they had to do this as the police saw them abandoning the transit and after a foot chase caught them.

The whole frustration is that after all the inconvenience, time and expense of everyone involved, the scrotes will probably get a slap on the wrist.

I should add I've been impressed by the local police recently - the police that caught them had been part of a deliberate increase in patrols due to a recent increase in crime in the area.

The officer taking the witness statement shared my frustration and said that they were no longer allowed to search the criminal's home address after they had been caught for Aggravated TWOC - absolutely fking unbelievable.

[Noger]

slinky said:

Failed in the sense that they failed to take the vehicle, therefore, in my eyes (and under the gaze of an insurer) it falls under vandalism, not TWOC.. Therefore it does fall to the owner of the vehicle, not the MIB..

Yes, see what you are saying. Did the accident arise out of the use of a vehicle on a road, rather than simply using a vehicle to cause damage (i.e. setting it alight).

Arguable, but given the were trying to steal it (and moved it) not damage it....

[TwigtheWonderkid]

rash_decision said:

He too will have an excess and a premium hike next year if he makes a claim. Worth speaking about??

Unfortunately, even with it being no fault of your own, if you go through insurance, your insurance will go up next year as you are now a "statistic!". (That's the excuse my insurer gave me!!).

1. The van owner will not have any excess to pay on the claim from the OP. You don't pay an excess on claims against you by a third party.

2. Not all insurers charge if you make a claim that isn't your fault and they recover their outlay or don't pay anything out. So to say "your insurance will go up" is wrong. It might go up.

[daz3210]

Emeye said:

.......The transit belongs to the company my neighbour works for, and the police recovered that for forensics - I was surprised they had to do this as the police saw them abandoning the transit and after a foot chase caught them.

That will be to get conclusive proof.

A young son of a woman that used to work for us got arrested once. He was looking inside a car (not actually in, but stood with his upper body in the door) that he claimed he had found with the doors wide open. Turned out car was stolen. Recovered for forensics, which proved he had not actually been in the car. So forensics could be very important.