[Misc] Am I being conned here, or not?

[drew]

The son is 11.

In that case, thank god he took evasive action!!

 

[WATFORD zero]

So I just had a call from the police, "Hello Mr Direction, nothing to worry about but do you still own a silver Golf, only a member of the public has just called and it seems as if the handbrake has failed and your car has rolled into theirs"
I looked out the window and a taxi driver up my road couldn't pull out of his parking spot because his car was stopping mine from rolling forward (down hill).
Never met him but nice bloke, no damage to his car, cracked my number plate though ffs, could've been worse!

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

I hope you paid what was on his meter for the time he spent sitting there stopping your car rolling into the road, while he rang the police

(And always leave it in gear)

 

[Worthing exile]

Unless you pull out in front of someone at a roundabout of course

Years ago I was driving along Queens Park Road and a car shot out of a side street and I hit it side on.
Witnesses all said it was the other drivers fault.

Police said if it went to Court, the Magistrate would believe the other driver. Why? the other car had four Nuns in it and the Nun Driver said I was going to fast (which I and witnesses said I wasn't.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

If the car was (partly) parked on the pavement leaving little room for a child to cycle through the gap surely the car owner would be (partially) liable.

In my experience regardless of how or where a car was parked makes almost no difference in law. If the car was stationary with nobody in it, the person causing the damage by whatever maneuver they were doing, has caused the damage and would be the liable party.

 

[studio150]

In my experience regardless of how or where a car was parked makes almost no difference in law. If the car was stationary with nobody in it, the person causing the damage by whatever maneuver they were doing, has caused the damage and would be the liable party.

So if a vehicle is parked on a road at night outside of a 30mph limit where there are no street lights, and the vehicle has no parking lights illuminated and someone drives into the back of the vehicle, who is liable.

Likewise if a vehicle is parked just after the brow of a hill and therefore can not be seen by approaching vehicles, parked within 10 metres of a junction........

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

So I just had a call from the police, "Hello Mr Direction, nothing to worry about but do you still own a silver Golf, only a member of the public has just called and it seems as if the handbrake has failed and your car has rolled into theirs"
I looked out the window and a taxi driver up my road couldn't pull out of his parking spot because his car was stopping mine from rolling forward (down hill).
Never met him but nice bloke, no damage to his car, cracked my number plate though ffs, could've been worse!

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

This will not end well.
Time to look up how much new taxis cost

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

So if a vehicle is parked on a road at night outside of a 30mph limit where there are no street lights, and the vehicle has no parking lights illuminated and someone drives into the back of the vehicle, who is liable.

Likewise if a vehicle is parked just after the brow of a hill and therefore can not be seen by approaching vehicles, parked within 10 metres of a junction........

In my experience anyone maneuvering is the party that needs to take due care. The fact in your example that there are no street lights or hazards over the brow of a hill, it would be down to the driver (or machine) operating the moving vehicle to take care and not cause any damage.

 

[crodonilson]

In my experience regardless of how or where a car was parked makes almost no difference in law. If the car was stationary with nobody in it, the person causing the damage by whatever maneuver they were doing, has caused the damage and would be the liable party.

According to the law cars shouldn't be parked on the pavement?? Surely if the car was parked illegally and caused the pavement for pedestrians to be smaller than it would usually be there is some liability and fault with the car owner?

The law on parking on pavements is enshrined in the Highway Code and covers all road vehicles. Rule 244 of the Code states: "You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it." Roadside signs are key here, including ones in London.

 

[studio150]

In my experience anyone maneuvering is the party that needs to take due care. The fact in your example that there are no street lights or hazards over the brow of a hill, it would be down to the driver (or machine) operating the moving vehicle to take care and not cause any damage.

What is your experience?

 

[Garage_Doors]

Unless you pull out in front of someone at a roundabout of course

Or pulling out of a side road (heading straight across) into the path of oncoming traffic.
There are many reasons.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Word of warning, my dad and I have both put in claims for people damaging our vehicles the past couple of years, all it does it put your premiums up by as much as triple! Even though it wasnt our fault.
This is why you should never claim really, the thieving ********!

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Depends on the circumstances. If the child was at the time being supervised by an adult there is a possibility and also if the child should have been supervised by an adult so depends on the age.

Also, a 16 year old can ride a moped. Are you saying that a 16 year old causing damage whilst riding a moped is free from any claim?

That said, if I was the OP, he might consider going down the route of saying his son swerved to avoid another oncoming car and that is why he hit the car and therefore not his fault. So, depending on the age of the son (for all we know he could be 18 and therefore not a minor!) and the assumption he didn't need supervising, advise him to refer it to his insurers on the basis, as you say, they won't sue a minor.

The OP has stated a few times his son is 11 years of age.

 

[Yoda]

A few days ago, my son bumped into a car with his bike. He made a few minor dent/scratches just below the wing mirror, as shown in this picture.

View attachment 132640

I'm an honest guy, so I left a message on the windscreen for the owner to contact me and I'd pay for any repair.

He did so, and it all seemed to be reasonable and grown-up.

He's now got back to me and said he's been quoted £735 plus VAT (so £882 in total). He also wants reimbursing for having to take three half days off work (and drive 180 miles in total) in order to go to an approved dealer for the quote, the drop off and the collection.

My questions to the great and good of NSC are:
1) I don't think that I should pay for his time off work and mileage. Do you agree?
2) Is £882 a reasonable price for this? It seems a hell of a lot for a few minor scratches, and his car is only an old Kia – it's not like it's a Ferrari or something.
3) Would it be unreasonable for me to ask if his insurance would help here – if I pay the excess, and so long as he has his no claims protected?

Book him in with Max Wax, they'll probably repair the scratch & dent and fully valet the car for less half that amount

 

[BN9 BHA]

So I just had a call from the police, "Hello Mr Direction, nothing to worry about but do you still own a silver Golf, only a member of the public has just called and it seems as if the handbrake has failed and your car has rolled into theirs"
I looked out the window and a taxi driver up my road couldn't pull out of his parking spot because his car was stopping mine from rolling forward (down hill).
Never met him but nice bloke, no damage to his car, cracked my number plate though ffs, could've been worse!

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

https://twitter.com/mysteriosox/status/1351274379804618752?s=21

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Or pulling out of a side road (heading straight across) into the path of oncoming traffic.
There are many reasons.

Yes, apologies, I should have prefaced my question with 'unless the person hit side on is hit side on as a consequence of their commiting a driving offence'.

 

[Napper]

I'd just level with the guy.

He is obviously trying to make some cash in his pocket by getting an expensive quote etc. Fair enough really as could be struggling and an inconvenience like this should be compensated .

I'd speak to him about this. If he can get a cheaper quote and still get it done elsewhere for cheaper then everyone is happy.

If he acts a nob about it then you could only offer to settle up direct with garage and not through him.

Pretty sure with some good comms could find a solution.

All down to how much of a shit bag he is doesn't it ( in which case insurance route be best to not let him beat you )



Good luck

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

According to the law cars shouldn't be parked on the pavement?? Surely if the car was parked illegally and caused the pavement for pedestrians to be smaller than it would usually be there is some liability and fault with the car owner?

The law on parking on pavements is enshrined in the Highway Code and covers all road vehicles. Rule 244 of the Code states: "You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it." Roadside signs are key here, including ones in London.

Yes so they can get a parking ticket, but I do not believe it has any bearing on who is liable for any damage. The person could have drunk driven and parked badly, they could be prosecuted for that separately but the damage done later to the parked car, would still be down to the party hitting that (hypothetically badly) parked car. Their own skill and dexterity levels should be enough to have avoided hitting a large metal box that may or may not have been impeding their way.

 

[bhafc99]

Update (just in case anyone gives a shit!).

I got two prices, one from a company looking at photos, the other when I persuaded the guy to take the car to a garage.

These quotes were £300 and £480 respectively, compared to his original request for £882 plus expenses.

While I could play hardball and say I'll only pay for the lowest quote, I'm minded to say the middle price is ok and I'll pay that (but no more, including his 'expenses'). Partially because the £300 quote could always rise when the company actually see the car, and secondly because he did take the trouble to take the car to the £480 garage.

Agree?

 

[BN9 BHA]

Update (just in case anyone gives a shit!).

I got two prices, one from a company looking at photos, the other when I persuaded the guy to take the car to a garage.

These quotes were £300 and £480 respectively, compared to his original request for £882 plus expenses.

While I could play hardball and say I'll only pay for the lowest quote, I'm minded to say the middle price is ok and I'll pay that (but no more, including his 'expenses'). Partially because the £300 quote could always rise when the company actually see the car, and secondly because he did take the trouble to take the car to the £480 garage.

Agree?

Definitely agree, you are being very fair.

 

[BNthree]

Update (just in case anyone gives a shit!).

I got two prices, one from a company looking at photos, the other when I persuaded the guy to take the car to a garage.

These quotes were £300 and £480 respectively, compared to his original request for £882 plus expenses.

While I could play hardball and say I'll only pay for the lowest quote, I'm minded to say the middle price is ok and I'll pay that (but no more, including his 'expenses'). Partially because the £300 quote could always rise when the company actually see the car, and secondly because he did take the trouble to take the car to the £480 garage.

Agree?

Seems very reasonable to me.