- Thread starter
- #21
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Travel] Update on the plum who drove into Y's car when X was driving
- Thread starter Harry Wilson's tackle
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #23
It was just an update for concerned readers. I gave no 'please no comedey' warning. And yet I am gratified by the lack of comedy.
FFS.
FFS.
- Thread starter
- #24
I'm now going to piss all over this thread (if I can find a dry spot to stand on). German challenging synth pop you say?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE23A5d2Tlg&list=PLUC2hfJl7H3hVQNx3rqtP3QQYAl2Ih2oY&index=4
Weststander
Well-known member
I love it when Y gets his or her teeth into these scenarios.
At first unsure, then that eye for detail and search for justice takes over. The prep done for the supermarket car park case was exemplary.
At first unsure, then that eye for detail and search for justice takes over. The prep done for the supermarket car park case was exemplary.
I'm now going to piss all over this thread (if I can find a dry spot to stand on). German challenging synth pop you say?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE23A5d2Tlg&list=PLUC2hfJl7H3hVQNx3rqtP3QQYAl2Ih2oY&index=4
Wrong thread?
https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?386167-Does-any-genre-of-music-%93make-you-angry%94
- Thread starter
- #27
Y won that one. Y takes no prisoners when war is declared
- Thread starter
- #28
You've mistaken me for someone who knows what the **** they're doing, you fool, you
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,772
Shirley everyone has looked at one of Harry's posts at sometime and thought Y
vegster
Sanity Clause
- May 5, 2008
- 28,273
Sadly, some aholes are incredibly inventive and deceitful scum when it comes to car crashes. A pal of mine was hit by a car reversing out of a pub car park on to the main road, where he obviously had Right of Way. There were three 20 something blokes in the car and they managed to convince the insurers that my pal drove in to them while entering the pub car park, which he wasn't. But, 3-1 witnesses ( no one else saw the incident) swung it in their direction and he lost his claim and they got away with it.
I may have mentioned that years back I was on the wrong end of something similar, the Mrs gently rolled in to another car reversing in a car park, no damage to either vehicle but they exchanged names and details just in case....
A few days later were were contacted for a claim?... The Mrs said " Why? There was no damage?"... We went round covertly to check the other vehicle and found a huge stoved in dent in the front wing..
Subsequently found out the " lady's" partner worked for a Car Body Repair company. Suddenly it all became very clear, smash up own car, claim on insurance, do work in lunch break using company equipment, trouser claim money.
We actually contacted the insurers and the Police giving photographic evidence of the fraud yet neither seemed to care. This even though the position of the damage on the other car could not have been caused by our car unless it had been dropped on it vertically.
There are some prize shits out there if there is a sniff of cash.
I may have mentioned that years back I was on the wrong end of something similar, the Mrs gently rolled in to another car reversing in a car park, no damage to either vehicle but they exchanged names and details just in case....
A few days later were were contacted for a claim?... The Mrs said " Why? There was no damage?"... We went round covertly to check the other vehicle and found a huge stoved in dent in the front wing..
Subsequently found out the " lady's" partner worked for a Car Body Repair company. Suddenly it all became very clear, smash up own car, claim on insurance, do work in lunch break using company equipment, trouser claim money.
We actually contacted the insurers and the Police giving photographic evidence of the fraud yet neither seemed to care. This even though the position of the damage on the other car could not have been caused by our car unless it had been dropped on it vertically.
There are some prize shits out there if there is a sniff of cash.
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
So, X has now been invited to respond to a Tribunals Service money claim. On reading the claim, Y realised that the statement from the claimant is a pack of lies. The claimant (let's call him '****') left a minor road and piled into the side of X's car (actually Y owns the car but it isn't relevant) on an A road. But ****'s statement claims it was the other way round. In order to account for the damage to the left side of X's car, **** has invented a scenario where X was signaling left but turned right, pulling out in from of ****'s car as the **** turned right, into the minor road. Unfortunately (or fortunately) X has photographic evidence of where the cars ended up. With a broken front axle and a front left wheel knocked 20 degrees out of true it would have been impossible for X to get the car where it ended up, had the ****'s lies about the incident been true. It was impossible to steer X's car let alone do the necessary 3 point turn.
Anyway, X and Y are looking forward to the court case, the little misunderstanding about X not being insured to drive Y's car notwithstanding. Update on that, Y's insurance will let anyone drive his car, except (in small print) - the spouse. Even though X and Y are not married, the insurer sees Y as a spouse. X and Y feel they can blag their way past that in the court. Y and Y have a 20 page 'storyboard' with photos and diagrams. It was the preparation of this that has kept Y off NSC today, so he tells me.
They cannot change the legal definition of "spouse" in a contract; you cannot have a "common-law spouse".
So, X has now been invited to respond to a Tribunals Service money claim. On reading the claim, Y realised that the statement from the claimant is a pack of lies. The claimant (let's call him '****') left a minor road and piled into the side of X's car (actually Y owns the car but it isn't relevant) on an A road. But ****'s statement claims it was the other way round. In order to account for the damage to the left side of X's car, **** has invented a scenario where X was signaling left but turned right, pulling out in from of ****'s car as the **** turned right, into the minor road. Unfortunately (or fortunately) X has photographic evidence of where the cars ended up. With a broken front axle and a front left wheel knocked 20 degrees out of true it would have been impossible for X to get the car where it ended up, had the ****'s lies about the incident been true. It was impossible to steer X's car let alone do the necessary 3 point turn.
Anyway, X and Y are looking forward to the court case, the little misunderstanding about X not being insured to drive Y's car notwithstanding. Update on that, Y's insurance will let anyone drive his car, except (in small print) - the spouse. Even though X and Y are not married, the insurer sees Y as a spouse. X and Y feel they can blag their way past that in the court. Y and Y have a 20 page 'storyboard' with photos and diagrams. It was the preparation of this that has kept Y off NSC today, so he tells me.
Oh, so clever.
- Thread starter
- #34
Update.
Before X and Y properly read the ****'s statement (indeed before they received it) they took legal advice and were encouraged to offer half the amount the **** was asking (£500 instead of over £1000) and move on. X and Y then received the absurd statement noted above. While X and Y have been preparing a 20 page rebuttal with photos etc., the **** has been pondering his reply. Now, with days to spare (before the courts actively engage) the **** has written to accept the offer of £500.
So X and Y are now pondering whether to cut their losses (the original plan) or to put in their prepared counter claim and pursue the lying little shit.
I can understand someone on low income, maybe third part fire and theft only, wanting to pursue another party for money, feeling outraged (X had originally but temporarily signaled left, and the **** presumably feels he is in the right even if he is legally in the wrong, according to the Highway Code and the affirmation of the NSC hive mind), and then then blundering into legal action, but this is cunning, calculated and carefully constructed lies (albeit with one egregious error - getting the name of the road where it happened wrong and moving the incident from a T junction to a roundabout half a mile up the main road - not sure if I mentioned that).
So the question for my fellow NSCers, today, is should X and Y just give the **** the money and move on, thankful to avoid the embarrassment of having to explain in court that the insurers wouldn't engage which is why the **** has come to court, albeit with a pack of lies? Or should they fight the little ****er and rinse him for the £3000 they paid to get X's car fixed?
Edit: X and Y tell me they are 99% sure they will give the **** the money and move on. Apparently the fine for driving 'uninsured' (if it gets to that) is likely to be around £300, plus points (maybe 6) for X, and a likely hike in the next premium. Not to mention the further time and effort this is likely to entail. It's a shame that X doesn't have more time on his hands but sadly he is still in full time employment, so he claims
Thank you for your good advice, excellent comedy and general indulgence
Before X and Y properly read the ****'s statement (indeed before they received it) they took legal advice and were encouraged to offer half the amount the **** was asking (£500 instead of over £1000) and move on. X and Y then received the absurd statement noted above. While X and Y have been preparing a 20 page rebuttal with photos etc., the **** has been pondering his reply. Now, with days to spare (before the courts actively engage) the **** has written to accept the offer of £500.
So X and Y are now pondering whether to cut their losses (the original plan) or to put in their prepared counter claim and pursue the lying little shit.
I can understand someone on low income, maybe third part fire and theft only, wanting to pursue another party for money, feeling outraged (X had originally but temporarily signaled left, and the **** presumably feels he is in the right even if he is legally in the wrong, according to the Highway Code and the affirmation of the NSC hive mind), and then then blundering into legal action, but this is cunning, calculated and carefully constructed lies (albeit with one egregious error - getting the name of the road where it happened wrong and moving the incident from a T junction to a roundabout half a mile up the main road - not sure if I mentioned that).
So the question for my fellow NSCers, today, is should X and Y just give the **** the money and move on, thankful to avoid the embarrassment of having to explain in court that the insurers wouldn't engage which is why the **** has come to court, albeit with a pack of lies? Or should they fight the little ****er and rinse him for the £3000 they paid to get X's car fixed?
Edit: X and Y tell me they are 99% sure they will give the **** the money and move on. Apparently the fine for driving 'uninsured' (if it gets to that) is likely to be around £300, plus points (maybe 6) for X, and a likely hike in the next premium. Not to mention the further time and effort this is likely to entail. It's a shame that X doesn't have more time on his hands but sadly he is still in full time employment, so he claims
Thank you for your good advice, excellent comedy and general indulgence
Last edited:
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,772
What do Easthill's finest always do ?
Glove up, Harry
Glove up, Harry
NorthLainer
Well-known member
Always try not to get involved with the X. Does anyone know Y?
Neville's Breakfast
Well-known member
Update.
Before X and Y properly read the ****'s statement (indeed before they received it) they took legal advice and were encouraged to offer half the amount the **** was asking (£500 instead of over £1000) and move on. X and Y then received the absurd statement noted above. While X and Y have been preparing a 20 page rebuttal with photos etc., the **** has been pondering his reply. Now, with days to spare (before the courts actively engage) the **** has written to accept the offer of £500.
So X and Y are now pondering whether to cut their losses (the original plan) or to put in their prepared counter claim and pursue the lying little shit.
I can understand someone on low income, maybe third part fire and theft only, wanting to pursue another party for money, feeling outraged (X had originally but temporarily signaled left, and the **** presumably feels he is in the right even if he is legally in the wrong, according to the Highway Code and the affirmation of the NSC hive mind), and then then blundering into legal action, but this is cunning, calculated and carefully constructed lies (albeit with one egregious error - getting the name of the road where it happened wrong and moving the incident from a T junction to a roundabout half a mile up the main road - not sure if I mentioned that).
So the question for my fellow NSCers, today, is should X and Y just give the **** the money and move on, thankful to avoid the embarrassment of having to explain in court that the insurers wouldn't engage which is why the **** has come to court, albeit with a pack of lies? Or should they fight the little ****er and rinse him for the £3000 they paid to get X's car fixed?
Edit: X and Y tell me they are 99% sure they will give the **** the money and move on. Apparently the fine for driving 'uninsured' (if it gets to that) is likely to be around £300, plus points (maybe 6) for X, and a likely hike in the next premium. Not to mention the further time and effort this is likely to entail. It's a shame that X doesn't have more time on his hands but sadly he is still in full time employment, so he claims
Thank you for your good advice, excellent comedy and general indulgence
Can’t believe you are asking, Harry.
Has nobody sent you the disclaimers ? (no wonder Vagabond thinks the mods are useless)
Anyway, from said contract;
‘All NSC advice is subject to the following terms and conditions:
Clause 561) Nobody on here ever leaves the care home so real world advice should never be solicited’
However, and as it’s you; I would rinse the little shit.
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
No insurance is 6-8 points.
However, has X been reported for it ? Has he (or she, never could remember XX/XY chromosomes) suggested to the scrote than he/she wasn't insured ?
Personally I would rinse the **** for trying it on but then I am a bit of a stubborn old git.
However, has X been reported for it ? Has he (or she, never could remember XX/XY chromosomes) suggested to the scrote than he/she wasn't insured ?
Personally I would rinse the **** for trying it on but then I am a bit of a stubborn old git.