Norwich Union wont check other cars details

[rdm2006]

here is my 2p worth

 

Yes this person is wrong in hitting the car regardless of it being taxed, insured etc. there is no way of getting out of that and they have admitted it.

 

However, does being a victim allow that person to 1/ hike up the costs by doing the work themselves and adding bits on and/or 2/ abuse and threaten the (for the want of a better word) offender. NO it does not. after all it was an accident.

 

From all I can see the poster became a victim when the original victim became abusive and they need the details in order to pursue this.

 

This probably wont be a popular view but there are some double standards being displayed here i.e. the original victim can break the law and have an untaxed car on the road but still be able to claim for damages done to it, but it appears that the OP can't cause an accident and bring an abusive and threatening person to justice.

 

To the person who suggested that they keep quiet to avoid further reprisals - would you tell a child who is being bullied at school to keep quiet to avoid further action??????

 

The point I find most confusing is: - If the owner of the uninsured car is not known then who is going to be paid out.

[rdm2006]

I am neither on one persons side or the other.

 

The point i am making is that you cant say one person is allowed to be both an offender and a victim and then say that the other is not.

 

If everything is as described (and yes I do not know I was not there) then both parties are both victims and aggressors and therefore both are fully entitled to seek justice.

 

I have made no reference to becca as i do not believe that anything was going to be disclosed, becca simply said she would get someone to look at it.

 

I am entitled to an opinion and if you read it you will notice that i have not given an opinion which weighs more on one side than the other. I simply wanted to advise people that even if you do cause an accident you do not have to suffer any abuse from the other person.

[rdm2006]

Originally Posted by JonCris

What can I say but utter rubbish.....Are you not being a little hard on yourself here, most (but not all) of what you say is true (aggressive and rude) but true non the less ..& having seen the comments of the OP is it little wonder that the victim threatened him if he displayed the same mind set as here (so tempting to quote a phrase involving a teapot and kettle here LOL)

 

The victim was the victim & will always remain the victim & if the victim threatened the negligent driver's husband then that's another matter all to together.........to suggest the victims own unrelated actions negated his right to compensation is frankly utter drivel. Well there you have it a victim for the rest of your life because someone put a dink in your car door.

 

Scenario - Mr A's wife hits Mr B's car - Mr B gets abusive to Mrs A so Mrs A's Husband comes out to protect his wife Mr B takes one look at him and punches him on the nose because his wife has just hit his car, however, this appears to be unrelated - sorry who did you say was talking rubbish/drivel.

 

Senario...........idiot negligent driver runs into my car whilst unattended.........I arrive & call the driver an idiot who should not be on the road & in my frustration I threaten him when he gets snotty without actually doing anything.....result I now can't expect the idiot to pay for my damage.....yeah right.

 

Scenario. Idiot person who puts mouth/typing hand into gear before engaging brain and/or reading what he is replying to (Stooping to your level I know but hey, whats good for the goose etc.....). I clearly stated that they were wrong regardless of the original victims circumstances ie taxed or not. (And by being in the wrong this means they should pay up or allow the insurers to do so).

As for the cost of the repair that's between the insurer who's paying & the 3rd party

 

"After all it was only an accident" Once again there is no such thing as an 'accident' were there is negligence. In other words it was not unavoidable

 

Accidents never happen! So people who slip in snow for example do this intentionally, or are you saying the snow was put there on purpose, or is it that the snow itself is negligent by being there? Quick someone ring the hospital and tell them that they must change A&E to I&E.

 

Badger without knowing the exact circumstances of the case you mention it's impossible to comment other than that here it was not the same The OP struck a parked unattended vehicle.

 

Does this mean you know the exact circumstances of this case then? Since you have clearly not found it impossible to comment here.

Why do you feel the need to be so aggressive to people just for having an opinion?

 

Talk about self indulgent - take a chill pill

[rdm2006]

Hi all,

 

I have to say that this thread is going around in circles!

 

Dazzlin 73, you are missing the point entirely. Bottom line - Your wife reveresed into a stationery car, therefore in law she is 100% liable. FULL STOP.

 

Not what you want to hear, but fact. I had someone park there car in my front garden, about 50 yards from the highway and I reversed my car through my gates into my front garden, not expecting anything to be there, it should have been the case. I was held 100% liable and I had to pay for all damage. This chap took a diabolical liberty, but if was my fault. FULL STOP.

 

H

 

I hope you charged him rent for using your premises to store his property (if only you could eh)

 

 

And Dazzlin although I agree that just because a car has been hit, its owner has no right to be abusive and threatening, I now feel that this is looking like a vendetta and you are allowing this event to take over your life. Don't allow it to do that, just let it go.

[rdm2006]

if ya gonna quote me the least you could do is get my name right Oldy oops Andy

[rdm2006]

My own view is that I think it appalling that this incident should be used by the negligent party in an attempt to have the accused evicted from his home....I think stating that brought the true motives to the fore

 

To be honest i don't think that this was their original motive. Their original motive was that this guy was abusive. As the saying goes s#'/t happens and that is how it should have been viewed but by being abusive this angered the op (as any of us would be angry at this), but now it is spiraling out of control in my opinion and just because the other guy was being silly there is no need to stoop to his level. I would just shrug my shoulders and say "its just not worth it"

[rdm2006]

To be totally honest i think that if this had happened to me my gut reaction would be "why should he get away with threatening me when he has no tax etc etc" and lets face it people can park cars in a way that is likely to cause an accident, it does happen, but like i say when it gets to the point that its taking over, then it is time to stop as the only person you are going to harm is yourself. Take a deep breath count to ten and just say sod it!!

 

 

ooo it didn't edit that can we say sod it ?

[rdm2006]

How can someone park a car in a way that is likely to cause an accident? Is it an invisible car that suddenly appears when another car comes within a couple of feet of it? It is someone else who is driving too fast or not paying attention to their surroundings or failing to anticipate problems that causes incidents, not stationary objects. No wonder there's a perceived blame culture....

 

 

Don't know about you but whilst i have been driving i have seen many cars parked where i have thought what a stupid place to park a car or do you not notice these things when you are driving ? and did i say it would or should be their fault no i did not. (ever heard the phrase look before you leap)

[rdm2006]

please highlight the part where i said these vehicles cause accidents.

 

Implies ? . You could say that advertising toilet rolls on the sides of buses implies that they sell them - but they dont!

[rdm2006]

That's where

 

Sorry i dont see the words "these veichles cause accidents"

[rdm2006]

let me put it another way 3 men in a field with an air rifle man A points air rifle at man B, man C in fear of man B being shot runs toward man A to push the rifle in another direction. Man B in fear of being shot puts his foot to one side to step out of the way and trips man C who knocks man A and the rifle is fired.

 

Who's fault was it - I wouldn't like to say

Who played a part in it - well they all did

 

ie you can play a part in an event without it being your fault. However, the fact that it is not your fault does not exclude you from having a part in the final event

[rdm2006]

Can any one else say that this phrase

 

park cars in a way that is likely to cause an accident

 

is identical to this one

 

"these vehicles cause accidents"

 

they do not look similar to me:rolleyes:

 

[rdm2006]

No they are not as following the logic of this argument the person at fault is the person who sold the gun:)

 

LOL joncris they found it in another field:D

[rdm2006]

no we are talking about words

[rdm2006]

no - one says that it will cause an accident and the other states that it is Likely to

[rdm2006]

ok a man parks his car right by a sign that says "Do not park here this is a blind spot to oncoming traffic"

 

I agree if he got hit it would be the other persons fault for hitting it but at the same time i would also be thinking stupid idiot what did you expect.

 

can you honestly say that you would not think the same?

 

he didn't cause the accident but he did have a part to play in its happening in my view. Talking about the above example.

[rdm2006]

it may not cause it but it can have a part in the end result. so we will just have to agree to disagree

[rdm2006]

funny you should mention a skip one has just been dumped in the middle of the road.

[rdm2006]

its ok, looks like it has been put there while they swap a new one over across the road.

[rdm2006]

you are clutching at straws now pal:wink: But that is your choice and good luck to you

 

And yes if there is an accident it will have played a part in it as gizmo says.

[rdm2006]

It will only play a part in that it happened to be there. It will be as culpable as a skip or wall.

 

 

And before you ask he said it here.

[rdm2006]

So you would partly blame the skip........skip.....you do not have to say anything when questioned but if you don't say something which you later rely on in court.......................huh

 

no i did not say it would be anyones fault - that would be discovered when the accident occurs if one does but the driver that left that skip would have played a part in it.

[rdm2006]

whatever :D:D:D:D You think a skip can talk

 

And the one thing you have failed to notice whilst you were trying to show how right you think you are.

 

 

You have also shown the blind vindictiveness of which you accuse the OP

 

Give someone enough rope and .......

[rdm2006]

blind vindictiveness:confused: ...................against a skip:confused: wattsa matter losing the argument:rolleyes:

 

 

Argument - what argument we are expressing opinions

 

Would i argue with someone who appears to believe that leaving a skip, car etc in the middle of the road is a sensible thing to do

 

 

mmmmmm

[rdm2006]

Sorry your missing the point.......It's all meant to be tongue in cheek & to demonstrate that blaiming the skip is as daft as blaming a car

 

sorry you are missing the point nobody is blaming the skip. it did not put itself there, its the person who put it there, he cant be held responsible by current law but is he completely devoid of all responsibility ?