A friend of mine his daughter was reversing out of parking space in supermarket car park, driver in opposite space was driving straight out of his space result minor bang.He rang friends daughter that night,(her husband answered) and said damage to his car was £250,husband said that the damage to her car was about the same so call it quits.other person said that she was responsible as she was reversing.and now wants insurance co's involved.
I would have thought it was Knock for Knock any comments
|
Let the insurance sort it, or it might get messy.
They may decide it's knock for knock anyway, in which case u may be able to withdraw your claim and fix it yourself without losing no claims. The other driver could do the same.
|
The Knock for Knock agreement is not related in anyway whatsoever to who is at fault. It is simply an agreement between the insurance companies not to sue each other for automobile damage and to pay their own costs.
Amongst many other reasons it was brought in to stop a large insurer manipulating a smaller one. It has no effect on the people insured by the companies other than a slight subjectivity in the awarding of notional blame.
As for the accident; submit a claim form to your company with "For Information Purposes Only" written in very large letters over the whole thing.
Tell the other person that you consider the accident to be their fault since they reversed into you.
One word against the other, and it is the end of the story. If they submit it to their insurance company and they contact you, tell them exactly the same.
Do not argue why the other person is wrong in what they say. State only that you hold them entirely responsible since they reversed into you.
If you can be bothered, write to them to tell them you will be claiming from them.
However, accept that you will be paying for your own damage although I suggest you keep receipts and photographs just in case.
Also, keep a copy of your claim form for future reference.
|
Mark is correct in what he says about 'Knock for Knock'.
However marking your accident report form "For Information Purposes Only" may serve little purpose. The Insurers may not be prepared to loose control of the matter as they would be obliged to satisfy any judgement which may be awarded against you in the County Court.
|
There are indeed circumstances under which they may choose to pay - which must be either based on a legal requirement/order or to minimise potential future losses.
However, if they paid it without giving you the chance to settle it, defend it or fight it, without VERY good reason they would be in deep doggy doo-doo. And even then they would have to justify penalising you for it (i.e. premium loading or bonus reduction).
Consequently it isn't likely. Not even slightly.
Although if there was an incident where personal injury was involved they would be much more likely to take the route that waggy suggests.
|
|
If the matter proceeds to the Small Claims Court, the Insurers are obliged to settle any judgement which is not satisfied within 7 days (subject to proper notice).
|
|
|
|
As both vehicles were moving from bays opposite each other I would say 50/50, and I would be surprised if the insurance companies bothered with a detailed investigation to prove otherwise on minor damage. Who was going forward and who was reversing has no bearing on blame.
Perhaps it would be worth pointing out to the other party that possible loss of no claims and the cost of any excess on the policy is not worth the hassle of a dispute.
|
strikes me that the person driving straight out is to blame since they had the clearer vision and, lets face it, what on earth are reversing lights for?
Splodgeface
|
If it does go to insurance and assuming that you both have comprehensive here is what will happen;
-Both parties will be paid out/repaired by their respective insurance company subject to excess.
-Both parties will lose their no claims bonus.
-The party that can prove that they recovered their uninsured losses (excess) from the other will have their bonus reinstated.
If the other person has protected NCD and nil excess it might just be worth it, but probably not.
|
I agree with T/S splodgeface & Mark
As he was driving straight out i.e front first he had better vision,although it is annoying,these things happen and these days £250 is getting off lightly despite who is to blame.it will probably end up with insurance co so nobody wins.
|
|
|
|
Knock for knock?
www.claimsguru.org.uk/jargon.htm
"> Knock for Knock An agreement (now largely out of date) between motor insurance where each insurer bears its own loss for damaged vehicles and does not pursue its legal right of subrogation (see Memorandum of Understanding)<"
|
K for K is not that well understood and was half explained here.
Each insurer pays for the damage for it's own insured according to the liability of the policy. Whichever party is not at fault must persue the other driver for his/her uninsured losses (including excess), this will usually result in a claim on the other party's insurance. If the uninsured losses are met then the claimant will find his/her NCD reinstated.
As far as I know K for K is still alive and well in the industry as it saves the insurers millions of pounds a year.
|
|
|
|
