clipped wingmirror

[jackson5]

clipped wingmirrors with a car while driving to work one morning over a month ago. neither car stopped and no police were involved. on a narrow road also with no road markings. no damage to my car but other driver retrieved my insurance details and recently lodged a claim against my insurance last week for a mirror worth way more than any other qoute i can find. is this insurace fraud or what can i do?

[6speedmanual]

You should have stopped, even if other driver didn't. It obviously happened sliw enough for other party to record your no. plate or they stopped and got a witness who saw your plate. Failure to stop is a RTA offence carrying potential for licence endorsement.

If you had stopped and other driver had not things would be different. This happened to me once. The other car did not stop. It was pitch dark, I got no details of it. However I stopped. I call police and logged the incident. Fortunately heard no more about it.

Regarding the cost of the claim, your insurer will be able to cover the claim as a third party claim. They will determine that they are not being ripped off on repair cost. They will also attempt to determine fault. The only sticky wicket you may be on it that you didn't tell your insurer of the incident.

Hope you can sort it all out. Might be best to just pay up.

Peter

[DavidHM]

Two questions:

1. Are you accepting liability? Even 50:50 would count for this.

2. Are you considering refusing indemnity and settling the claim yourself?

If you are accepting at least partial liability, then the amount of the claim largely doesn't matter for you. Your insurer will have a good idea of what is acceptable and what is not and will negotiate accordingly, if they consider it worthwhile. The value of the claim will make little or no difference to your future premiums. It is now their loss, not yours (there is never an excess on third party claims) so give the best evidence you can to them and leave it in their hands.

[mmm-five]

So how do I go about recovering the costs of broken mirrors and scratch housings from all those cyclists in London who keep clipping them - surely they're also covered under the RTA?

[DavidHM]

Sarcasm needs a response:

1. They're uninsured, not immune from liability.

2. If they're at fault (i.e., negligent) and can be identified then you can sue them in Small Claims Court.

[mmm-five]

If you've driven in London, then you know there's no way to catch up to the cyclist in the first place, never mind positively identifying then.

Isn't it a criminal offence (on the part of the cyclist) to fail to stop to give details after an RTA.

I suppose a tranq. dart / stun gun is out of the question

BTW, I cycle myself (mainly when I'm working in London for a good period), but I almost come to stop when I have to go through some tight gaps as I really do not want to scratch someone else's vehicle. I'd be happy if cycles had to have a registration plate on them like motor vehicles.

[DavidHM]

The criminal offence under s.170 RTA 1988 "applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road, an accident occurs."

So actually no, there is no criminal offence of failure to stop. A proseuctor might argue that they "without lawful excuse, recklessly or wilfully damage[d] or destroy[ed] property belonging to another," contrary to s.1 Criminal Damage Act 1971. Alternatively they could go for "wanton and furious driving" contrary to s.35 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In both cases however, a prosecution is unlikely without serious supporting evidence of something more than negligence.

So while there is no legal immunity, they're fairly safe from prosecution even if you catch them - and there's no argument from me that catching them is all but impossible.

[mmm-five]

Ta! I think I'll take the "wanton and furious driving" option, as it sounds much more fun.

[N Dentressangle]

[devilsadvocate]
Why accept liability at all? The other driver could have damaged his mirror in a separate incident: what proof does he have that the incident with the OP caused damage to his mirror, or even took place?
[/devilsadvocate]

[DavidHM]

Because the civil standard is "balance of probabilities." It is not disputed that there was a collision, and that it involved a door mirror. Take it to court on this evidence and you will lose - and waste your time.

[HertsBiker]

Did you notice at the time? perhaps not posting on here is a good idea.