Car accident - is this correct?

I'm pretty sure you worked with John Smith once upon a time and know him well and his entire extended family.

Surely you could just pop round for a cuppa and sort it all out?
 
Im not sure id bother worrying about this, just claim for the damage off your own insurance and chalk it up as one of those things. Stressing about finding the other driver isnt worth it.
 
dl8860 said:
Starting to get the feeling that this whole thread is just for the purpose of trolling us with these
Click to expand...

From post #39, the ones before were mistakes BUT YOU KNEW THAT.

Anyway, like I said earlier, now I have the full facts the thread is pointless and the Police can't really do much more.
The SIT is happy to let it go now.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
From post #39, the ones before were mistakes BUT YOU KNEW THAT.

Anyway, like I said earlier, now I have the full facts the thread is pointless and the Police can't really do much more.
The SIT is happy to let it go now.
Click to expand...

Of course, Had the unregistered, untaxed and uninsured driver gone through a speed camera then no expense would have been spared in tracking him down and bringing him to justice!
 
Update.

I think it's time to change is Insurance Brokers.
On Christmas Eve they rang the Son in LAw to say he can't claim because he was in an accident with a van and he can only claim if he's in an accident with a car :D
He told them he would read his agreement and get back to them. He rang them up and asked where in his agreement it said he could only claim in accidents with cars and they retracted it.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
Update.

I think it's time to change is Insurance Brokers.
On Christmas Eve they rang the Son in LAw to say he can't claim because he was in an accident with a van and he can only claim if he's in an accident with a car :D
He told them he would read his agreement and get back to them. He rang them up and asked where in his agreement it said he could only claim in accidents with cars and they retracted it.
Click to expand...

Are you sure they're insurance brokers and not just a bunch of numpties?

Are there even any policies that have that sort of exclusion?
 
SexyGreyFox said:
Update.

On Christmas Eve they rang the Son in LAw to say he can't claim because he was in an accident with a van and he can only claim if he's in an accident with a car :D
.
Click to expand...

That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard! And is undoubtedly untrue.

You know what to do.... It involves a letter box.


Why not just go straight to the insurer to claim?
 
If your SIL had concussion the van must have hit his car pretty hard !! and done quite a lot of damage to both vehicles, then driving off and leaving the scene of an accident whether or not he gave details all seems a little to odd.

I'm sure with a rough bit of info on a white Van, which would show sign's of damage the police should be spending some time looking around the area for it, seeing as your SIL knows the chap, it wouldn't be to hard to find where he live's works and local hangouts.
 
Sorry but no shenanigans and he's sitting here still with no car.
Because the van drove off, and there are no witnesses, then it is his word against the other blokes and the Police say it is a civil matter.
Another bit I missed out (because I didn't know until Christmas Eve) is that his car was put on the Chip Shop car park and he walked home where he rang the Police from which means both drivers had left the scene of the accident. IT NOW MAKES MORE SENSE
There is no way he will pursue a civil case because the other driver comes from a rough known family.

I said ages ago after I'd find out the real story (that was originally passed by my eldest) that it was now a non story and I can understand why the Police are not involved, even more knowing he phoned from home because I thought he rang from the Chip Shop car park.

No need for tin foil hats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom