rear impact...

Lynton

Lynton

awkward customer
Suspended / Banned
Messages
10,606
Name
Lynton (yes really!)
Edit My Images
No
wife (skoda octavia estate) got hit up the arse yesterday - 15-20mph impact judging by damage to the back of her car (front of the f***ed clio) Gruesime twosome (2 yr twins) seem fine, ........do I need to "worry" about their child seats......

Parents would like to pay for it themsselves, underatandably given excess, repair costs and loading. searched via google and the decision is pretty much split.. .

rear impact .. 57 plate skoda octavia estate, back bumper , boot (trhe whole door bit) and2 x lights dead, have not looked further
 
Last edited:
At least everyone's alright. What kind of child seats are they? Are they secured using the cars seatbelt or does your Octavia have the ISO-fix system? If it was only 15-20mph the seats should be Ok, but still worth a close check over to see if there are any stress marks, ie, where plastic turns white if it's been bent

Did they tell you to get an estimate at a bodyshop? I'm a spray painter myself and the cost of your car repairs alone will be more than their excess and what they would have to pay for a premium increase for it being their fault. Also if their car is so badly damaged it doesn't quite add up to me why they want to pay privately. Perhaps they're not insured?

If they went through the insurance and admitted fault then you wouldn't have to pay anything and your NCD won't be effected. Also if you were to go through the insurance you would get new child seats automatically even if there's nothing wrong with them. My car was parked with no one in it and someone scraped the side. Chruchill wanted to replace the kids seats...I wasn't complaining lol.

Either way I'd still report the incident to the police. IIRC it should be done anyway and you'll have it on record in case these people try and rip you off by not paying. Can you tell I have very low trust in others?:rolleyes:

It's not just what's obvious that needs replacing. More than likely there will be a lot of hidden parts that need replacing with your description. The tailgate switch unit that houses the number plate lights is about £100 by itself.
 
Last edited:
As above but without the report to the police.
No one injured, no one fled the scene. They won't be remotely interested...rightly.
Glad Mrs L and the anklebiters are all intact.
 
It's the loading on the insurance for the next 5 years which is why more people are trying to pay privately for minor bumps. Obviously if the damage is more than that, they won't pay but I suspect they feel £500-600 is worth it to stop the insurance being involved.

There's no issue in asking for their insurance details
 
viv1969 said:
As above but without the report to the police.
No one injured, no one fled the scene. They won't be remotely interested...rightly.
Glad Mrs L and the anklebiters are all intact.
Click to expand...

You're right they wouldn't be interested. I was just told you had to report it to them either way, people hurt or not so it was down on file.

Byker28i said:
It's the loading on the insurance for the next 5 years which is why more people are trying to pay privately for minor bumps. Obviously if the damage is more than that, they won't pay but I suspect they feel £500-600 is worth it to stop the insurance being involved.

There's no issue in asking for their insurance details
Click to expand...

If it was taken to a bodyshop then the OP's car will probably cost a good £800+ if genuine parts are used. If done on the cheap probably about 400-500. It all depends how much their insurance would go up after the claim as to what option would be better, but obviously they wouldn't know that until they claimed. Either way I don;t thing the OP should pay a penny and the job should be done properly.
 
Last edited:
the only time I have been in an accident and the third party offered to pay for the damage, it turned out they were not insured.
 
Rapscallion said:
the only time I have been in an accident and the third party offered to pay for the damage, it turned out they were not insured.
Click to expand...
Exactly my thoughts, especially with the amount of damage to the OP's car.

Hopefully they keep to their word and pay out
 
Whoever tokd you
CaveDweller said:
You're right they wouldn't be interested. I was just told you had to report it to them either way, people hurt or not so it was down on file.
.
Click to expand...

The only time you have to involve the police is if for some reason you can't exchange insurance details or if someone was injured.
 
Rapscallion said:
the only time I have been in an accident and the third party offered to pay for the damage, it turned out they were not insured.
Click to expand...

I had a car in front roll gently back into the mx-5 in a traffic queue. He jumped out, accused me of hitting his car, I barely felt it in the mx-5.
Swapped details, no damage to his car, slight mark on the front of the mx-5 where his bumper had rolled over the top of the mx-5.

30 mins later I'm getting phone calls from him asking for my insurance details, significant damage to his car etc. I handed off the details to my insurance company.
I sent off photos I'd taken quietly on the mobile of him walking about, my mx-5 touching his, no damage to his car, the mark on mine etc

Turns out he was trying to claim for his other car which had significant rear end damage, whiplash injuries etc.

I phoned him up, he said it was all a mistake by his insurance company but I told him I'd been down the police station to report the fraud, my insurance company was takign it seriously as was his etc. Then he dropped the whole thing.
 
It's likely more damage has been done than you think, just putting on a few new bits they very likely won't line up perfectly.
On a newish car that wouldn't be acceptable but if it's not worth a lot might not matter.
It won't make it dangerous but any bent parts might corrode badly if not painted promptly.
 
if you're in a stationary car and you get hit from the back between 15 and 20 miles an hour it hurts ,,,,,,,i would have reported it to the police myself
 
donut said:
if you're in a stationary car and you get hit from the back between 15 and 20 miles an hour it hurts ,,,,,,,i would have reported it to the police myself
Click to expand...
I agree, the only time that I got shunted from behind I reported it to the police and said that I was worried about possible whiplash as my neck was a bit sore.
In that case the other driver also said that he would pay himself but after giving him 2 quotes he decided to go through his insurance, luckily I had already contacted my insurance company and informed them of the whole situation. I am not sure what there position would have been if I had reported the accident a week or so after it had happened!
 
If you let them pay then insurance company of theirs can wash their hands of it and won't pay out if these people then suddenly decide not to pay. Go through their insurance! If they don't want to pay higher premiums then they shouldn't crash into other people.

Check their reg on AskMid too.
 
viv1969 said:
Whoever tokd you


The only time you have to involve the police is if for some reason you can't exchange insurance details or if someone was injured.
Click to expand...

This is correct advice as it falls outside of Sect 20 Road Traffic Act (1988) however, in addition I would also add if the driver fails to stop.

Some insurance companies will still insist that the collision is reported to the police. Most police forces have a mechanism to deal with this. In balance probably reporting it is a good idea although in your circumstances you were not obliged to.
 
Go through your insurance, simple no brainer.

Out of interest, you'll probably find that your policy requires you to report it to them whether you make a claim or not, even for no damage bumps. Not that anyone does if they don't make a claim.
 
PaulF said:
Go through your insurance, simple no brainer.

Out of interest, you'll probably find that your policy requires you to report it to them whether you make a claim or not, even for no damage bumps. Not that anyone does if they don't make a claim.
Click to expand...

:agree: Your insurer also has an interest in your car being repaired to the proper standard, something that might not be obvious as far as any crumple zone is concerned.
 
PaulF said:
Go through your insurance, simple no brainer.

Out of interest, you'll probably find that your policy requires you to report it to them whether you make a claim or not, even for no damage bumps. Not that anyone does if they don't make a claim.
Click to expand...
That's so they can load your premium for the next few years, even if it's non fault and/or no claims made.
 
True, but it's usually in the T&C's you agree to when you take out the policy. Like I said, I know of no one who actually does it. Think one of my policy's said I had to inform them of any 'near misses' too!
 
Peter B said:
:agree: Your insurer also has an interest in your car being repaired to the proper standard, something that might not be obvious as far as any crumple zone is concerned.
Click to expand...
And yet they try to insist you use their repairers (or else you won't get a courtesy car) and you have no way of knowing if they have used OEM parts or pattern parts. Personally I'd prefer my car to go to main dealer, who will use OEM parts, especially if the car is within the manufacturers corrosion warranty period.
 
4wd said:
It's likely more damage has been done than you think, just putting on a few new bits they very likely won't line up perfectly.
On a newish car that wouldn't be acceptable but if it's not worth a lot might not matter.
It won't make it dangerous but any bent parts might corrode badly if not painted promptly.
Click to expand...

Yes, the damage needs to be properly assessed by someone qualified. Unseen parts of your car may be damaged/out of alignment. Quite likely that the cost of repair will be substantial so think what happens if the other party then starts to quibble. I'd go down the formal insurance route. Not your problem that those responsible may face increased insurance costs.
If, in the future, you have another bump and have your car repaired by your insurer bear in mind that the insurance assessor will look for evidence of previous accident damage and include it in his report to your insurer. There would be questions asked about that.
 
At the very least report it your wife's cars insurer.

I'd bet your(they're(clio drivers)) looking at £3000 plus for a proper repair.
 
Definitely inform your insurance, because there are so many things which could go wrong, not least disputes about how much to pay, the standard of the work on your car.
We pay enough for our insurance, so we should expect them to sort it all out when we have a no fault accident.
 
This is correct advice as it falls outside of Sect 20 Road Traffic Act (1988) however, in addition I would also add if the driver fails to stop.
Click to expand...

Me thinks not!

Try 170, and also note the obligation under S170(3), is as soon as practicable and in any case within 24 hours, not when you feel like it which is what some people seem to think it means.

Section 170(2) of the Road Traffic act 1988 provides that the driver of the motor vehicle must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address, the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and the identification marks of the vehicle. The duty to stop means to stop sufficiently long enough to exchange the particulars above: Lee v Knapp [1966] 3 All ER 961.

Section 170(3) places an obligation on the driver, if he does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, to report the accident to a police constable or police station as soon as reasonably practicable and in any case within 24 hours. The duty to report means "as soon as reasonably practicable": Bulman v Bennett [1974] RTR. It does not mean the driver has 24 hours within which to report the collision.
Click to expand...
 
Byker28i said:
I had a car in front roll gently back into the mx-5 in a traffic queue. He jumped out, accused me of hitting his car, I barely felt it in the mx-5.
Swapped details, no damage to his car, slight mark on the front of the mx-5 where his bumper had rolled over the top of the mx-5.

30 mins later I'm getting phone calls from him asking for my insurance details, significant damage to his car etc. I handed off the details to my insurance company.
I sent off photos I'd taken quietly on the mobile of him walking about, my mx-5 touching his, no damage to his car, the mark on mine etc

Turns out he was trying to claim for his other car which had significant rear end damage, whiplash injuries etc.

I phoned him up, he said it was all a mistake by his insurance company but I told him I'd been down the police station to report the fraud, my insurance company was takign it seriously as was his etc. Then he dropped the whole thing.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine had a very similar thing. Basically the same happened but them my mate pointed out his dash cam. The other guy soon shut up and drove off. He took the video to the police and the accuser got done for fraud :D
 
Bernie174 said:
Me thinks not!

Try 170, and also note the obligation under S170(3), is as soon as practicable and in any case within 24 hours, not when you feel like it which is what some people seem to think it means.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good Bernie, they've swapped address.

The question was the OP was not obliged to report it to the police. No offences have been disclosed. Nobody has made off.

The law you quote is not applicable in this case. The case law you quote is a completely different set of circumstances.
 
Nope,

What I have quoted you is correct, it's legislation not case law, that's something totally different.

What I omitted was the preamble which I took as read due to the fact there has been an accident.

Given that an accident, or collision as I believe it now says, has happened, there is an obligation to stop and exchange particulars, name, address etc.

IF that does not happen or there is an injury then it MUST be reported to police AS soon as practicable, and in any case within 24 hours. That does not mean go home have a chat on the internet and see what everyone else thinks, it means exactly what it says on the tin.

If no ones injured, no one is making allegations (in this case there is evidence of an offence, but if neither side want to go into it, then so be it), names/addresses were exchanged, then there is no need to report to police. But there's nothing stopping you from doing that, however, it must be within 24 hours.

I have no idea what you are on about, but its wrong. You mentioned S20 RTA 1998, which does not apply to accidents, so I am correcting and clarifying what the law actually says.
 
Last edited:
Bernie what makes you suggest an offense has been comitted in this case?
 
Bernie174 said:
Nope,

What I have quoted you is correct, it's legislation not case law, that's something totally different.
Click to expand...

You did indeed quote the legislation (which was not relevant in this case).......However, you quoted the actual case law of Lee -V-Knapp (1966) 3 All ER 961. This is case law !

Let me break this down for you and explain what it means, the date in brackets denotes the year when the judgement was made, the 3 denotes the volume, AII denotes the abbreviation for the law report title and 961 which is the page number. There is should acutely be two more letters on the end to denote the Court, but these are missing.

That is the actual case law and judgement !

I put it to you Bernie, that you were not paying attention in this thread ;)
 
No Viv, I said, there evidence of an offence. It's much better if you read what I actually say, not what you think I said.

Nick.
Lets me break it down for you.

The case law is the modifiers to what Parliament wrote in the act. It's put there because it makes it easier for people to interpret it. Otherwise, they start trying to put their own meanings to what the law says, usually wrongly. Like you have.

The legislation isn't irrelevant, as it defines what the obligations are on drivers after an accident. It applies equally to all RTA/RTC's.

What is irrelevant though is S.20 RTA 88. Perhaps you'd like to explain that one?
 
I'd want the seats replaced too. It's also recommended to get the seat belts and clips checked after an accident if a child seat has been attached.
 
Bernie174 said:
No Viv, I said, there evidence of an offence. It's much better if you read what I actually say, not what you think I said.

Nick.
Lets me break it down for you.

The case law is the modifiers to what Parliament wrote in the act. It's put there because it makes it easier for people to interpret it. Otherwise, they start trying to put their own meanings to what the law says, usually wrongly. Like you have.

The legislation isn't irrelevant, as it defines what the obligations are on drivers after an accident. It applies equally to all RTA/RTC's.

What is irrelevant though is S.20 RTA 88. Perhaps you'd like to explain that one?
Click to expand...

No I wouldn't Bernie, my previous posts have been misunderstood, misinterpreted or taken out of context so there is no point. I can't see that changing anytime soon. In addition, I have other pressing things that require my attention. I'll leave you to ponder on this one.
 
No I wouldn't Bernie, my previous posts have been misunderstood, misinterpreted or taken out of context so there is no point. I can't see that changing anytime soon. In addition, I have other pressing things that require my attention. I'll leave you to ponder on this one.
Click to expand...

No surprise there then.
 
My wife had a drive hit her from the rear by someone doing about 30. Our little boy was in a front facing 5 point harnace seat. It was replaced by the insurance company. It's not your wife's fault so dont take any risks just to save the third party a few quid.

Just to add she said that it was because he was in it at the time and it couldve strained the belts
 
Last edited:
Insurance everytime.
That way you also get a warranty. You'll get one anyway but you'll have to make sure you keep the receipt and hope the repairer doesnt go bust.
Plus chances are itll be a write off anyhow.
 
Thanks all for your replies..........

Few more details have emerged and going down the ins route due to warranty / guarantee of repair etc. Will get them a quote from Robinson's Skoda.. (playing nicely) After a 5 min discussion with bodyshop manager today... on phone no car present... described what I could see... (no idea what damage if any behind bumper etc, and then they have the costs of the clio as well - again not my problem) and explained I got a tame staff engineer to give it a quick lookover yesterday who said "depending on where £1.5-2K".. it;s a 57 plate Octavia Esatate so economical to repair, but

Turns out both vehicles insured by the same co, and that is also the same one that employs me, and gives me a nice cash injection every month.

Should be easy enough to rectify, and I must say impressed so far, DAS legal called 7 pm last night to chat about uninsured losses, as lets face it a 1.0l corsa is going to be pretty crap with 2 yr old twins and pram etc...

Also "we" replace all child seats where an "impact accident" as opposed to a what kind of accident I dunno? - however whoever mentioned quality of repairs / warranty / guarantee etc.. very good point!

Thanks! (all)
 
I don't think you'd get a double pushchair in a corsa. I remember our one being pretty massive. As for child seat, weve got 3 in the back of our Mondeo, they just fit lol
 
thank god its about a car crash ,i thought someone had nailed oscar prittorious already :rolleyes::coat:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top