With regards to servicing and repairs of cars from main dealers... It used to be the case that the stealers could con everyone by saying they had to use the stealers to ensure the warranty was not void.
THIS IS NO LONGER THE CASE AND HASN'T BEEN FOR YEARS NOW. No matter what the greasy oiks say.
Now, go seek a reputable paintshop/paintshops in your area and ask them to have a look and give a quote.
And of course the stealer will charge as much as possible - that's their job. How do you think they pay for all that fancy stuff?...
Makes you think about getting some form of insurance though doesnt it? ****, a simple on the way to work accident could cost you a grand. ****.
has anyone thought of setting up a charity paypal account for this guy (or something simular)?
I'd stick a couple of quid in to ease his pain (as it could quite easily have been me, although I'm not seriously looking into joining CTC)
I've been a member of British Cycling for a good while as I needed a race licence. I didn't realise that I had the legal stuff with it.
Well worth the annual fees I say.
>has anyone thought of setting up a charity paypal account for this guy (or something simular)?
You're kidding right! While I agree that the grand figure is steep, it's up to the rider to talk to the car owner and sort something out. Jumping kerbs or whatever he was up to, close to parked cars doesn't seem too bright.
has anyone thought of setting up a charity paypal account for this guy (or something simular)?
Holy Christ on a bike, I have heard it all now !
You are joking are you ?
has anyone thought of setting up a charity paypal account for this guy (or something simular)?
You are Ritchie McCoy and I claim my £10
Just throw some paintstripper over her boot and be done with it, her insurance will cover that. Then pay up for the excess.... conscience clear..
Zedsdead - Member
With regards to servicing and repairs of cars from main dealers... It used to be the case that the stealers could con everyone by saying they had to use the stealers to ensure the warranty was not void.THIS IS NO LONGER THE CASE AND HASN'T BEEN FOR YEARS NOW. No matter what the greasy oiks say.
Wrong, the manufactures corrosion warranty will be invalid on the panels painted outside the approved repair network.
(Paint depth readings are taken)
The hourly rate seems a bit steep on the estimate, is it in the M25?
BMW / Mini repairer in Bradford charge £38.00 + VAT pr hr & provide BMW / Mini loan cars FOC.
Just throw some paintstripper over her boot and be done with it, her insurance will cover that. Then pay up for the excess.... conscience clear..
Be careful what you wish for. 1/10.
Zedsdead - Member
I've been a member of British Cycling for a good while as I needed a race licence. I didn't realise that I had the legal stuff with it.Well worth the annual fees I say.
And for those who have no intentions or abilities to race, then British Cycling "Everyday Membership" is a good deal, membership benfits without the race licence.
While I feel for the bloke, we're not in full possession of the facts, in fact it seems we may have only heard half of the story, so I'm not sure that charitable donations would be the way forward.
Even if she has the right to insist on the main dealer fixing it, which I doubt, then there is the premise that you can't be made to pay more than you can afford.
Hence, if he is going to have to put the whole lot on his credit card, he obviously can't afford it.
She can make you pay reasonable cost of repairs IF YOU'VE GOT IT, but she can't FORCE you to take out credit in order to get it fixed.
What I would do is, get reasonable quotes yourself, in writing, and offer (Again in writing) to pay the cheapest one of them yourself, in instalments.
Then if he gets taken to court he's got evidence that he's done what he can reasonably be expected to do.
Heard of the infamous case of barclaycard suing someone because they wanted him to pay a tenner a week and he insisted he could only afford a fiver a week? The court made him pay them a quid a week.
Even if she has the right to insist on the main dealer fixing it, which I doubt, then there is the premise that you can't be made to pay more than you can afford.
Hence, if he is going to have to put the whole lot on his credit card, he obviously can't afford it.
She can make you pay reasonable cost of repairs IF YOU'VE GOT IT, but she can't FORCE you to take out credit in order to get it fixed.
❓ The lad in question has said he'd pay. Are you suggesting he should duck/dive his way out of paying and a innocent woman foot the bill out of her pocket when it wasnt her fault?
Dont drive or ride into my car please. I'd expect you to pay for any scratches/damage.
I think it is entirely reasonable that someone expects their car to be repaired at a main dealer when it is 2yrs old and still under manufacturers warranty.
Regardless of what people think they know about this. there are implications to taking a vehicle to a non main dealer for repairs & servicing. Even though you are correct in saying it is against the law for the manufacturer to exclude warranty cover when repairs and servicing are carried out elsewhere. They are well within their rights to CHARGE for any warranty work untill they have assessed that the work was carried out in accordance with their standards and parts. Ie they can take a filter off, state that its not a genuine part and tell you to go run and jump for the warranty. Oh and they can also asses a panel repair and tell if that has been done to manufacturers standards. Thats why you are calling them STEALERS. The dealer has to go and equip his workshop with all the latest tools the manufacturer TELLS him he needs. They have to do the job to the manufacturers standards etc etc. This all costs money.
Personally, i feel sorry for the guy who made a small mistake and is being made to pay for it. The woman who's car got hit deserves to have the car repaired at a main dealership, end of. I think i would do a little more legwork in getting the estimate reduced. There must be some middle ground on this one that helps out both parties because atm if i was the guy i think it may be in his interests to tell her he cant afford it and let her take him to court (I expect she would then revert to her own insurance anyhow).
A while ago my young 10 year old sister decided to remove a colour coded wing mirror whilst out on her bike. We claimed off the house insurance for the work involved.
Cavity wax installation wtf. I thought the scratch/dent was on the outside ????
Even if she has the right to insist on the main dealer fixing it, which I doubt, then there is the premise that you can't be made to pay more than you can afford.
Not in my experience. I was in a similar position in that someone damaged my car. I got a quote from the place I wanted it done (much more damage and a lower quote though). He kicked up a fuss. I passed it over to my insurers who not only got the money out of him for the repair (where I wanted) but the car hire they insisted I had even though I didn't need it or want it (at hundreds a day for a week).
Someone stepped out infront a friends motorcycle once. He flattened her, braking various bones (hers, not his). He took her to court and she had to buy him a new bike.
So... if it was me I'd pay up and thank them for being so reasonable. It could be a whole lot worse.
There must be some middle ground on this one that helps out both parties because atm if i was the guy i think it may be in his interests to tell her he cant afford it and let her take him to court (I expect she would then revert to her own insurance anyhow).
As you can see from my misguided post on Pistonheads- I hate people being stitched up and I sometimes go off on one when I see an injustice.
The comment above, if enacted would be another injustice.
Surely it has to be worth asking if the Owner oif the said car has Protected No claims??
i know i have protected mine from as soon as they allow you to (4th year i think it is??) as i have worked hard to earn it and want to keep it!
that way if so she wont loose her no claims as it is classed as a non fault accident and they typically allow you 2 claims a year (fault) occasi0onally 3 (if non fault) before it reducing your no claims,
i would have thought the owner of the mini would have done such unless its one of those always wanted cars, Prolly in black! and scrimped ont he important bits to make it affordable like high excess, protected, legal, breakdown etc., generalisation i know, just thinking out loud as such!
i feel sorry for the guy as it sounds like one of those things he does every day and this once it went wrong, he's a good man for being honest and seeking out the owner regardless of witnesses and is right to pay the price but, unless he was really flying when he hit the car it seems to have caused a Lot of damage!??! but then, some cars have soft area's and is entirely possible!
hope it all gets settled amicably for the guy involved,
i agree that the car is to be repaired to the standard it was pre accident, but a quick look around the car will allow an impression of how its kept, scratches from hedges etc. car park dings? bumper nudges??
just a thought,
Well. i've got a couple of crap photos
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
hora.. apologies if i have made you look stupid/p*ssed you off with my original claim of 10mm.
To me it doesn't look like a lot of damage (couldn't find the scratch on the n/s panel) also these photos are a bit crap
Seems it's kicked off on the pistonheads forum.
This aint my best ever suggestion but is there no way your pal could get his third party cycle insurance in place. Then a couple of weeks later have this altercation 'again'.
I know, i know, a horrible thought
the photos are why I like to sell a car when its been raining, and buy when its dry and sunny 🙄
Looking at that second photo, the scratch does indeed just extend onto the NS panel. I don't see why the light cluster would need replacing as mentioned in the quote though as the scratch doesn't look like it went near that.
Then a couple of weeks later have this altercation 'again'.
Commit fraud? Great idea. Complex though. How about a simple burglary or mugging to solve the problem?
I think he's going to have to pay up and learn not to prat about in car parks.
5thelefant - Oh agreed sir. Its a horrible thought that entered my mind and then dissapeared just as quickly.
Torch the car - job done
she'll get a new car, matey won't be a large one down
Looking at that second photo, the scratch does indeed just extend onto the NS panel. I
That's the thing. It's not a scratch.. that's the weather and my crap camera phone.
He doesn't have to learn anything. He's paying up. Will you all stop stating the **** obvious!
"Will you all stop stating the **** obvious!"
it would be very quiet in here if we all followed that rule.
I only posted 'cos you seem to be perpetauating the 'it's only a scratch' theory when it looks a lot worse than that and the owner has every right to get the job done in a way that won't jeopordise their warranty.
The lad in question has said he'd pay. Are you suggesting he should duck/dive his way out of paying and a innocent woman foot the bill out of her pocket when it wasnt her fault?Dont drive or ride into my car please. I'd expect you to pay for any scratches/damage.
I'm talking from a legal perspective, not a moral one. The legal perspective is that he has a debt to her, but *[i]legally[/i]*, she has no right to force him to take out a credit agreement in order to settle his debt to her. You may not like the implication of that, being that it just *might* not be possible for her to get her car perfect-looking again *immediately*, but it's fact.
Morally, it is up to him to restore her to the position she was in before the incident took place.
However, if we're talking morally, it's also immoral for him to be pressured to pimp out his family, go to a loan shark with gold teeth and a band of heavies and take out a loan at a very uncompetitive rate of interest, or start dealing drugs to fund it. 😉
No - seriously - I'm not suggesting that he duck and dive out of it. But it pisses me off that in today's world of want-it-now, instant-gratification consumerism - his first thought is of recourse to the old flexible friend. Wrong, IMHO.
...that and the owner has every right to get the job done in a way that won't jeopordise their warranty.
This isn't being disputed at all. As said on the PH forum the cyclist has agreed from the outset to pay whatever it costs to get sorted to the standard the owner wants.
I posed the question to help him out as it wasn't going through the normal means of an insurance job and actually out of his own pocket (or actually credit card). I felt it was wrong to go for the 1st quote which seemed very high for the damage caused.
"Even if she has the right to insist on the main dealer fixing it, which I doubt, then there is the premise that you can't be made to pay more than you can afford"Not in my experience.
No, I think you're missing my point.
You will always have to pay the full amount you owe *[i]eventually[/i]*.
I didn't mean (as it appears you've interpreted my meaning as, please correct me if wrong) that he's allowed to say "no I can't afford a grand, YOU'LL have to find some backstreet place that can do it for £300 'cos that's all I've got"
I meant that legally, if she sues him in court for the money, a court order will be made against him, but the court can not order him to pay more than he can afford, and it will take into account his income and expenditure in determining how much he can afford - so it might be £200 a week for 5 weeks, or it might be £20 a week for 50 weeks. Trust me, I know.
A lot of people seem to think the terms "owes X pounds" with "[i]must[/i] produce X pounds [i]immediately[/i] or die" are synonymous, which is wrong. Also refrain from confusing the moral perspective and the legal perspective.
TBH the mark doesn't look much worse than some of the one's along the side of my wife's Yaris, caused by "so-called" workmates (teachers) 👿
TBH the mark doesn't look much worse than some of the one's along the side of my wife's Yaris, caused by "so-called" workmates (teachers)
I have never seen a mint condition Yaris.
I wonder why........ maybe you should ask your wife if its her driving/parknig etc and shes fibbing 😉
is that All the damage???
yes there are a couple of dings caused by the incident, and the scratch looks too much to be machine polished out,
but if thats all then its never a grands worth of repair! (chance of finding a red mini in a breakers yard thats had a Front impact and thus perfect boot are quite good i'd say!)
is there any actual damage to the rear light unit?? doesnt look it from the picture,
One (to me) interesting observation, is that we accept without question the fact that after an incident the car should be restored to its previous condition, fair enough.
But in the event that the opposite happens and a motorist causes damage to a bicycle only the essential mechanical damage will be fixed- no insurer will pay out for cosmetic damage, no matter how extensive, and no bike shop I know will give a quote for it. Been in that situation several times and the attitude of most people is " well you shouldn't have a bike thats worth more than your crappy car!"
Thread hi-jack over!
Surely you can insist that 'there could be hidden structural damage therefore it needs to be a new frame'?
No hora, did try that but the two bike shops I got quotes from refused to "put their reputation on the line" by saying what the pre crash condition was ( despite it being bloody obvious that one side= pristine, the other= shifters,forks, skewers, mechs and paint ground down from being scraped down the road)
It just seems that LBS's wont risk their rep's with insurers.
I've had a quick scan through this and there are lots of suggestions of the guy claiming off his own household insurance - which would seem the obvious thing to do.
Have we worked out whether he's got any yet?
west kipper - surely small claims is the next stop then?
've had a quick scan through this and there are lots of suggestions of the guy claiming off his own household insurance - which would seem the obvious thing to do.Have we worked out whether he's got any yet?
unfortunately he hasn't no.
But in the event that the opposite happens and a motorist causes damage to a bicycle only the essential mechanical damage will be fixed- no insurer will pay out for cosmetic damage, no matter how extensive, and no bike shop I know will give a quote for it.
You need to find a different bike shop and/or get a solicitor who deals with cycle claims (I've always used http://www.bikeline.co.uk/ ). When I got knocked off my bike I got a nice cheque to pay for the replacement cost of anything that had a scratch on it - most of which I carried on using. That's what you're legally entitled to whatever an insurer or bike shop might think - you may have to threaten to take them to court to get it though (I've yet to have an incident where that's not been necessary when claiming off somebody else's insurance).
Nope your friend will have to pay
The guy will simply call his insurance and
he will take it in to be repaired and his insurance
company will get in touch with him for the money.
You will find that he can make a payment aggrement
and pay in instalments.
Thanks for the suggestions folks, but at the time I really couldn't get anyone to take this seriously, whereas if its a car there'd be no question.
Again, sorry for taking things offtopic a bit.
while I agree the chap needs to take responsibility, I'm almost inclined to agree with ChopperT, although perhaps not that far. It's a car, the same damage could quite easily come from a thrown stone, would you take the person who's car threw the stone to court?
It's an accident and the person who caused it isn't insured because they don't have to be by law. I'm not convinced he legally has to pay for it. He should make a gesture and offer to pay what he can (this may be the full amount or it may be a hundred quid). Sounds tough but as ChopperT says, you drive around at 70mph and leave the thing lying around in a carpark, I have a big dint in my car from a carpark bang which I found when I got back to my car, what can you do?
I'd be interested to see if anyone has ever managed to reclaim the full amount (or indeed, anything), from a non-vehicular road user who has damaged a car *by accident*. Bet it's never happened. If it was me I'd be very sorry and I'd tell them so and I'd offer some money to pay for the damage (not a grand), if they weren't happy with that I'd say there's nothing more I can do and if they fancy taking me through a small claims court, good luck.
It's a car, the same damage could quite easily come from a thrown stone, would you take the person who's car threw the stone to court?
If you could identify them and had witnesses to prove it, yes of course! Why on earth would you think otherwise?
Yes, but I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "accident". Whatever you seem to think, a non-vehicular road user (or anybody doing anything on the road or not) is just as liable for their actions as car drivers. Car drivers are only a special case because of the volume of "accidents" caused by them. I'm quite sure that many people have managed to claim the full amount from non-vehicular road users - the only usual problem (as pointed out by motorists in those threads where they complain we're not licensed, taxed etc.) is one of identifying a road user who doesn't have a number plate.It's an accident
In a case as clear cut as this where identification is straightforward and they have witnesses (the usual stumbling blocks) they wouldn't need any luck at all. You'd be pretty stupid to attempt to defend it rather than settle before court.if they fancy taking me through a small claims court, good luck.
Samuri, not strictly speaking a road user, but a mate of mine was made to cough up after he was attacked in the street. While defending himself he managed to throw his attacker into a parked car causing several thousand pounds worth of damage.
He almost got charged with assaulting his attacker too, The police suggested they'd drop any charges if he payed up.
Nae luck, eh?
[i]If you could identify them and had witnesses to prove it, yes of course! Why on earth would you think otherwise? [/i]
I've re-read my post and appreciate it was vague. I meant a stone thrown from a tyre, from a car driving along.
I'll still hold, (while accepting west kippers example is slightly different), that if by accident I ram my bike into a car, they will have to accept the best offer I give them and no court would suggest liability and therefore impose penalties.
I'll still hold, (while accepting west kippers example is slightly different), that if by accident I ram my bike into a car, they will have to accept the best offer I give them and no court would suggest liability and therefore impose penalties.
Try it if you like - you're completely wrong. I still don't think you understand the meaning of the word "accident" in this context.
[i]I still don't think you understand the meaning of the word "accident" in this context. [/i]
Well clearly I'm not going to try it on purpose, that wouldn't be an accident. I've tried an 'accident' though, lots of times. It's just one of those things that happens in life and anyone who treats it in any other way than 'shit happens', is heading for a whole world of disapointment IMO.
It was a long time ago but I snapped a crank riding up a hill and cannoned into the side of car putting a big dint in the door, I'm pretty sure this consitutes 'an accident'. The owner was stood next to the car and despite me apologising profusely (and I did feel very guilty), was unimpressed and spent the next few months trying to sue me for the damage. While I'm sure 15 years later there are lots more lawyers geared up for stringing unfortunates up for things that aren't their fault, I'm still reasonably confident that if the law doesn't demand you need insurance, that you're not going to be held liable for something that happened outside your control.
I'm still reasonably confident that if the law doesn't demand you need insurance, that you're not going to be held liable for something that happened outside your control.
If it was completely outside your control then you might have a point. However much as you might not have meant to hit the side of a car, it still happened because you made the choice to ride past it on a bike which you were in control of, which had a faulty component on it (if the faulty component really wasn't your fault, then you could always counter sue the supplier!) Why should the car owner accept an "accident" when it's quite clear that it wasn't an act of god and the damage was caused solely by your actions, whether or not they were intentional. You see that's the way the law works, if you caused damage you are liable to put it right, whether or not you did it on purpose. Insurance is a complete red herring, since you insure yourself to cover [b]your[/b] liability.
I should explain the correct meaning of "accident". It simply means that the damage wasn't intentional. It doesn't mean there is nobody at fault - you could be being totally irresponsible and cycling/driving in a way likely to cause a crash, it would still be an accident as long as you didn't intend to crash.
BTW samuri, if you read the whole thread, there has already been an example to disprove your point.
Someone stepped out infront a friends motorcycle once. He flattened her, braking various bones (hers, not his). He took her to court and she had to buy him a new bike.
The moral of this story Girls and boys is-
if you accidentally run into someone's car
..Leggit 😉