[quote name='Focus_DSL' timestamp='1302698287' post='122738']
It's all one big ball ache to be honest.[/quote]
Unfortunately it's your first claim, and it's a bit messy, so it's understandable you feel this way. But once you have a few claims under your belt......
Our last claim back in December 2008 was a write off by a third party, I was not in the car. My wife was taking her 82 year old mother to the supermarket. Third party failed to take a bend, crossed over onto the wife's side of the road and hit her head on. Both my wife and her mother were injured, her mother ended up with a hand worth not a lot to her, and that was after undergoing an operation on her wrist [pinning it] under local anaesthetic, as she could not have a general anaesthetic because of her weak heart. My wife suffered physical and psychological injuries, including total memory loss of Christmas,having children or grandchildren, how to do her job. All that's since come back to her, but resulted in the latter meaning driving for my wife is not a pleasure.
I don't include the above, to trump your experience, no merely to highlight when you think you have been dumped on big style from above. Well hearing about other peoples accidents it helps you get your problems in to prospective.
For instance where that accident of my wife's happened, there now is a crash barrier. Because nine months earlier and as a result of another car failing to take that exact same bend in the road. Two young girls drowned trapped upside down in their car in the canal. And less than a year after my wife's accident took place, two more young people drown as a result of being trapped in their car, again because of a failure to take that bend properly. So you see it would have been another two deaths, the two young lads in the BMW Mini Cooper that hit my wife's car. She and her mother were the "crash barrier" in that instance. Funny thing is we just walked past that very spot this Sunday gone [it's a canal side walk]I asked the wife if she would be all right about it, as her mother insisted we never take her on that bit of road again [She passed away this December] But as the wife still cannot remember a thing about the actual impact [only what she has been told] she was fine about it.
So could it have been worse? Yes I could have lost both my wife and her mother
[quote]It is much clearer now though. I may just continue with Equity red star just to make 100% sure they see my claim through, after that maybe i`ll change.[/quote]
That's up to you, but like I say it will not affect your claim.
[quote]I`ve been told by my insurers that it will only come off the stolen cars insurance IF they catch the <expletives> who crashed into my car. So i guess it will come off my insurance.[/quote]
Well I would not take what your told by some office bod over the phone as being gospel. In fact I suspect what they told you is total bollacks. In what way would the thieves being caught affect the claim as it stands! Does the simpleton you spoke to reckon the thieves will have insurance they can claim against! Like I say total bollacks. I would consult a third party legal expert on insurance law.
I say that because, lets look at an example of a multiple pile up. Car [b]A[/b] crosses the road into oncoming traffic, hits car [b]B[/b] car [b]C[/b] behind [b]B[/b] hits car [b]B[/b].... car [b]C[/b] is hit from behind by car [b]D[/b]...get the picture. Car [b]A[/b] was the cause of the multiple pile up but car [b]A's[/b] insurer is not liable for all the damage to all the cars. As car [b]B[/b] was hit by car [b]A[/b] and car [b]C[/b] The insurers of cars [b]A[/b] and [b]C[/b] are joint liable for damage to car [b]B[/b] as their insured vehicles hit car [b]B[/b]. Car [b]D's[/b] insurer is liable for damage caused by their insured vehicle hitting car [b]C [/b].... and so liability goes down the line defined by what hit what.
You see it is the insurer of the car that is deemed to be responsible for hitting the other car involved in a two car collision, that is liable compensation wise. Like I say, though car [b]A[/b] was technically responsible for the multiple pile up, it's insurer does not in fact cough up for all the damage to all the other cars. It's a case of which car hits which car that defines liability. I suspect in your case, the other parties insurer cannot use the argument. That as their client was not driving the car at the time, they are not liable for the damage to your car. Their clients car hit your stationary and legally parked car period.
Not happy with that example of liability, try this one for size. Your car is parked on a hill when it is hit by that stolen car. The stolen car comes to a halt, but your cars rolls down the hill gathering momentum, hits a house on it's corner wall, taking it out. the house falls down ....who is liable for the rebuilding cost of that house ? I bet the home owners insurance reckons the liability falls on you insurer, wither or not you where driving the car at the time. Of course your guy would no doubt tell the house insurer, they will have to catch the thieves that stole the car that hit your car first, as they caused it all to happen in the first place.
I dont think i have protected NCB either and its getting to the point where i`m deciding if we really need a car or if we can do without.[/quote]
Right now I bet public transport is looking less complicated, until it's peeing down and it does not turn up any way.
[quote]For all the trouble the thieves have caused, its never them that has to deal with the aftermath and that is what is really bugging me.
Even if they are caught, what then? A £50 fine and a slap on the wrist? Yeh, thats going to stop them doing it again.
tell me about it.