To cut a long story short, I wrote my car off whilst drink driving Dec 2013 and I'd damaged a lamppost in the process. My car insurance at the time said they'd deal with any costs as third party but would chase me up for the money back. Ive now just received a letter from said insurance company roughly 30 months later wanting £1500 for property damage.
Is there any advice I could have with regards to possibly a limit on when they can badger me for money as it was such a long time ago I thought it was all swept under the carpet. Surely they can't come back to me almost 3 years later wanting money?
|
Limit is usually six years:
tinyurl.com/mbuztvp (National Debtline Factsheet).
|
|
All insurance companies are obligated to cover the costs incurred to any third parties that the insured is liable for under the The Road Traffic Act 1988, regardless of whether the insured was over the legal limit or not. So the cost of damage to the lamp post should be covered under your insurance policy. Some insurance companies have a drink or drugs clause in insurance policies they issue which may state that they reserve the right to recover the cost from the insured of any claims paid which arose as a result of the insured party driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. You will need to take a look at your insurance policy and read the small print to see if this applies in your case and/or contact your insurance company for clarification.
|
|
|
|
You were driving illegally and acted irresponsibly, who do you think should pay for the damaged you caused?
I think you can consider yourself lucky in that its a relatively small amount you owe.
|
|
Can we please confine ourselves to giving help and advice, as Brompton and Focussed have.
|
Can we please confine ourselves to giving help and advice, as Brompton and Focussed have.
I fully agree with Ted.
Yes, the OP has probably had a fine, probably loss of licence for some time, probably increased insurance costs since, but, as is pointed out, is liable for the costs due to the previous actions..
Perhaps it was not "deliberate" drunk driving, but it has happened and the OP is lucky that serious injury was not caused.
|
It is against my nature to disagree with an excellent moderator like Avant, apologies. However, in this case I support the view expressed by Ted.
My first reaction to the OP was to reply in a similar fashion. The comment was not unpleasant or personally abusive. The forum is titled as a discussion so I consider it a fair contribution.
I decided just to ignore OP.
Why should other people have to pay for the damage she caused ?
|
Agree with Scott and ORB. While I understand need for a 'shot across the bows' of those who regularly resort to personal abuse the point in Ted's post about personal responsibility needed making.
|
|
|
|
Considering that in the Disscusion forum there is an ongoing thread highlighting the ever increasing cost of car insurance, while in here we are being asked how to mitigate liabilities and avoid paying them for acts of gross irresponsibility I have to say I detect more than a slight hint of irony.
|
I'd avoided commenting up to now. My view on drink-driving, shared I'm sure by most people on here, is that it is unacceptable.
However, that is irrelevant.
The OP didn't come on here asking if there was any way of getting off a DD charge, or attempting to weasel out of it, or justifying it. They asked if someone could help advise on the LEGAL position as to whether the costs being asked for - and asked for after a considerable period of time - were justified or not.
As I didn't know the answer, I didn't comment.
However, all those giving the OP a good kicking might want to take a look in the mirror, and ask themselves if their halo is so perfect, and has always been so perfect.
I suspect it won't be, and in one way or another, we've all 'gotten away with it', whatever "it" might be, at some point in our lives.
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" comes to mind.
|
OK...I have looked in the mirror.
I don't see a convicted drink driver or someone who has ever driven under the influence. Nor do I see someone who would even contemplate shirking their legal and indeed personal responsibilities.
Perhaps you would care to go over the original post again and then tell us the OP has no intention whatsoever of attempting to avoid paying the money the insurance company are claiming is owed as a result of her actions.
|
If there are terms and conditions in the original policy that say that such losses can be recovered, the insurance company will seek to recover their losses.
End of...
Perhaps ..
Edited by oldroverboy. on 26/07/2016 at 12:53
|
|
|
So you have led a perfect and blameless life, never committed any crime or offence, whether caught or not ?
Because that's what I asked. Your answer (such as it is) seems to weasel around the point, rather.
The OP has asked a question. They are not 'attempting to avoid paying', but ASKING if it is justified payment being asked for close on 3 years after the incident.
If you read their question - and that's how I read it, a question - as attempting to get out of their responsibilities, rather than attempting to clarify the situation, then maybe your halo isn't as glowing as you first thought, as you seem so willing to think the worst of people.
Edited by RobJP on 26/07/2016 at 12:54
|
Sorry Rob. The only reason for ASKING is to try to avoid paying.
If we applied having to have lead a blameless life as essential before passing any comment there would be a resounding silence. I acknowledge mistakes I have made, if possible make amends and then try to move on. My opinion is that it was justified to add a comment about the ethics. A discussion should be just that : with the opportunity to add respectful comment on an underlying aspect of the situation.
|
|
|
"So you have led a perfect and blameless life, never committed any crime or offence, whether caught or not ?"
I fail to see the relevance of the question, nor do I believe, (unlike your good self it would seem) that two wrongs make a right one or indeed the misdemeanours of one are justification for the misdemeanours of others.
"They are not 'attempting to avoid paying', but ASKING if it is justified payment being asked for close on 3 years after the incident."
In other words.......do I really have to pay this or is there a way out?
Yes?
|
In other words.......do I really have to pay this or is there a way out?
Perhaps there is a way out and it would be legal.
I suspect however that the OP would take the medicine if she needs to.
Hands up anyone here who would fork out £1500 if they didn't have to.
And hands up those who have got that money instantly.
On that basis I can see where the OP is coming from.
|
|
No problem with that. However, for me the key thing in this is whether or not someone is entitled to make a polite comment on the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
