Luton Airport car park fire

[tonysmb]

Some of my policies cover driving other cars, some don't, and it's been like that for many years. I've never requested it either, it's just there (or not ) . I don't think it's ever covered named drivers, IIRC, it's always been 'the policyholder is covered etc.'

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

But I think at this point we will never know the real reason for the fire despite the car park owners admitting to having ANPR recordings (making it pretty easy to identify the car concerned) and the fact that the person who drove the car in there seems to have completely disappeared from the face of the earth

Tish tish tish.

The issue isn't what caused the fire, it's why did it spread so fast and why wasn't it quickly isolated. Fires in multi-storey car parks are fairly routine.

Land Rovers have been electrically unreliable for decades, and roadside fires are common across the land. Always have been.

Even if "the evil EV" is blamed for the spread and intensity, the next step is to learn handle the situation, just as we learned to handle fire in Skyscrapers.

Like it or no, EV's are the future. We just have to learn how to make them and use them.

.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Interesting....I've never had a policy that didnt give 3rd party cover for other cars...I've never asked for it....so I don't think it's that rare....he says checking insurance certificate in wallet....yep covered! I do note however that it's only the policy holder that is covered for other cars....not my wife even though she's a named driver on my insurance.
That said I'd be pretty uncomfortable using someone else's car on just TP insurance....

Driving other cars TP isn't usually given to people who are high risk. Obvious example being the Under 25's

Boring people with NCB will normally have it, TP only.

"Wife on insurance?" We all do that because a second person "usually" reduces the premium. Don't ask me why.

 

[st13phil]

Even if "the evil EV" is blamed for the spread and intensity, the next step is to learn handle the situation, just as we learned to handle fire in Skyscrapers.

Talking to an ex-LFB friend of mine, he says one of the issues with a densely packed multi-story carpark fire is overheating plastic fuel tanks rupturing and the fuel spilling out, which then flows across the floors and into the drains thus spreading an accelerant throughout the structure. A second issue in this instance was the steel structure that will fail and collapse extremely rapidly at some indeterminate point, meaning that fire fighting efforts will be confined to the perimeter.

As I said in an earlier post in this thread, I suspect that fire risk assessments for multi-story carparks will be the subject of urgent examination as a result of this particular incident.

 

[Petrol Pete]

Tish tish tish.

The issue isn't what caused the fire, it's why did it spread so fast and why wasn't it quickly isolated. Fires in multi-storey car parks are fairly routine.

Land Rovers have been electrically unreliable for decades, and roadside fires are common across the land. Always have been.

Even if "the evil EV" is blamed for the spread and intensity, the next step is to learn handle the situation, just as we learned to handle fire in Skyscrapers.

Like it or no, EV's are the future. We just have to learn how to make them and use them.

.

"Tish tish tish ' Mike ? What is that ? ? . As I said in my posts, the jury is still out on what caused the Luton fire. You and I seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet regarding JLR fires, etc. . I agreed with you that EV's are the cars of the (long distant) future but "fires in multi story car parks are fairly routine "....???

"Just as we have learned to handle fires in skyscrapers..." ? ?

No fire ladder in the UK can reach more than 75 Metres. Good luck , and God speed to those of you on the 21st floor . Admittedly a pretty good stretch in most scenarios. And as we speak there are just 150+ residential l buildings in the UK over 20 floors high .

We have 'learned to handle fires in skyscrapers' ..no , not yet. Just as EV fires are part and parcel of our future. No problem,. As long as we (worldwide) come up with a quick and sure way of extinguishing EV fires .

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

"Tish tish tish ' Mike ? What is that ? ? . As I said in my posts, the jury is still out on what caused the Luton fire. You and I seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet regarding JLR fires, etc. . I agreed with you that EV's are the cars of the (long distant) future but "fires in multi story car parks are fairly routine "....???

"Just as we have learned to handle fires in skyscrapers..." ? ?

No fire ladder in the UK can reach more than 75 Metres. Good luck , and God speed to those of you on the 21st floor . Admittedly a pretty good stretch in most scenarios. And as we speak there are just 150+ residential l buildings in the UK over 20 floors high .

We have 'learned to handle fires in skyscrapers' ..no , not yet. Just as EV fires are part and parcel of our future. No problem,. As long as we (worldwide) come up with a quick and sure way of extinguishing EV fires .

Regardless of what caused the fire, the issue at Luton was the speed and power of the spread.

Your local fireman will tell you that the Fire Service attend 20 accidental car fires a day. That's the lowest level for many decades, and still decreasing every year. (Obviously that excludes fires put out by owners that don't involve a call out)

We've learned to handle fire in skyscrapers. Look at their elaborate building specifications and equipment. Fire doesn't spread as it used to.

"When we were kids" fires in homes offices, factories and skyscrapers were commonplace. All history now, with those obvious exceptions. Domestic house fires are at an all-time low.

The world's changing. We now have to work out how to rejig our fire protocols to handle the risks in that new world. From building generation 2.0 EV's which are not only safer, but less rubbish to drive, to modifying garages, ferries, and tunnels to handle "potential" issues.

 

[BTB 500]

Interesting development?

Man arrested after Luton Airport car park fire that destroyed up to 1,200 cars

Many of the torched cars are unsalvageable.

metro.co.uk

 

[Darrell]

Grandmother whose car was damaged in Luton Airport fire 'at fault'


Grandmother whose car was damaged in Luton Airport fire 'at fault'

 

[markjay]

Grandmother whose car was damaged in Luton Airport fire 'at fault'


Grandmother whose car was damaged in Luton Airport fire 'at fault'

I think it's a misunderstanding. I think she was told she'll need to make a claim against her own policy, which is often technically referred to as 'at fault' (as opposed to a 'no fault' claim).

It doesn't actually apportion blame, it's only a technical term. For example, if your car is hit while parked in a hit-and-run incident, then you'll be claiming against your own policy (because you don't know who the other driver was), and this will be technically an 'at fault' claim - but, again, it isn't suggesting that it was actually your fault.

 

[Will]

I think it's a misunderstanding. I think she was told she'll need to make a claim against her own policy, which is often technically referred to as 'at fault' (as opposed to a 'no fault' claim).

It doesn't actually apportion blame, it's only a technical term. For example, if your car is hit while parked in a hit-and-run incident, then you'll be claiming against your own policy (because you don't know who the other driver was), and this will be technically an 'at fault' claim - but, again, it isn't suggesting that it was actually your fault.

Misleading or sensationalist headline by the Daily Mail, whatever next?

 

[Will]

Apologies: this car has only only lost 33% of its value, or £7 a mile ( £27,000 over the 3,700 miles its been driven). It's an £85k cooking bitter E-tron.

But broad point remains, if all EV's are so reliable, why do they lose this much money and end up in Car Supermarkets?

(Or why does the much-loved e-Golf lose more money that a GTI ?)

Of course the car in your example has lost a huge amount per mile - it’s a two year old car with ridiculously low mileage - not a great use of the manufacturer’s warranty either there.

As a chalk and cheese comparison I bought a used 6.2 petrol car that had lost a similar amount ‘per mile’ in depreciation terms (and that was after seven years/11k miles IIRC)

Not really the norm?

I think it’s fair to say that resale on EVs isn’t/wasn’t the attraction of them - who ‘buys’ a new EV anyway? Aren’t they pretty much all discounted to leasing companies and rented monthly like many people do with their mobile phones?

In other words, who goes looking to purchase outright an expensive second hand EV when you can rent/lease a brand new one so easily (and get the newest model with all the incentives on offer etc)

I don’t think that resale values on an expensive premium EV such as this shows anything much in terms of people not wanting one but just indicate that it’s often more attractive to source/finance a brand new one (with the various incentives that may be available) for those thst can afford expensive cars such as these.

Perhaps once a larger number of these (quite expensive) vehicles drop to a level whereby your average older used car buyer can afford one (£10/20k?) then the rest of the market will settle down a bit too?

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Of course the car in your example has lost a huge amount per mile - it’s a two year old car with ridiculously low mileage - not a great use of the manufacturer’s warranty either there.

As a chalk and cheese comparison I bought a used 6.2 petrol car that had lost a similar amount ‘per mile’ in depreciation terms (and that was after seven years/11k miles IIRC)

Not really the norm?

I think it’s fair to say that resale on EVs isn’t/wasn’t the attraction of them - who ‘buys’ a new EV anyway? Aren’t they pretty much all discounted to leasing companies and rented monthly like many people do with their mobile phones?

In other words, who goes looking to purchase outright an expensive second hand EV when you can rent/lease a brand new one so easily (and get the newest model with all the incentives on offer etc)

I don’t think that resale values on an expensive premium EV such as this shows anything much in terms of people not wanting one but just indicate that it’s often more attractive to source/finance a brand new one (with the various incentives that may be available) for those thst can afford expensive cars such as these.

Perhaps once a larger number of these (quite expensive) vehicles drop to a level whereby your average older used car buyer can afford one (£10/20k?) then the rest of the market will settle down a bit too?

I’m just asking why EVs are depreciating so much more than their direct equivalent ICE’s?

Doesn’t it indicate consumer reluctance?

Which is odd. Because an E-trim / Taycan / e-golf will be cheaper to run / fuel than their direct ICE equivalent.

Understood that high performance & luxury cars depreciate drop in value like a stone. But the Leaf and e-Golf are not high performance and luxury cars.

(And yes, part of the issue has to be the pace of technology change. A first gen E-Golf or Leaf is immediately devalued by 2nd gen cars in a way that ICE isn’t)

The good news:Tesla 3’s are taking a bath. The bad news is that although Tesla 3’s will have lost £30k by early next year, with the arrival of the Facelift, people still don’t want to buy them - even at 3p a mile

 

[ALFAitalia]

I think it's a misunderstanding. I think she was told she'll need to make a claim against her own policy, which is often technically referred to as 'at fault' (as opposed to a 'no fault' claim).

It doesn't actually apportion blame, it's only a technical term. For example, if your car is hit while parked in a hit-and-run incident, then you'll be claiming against your own policy (because you don't know who the other driver was), and this will be technically an 'at fault' claim - but, again, it isn't suggesting that it was actually your fault.

Absolutely no way Id be claiming on my policy if my car had been there...because its fact of the matter that it was in no way my fault. Either its down to the owner of the car that burst into flames....or the airport who would have has a duty of care over your car...when you entered that car park and agreed to pay you entered a contract with the owners. Even if they had one of those "we are not responsible" signs (which have been proven legally worthless in the past) legally they have to be displayed BEFORE you enter the car park (most are not)....if you cant read it before entering they mean nothing.

 

[Will]

Absolutely no way Id be claiming on my policy if my car had been there...because its fact of the matter that it was in no way my fault. Either its down to the owner of the car that burst into flames....or the airport who would have has a duty of care over your car...when you entered that car park and agreed to pay you entered a contract with the owners. Even if they had one of those "we are not responsible" signs (which have been proven legally worthless in the past) legally they have to be displayed BEFORE you enter the car park (most are not)....if you cant read it before entering they mean nothing.

All well and a good if you don’t need a replacement car anytime soon. I suspect you’d be waiting months if not years for a full investigation and for any claims to be settled.

 

[markjay]

Absolutely no way Id be claiming on my policy if my car had been there...because its fact of the matter that it was in no way my fault. Either its down to the owner of the car that burst into flames....or the airport who would have has a duty of care over your car...when you entered that car park and agreed to pay you entered a contract with the owners. Even if they had one of those "we are not responsible" signs (which have been proven legally worthless in the past) legally they have to be displayed BEFORE you enter the car park (most are not)....if you cant read it before entering they mean nothing.

I don't disagree, my only point was that 'at fault' claim is just a technical term, it does not mean that the insurer is saying that it was actually the driver's fault in the way that we would normally use this term.

As to your point, insurers often 'suggest' that you make a claim against your own policy, but you are not obliged to accept that. Unfortunately, you can’t really force your insurer to chase another insurer if they don't want to do that, and in this case you may need to chase the other party or parties yourselves, possibly using the services of a solicitor.

I would advise owners of damaged cars to join forces and hire a legal team to look at their options - all it takes for one of them to put up a Facebook page for others to make contact.

In fact, I'd be surprised in the 'ambulance chasers' lawyers aren't already working on it....

 

[Darrell]

Cars trapped on top level of Luton airport car park are removed


Cars trapped on top level of Luton airport car park are removed

 

[st13phil]

Absolutely no way Id be claiming on my policy if my car had been there...because its fact of the matter that it was in no way my fault.

As the saying goes, "Good luck with that".

While it's correct to say that those whose cars have been damaged in the fire & subsequent collapse of the carpark were not at fault, the issue is establishing who is likely liable and then suing them to (a) prove liability in law, and (b) recover losses. The first part is non-trivial and likely to take a very l-o-n-g time, while the second will take even longer. For example, unless negligence can be established on behalf of the carpark operator (which is highly unlikely), any claim against them would be futile, so you end up trying to prove your loss was the responsibility of the first vehicle that caught fire with no other contributory factors.

All this was discussed in a video in post #314, and summarised in text form in post #331.

Bottom line is that those who suffered losses will either be without their vehicles and compensation for years, or they claim against their own insurance.

 

[m80]

I’m just asking why EVs are depreciating so much more than their direct equivalent ICE’s?

How much is due to the cost of battery pack replacement,
or that making the car effectively worthless at some point?

While there are statements that battery degradation isn't as significant as perceived, does Mr Bloggs have confidence?

 

[Will]

As the saying goes, "Good luck with that".

While it's correct to say that those whose cars have been damaged in the fire & subsequent collapse of the carpark were not at fault, the issue is establishing who is likely liable and then suing them to (a) prove liability in law, and (b) recover losses. The first part is non-trivial and likely to take a very l-o-n-g time, while the second will take even longer. For example, unless negligence can be established on behalf of the carpark operator (which is highly unlikely), any claim against them would be futile, so you end up trying to prove your loss was the responsibility of the first vehicle that caught fire with no other contributory factors.

All this was discussed in a video in post #314, and summarised in text form in post #331.

Bottom line is that those who suffered losses will either be without their vehicles and compensation for years, or they claim against their own insurance.

I’d wager there’s also a huge risk with taking this approach, in that if unsuccessful it maybe too late to register a claim with your own insurance company too.

Surely best to claim from your own policy and hopefully let the insurer try and recover losses.

You’d probably still need to declare the incident anyway, so likely an increase in premium is on the cards for this regardless of not being at fault even if you don’t make a claim

 

[poormansporsche]

As the saying goes, "Good luck with that".

While it's correct to say that those whose cars have been damaged in the fire & subsequent collapse of the carpark were not at fault, the issue is establishing who is likely liable and then suing them to (a) prove liability in law, and (b) recover losses. The first part is non-trivial and likely to take a very l-o-n-g time, while the second will take even longer. For example, unless negligence can be established on behalf of the carpark operator (which is highly unlikely), any claim against them would be futile, so you end up trying to prove your loss was the responsibility of the first vehicle that caught fire with no other contributory factors.

All this was discussed in a video in post #314, and summarised in text form in post #331.

Bottom line is that those who suffered losses will either be without their vehicles and compensation for years, or they claim against their own insurance.

Exactly that.

Shit happens, take the hit, kiss the dog, stroke the wife, move on with your life.

Could be worse, could be living in Israel / Gaza !