minor bump, advice on how to proceed.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
My advice would be to report to your insurance company and let them sort it out.

Having read some of the replies I believe some are quite harsh on the op.

I suspect these same people would be mortified if said taxi slid into the back of the their cars because the tyres did not do their job, then his or her insurance failed to pay out because the car was not road worthy.

But that is the ways of a forum I suppose, all in all though there are a large amount of people on here who are extremely helpful and I am always appreciative of any advice given.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Moral of the story, reverse in drive out. Unlucky to the OP though

Reverse parking is my companies driving policy, couldn't stand it when I started there but parking is so much easier. I laugh at people in supermarket car parks trying to drive forward into a space, but laughter turns to worry when they nearly end a poor child's life when they go to reverse out after
 
My advice would be to report to your insurance company and let them sort it out.

Having read some of the replies I believe some are quite harsh on the op.

I suspect these same people would be mortified if said taxi slid into the back of the their cars because the tyres did not do their job, then his or her insurance failed to pay out because the car was not road worthy.

But that is the ways of a forum I suppose, all in all though there are a large amount of people on here who are extremely helpful and I am always appreciative of any advice given.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Two points:

1) Since when do members of the public become involved with checking the roadworthiness of other people's cars? I thought that was a job for the authorities - ie VOSA, MoT testers and the Police if they were minded to do so?

2) I don't believe that the condition of anyone's tyres has anything to do with an underwriters obligations to third party claims? Kind of ironic though bearing in kind that the taxi is the one that was crashed into?

I might have been harsh on the OP, but I just find it ridiculous to cast aspersions onto someone else for your own shortcomings.

OP *reversed* out of his driveway into a road and crashed into another car, then looks to proceed by not doing things 'by the book' (ie contacting his insurance company straight away). Then goes on about someone else's tyres?

I just don't understand how that is relevant. Surely you accept your mistake, and move on. Tyres relevant how? Casting the first stone when you're trying to break the rules of your insurance policy? :rolleyes:
 
Two points:

1) Since when do members of the public become involved with checking the roadworthiness of other people's cars? I thought that was a job for the authorities - ie VOSA, MoT testers and the Police if they were minded to do so?

2) I don't believe that the condition of anyone's tyres has anything to do with an underwriters obligations to third party claims? Kind of ironic though bearing in kind that the taxi is the one that was crashed into?

I might have been harsh on the OP, but I just find it ridiculous to cast aspersions onto someone else for your own shortcomings.

OP *reversed* out of his driveway into a road and crashed into another car, then looks to proceed by not doing things 'by the book' (ie contacting his insurance company straight away). Then goes on about someone else's tyres?

I just don't understand how that is relevant. Surely you accept your mistake, and move on. Tyres relevant how? Casting the first stone when you're trying to break the rules of your insurance policy? :rolleyes:


I have read the ops post and cannot see anywhere in it where he is trying to not do the right thing.

He does mention the bald tyre in the post which I agree is irrelevant to the incident.

He is merely asking for advice which is what the forums are for.

Sometimes what is written in print can be misconstrued.

I too have been on the sharp end of someone's comments when I merely asked for advice, you could have merely said the bald tyre is not relevant and offered your advice.

Maybe I am reading into some posts intent that was not meant, if so I apologise.
 
NDFR is making a meal out of a straight forward RTC. Due to his inattention he collided with another vehicle. \it doesn't matter if the damn taxi had no tyres, no tax, no wife, no manners....
If NDFR wanted advice he would have simply said, "I reversed out of my drive and into another vehicle...shall I try to keep it private or tell the insurance?".

Simples.

I actually believe he is looking for an excuse NOT to pay out by asking for anecdotal evidence others may have weaseled out of a similar incident.

Get on with it, man!
 
NDFR. We all make mistakes. Bad luck.

Insurance-wise, a claim is A CLAIM.

Do your best to swiftly settle with the taxi company by paying for the damage and move on.

An old woman crashed all-but head on in to my 210 in April.
My car is a write off.
100% her fault.
No quibbling on liability from her insurers who tight-fistedly paid up.

I didn't make a claim with my insurers, but because my car is a write off (even though the offenders insurance company paid out AND, at their expense, hired me a car for 50 days) I will have to declare I have a written off car, so the insurance database WILL record a claim.

I recall BTB 500's wife being hit from behind. She claimed (100% not her fault) but the premium increased for her on renewal! :doh:

You could well have another non-fault claim or two in the next few years and your record will flag up poorly.

Get it sorted as quickly as possible (ask if they have made ANY contact with insurers before doing so - There's no point settling privately if they have done).

Good Luck. :thumb:
 
Last edited:
There is no obligation on you to report it to your insurer unless you intend to make a claim as there were no injuries or damage to any street furniture.

I would see what settlement in cash they are willing to take and if it is less than your excess then take it. If more, then you need to consider your premium will rise for up to 5 years, so think about that and decide if you want to pursue a claim.

As mentioned, on a taxi they will probably settle and take the cash. They don't want to be making claims either as it raises their rates as well.
 
When one comes to renew the policy, you will have to disclose the accident
 
I recall BTB 500's wife being hit from behind. She claimed (100% not her fault) but the premium increased for her on renewal! :doh:

It was actually the premium on my SL (where she was just a named driver) that went up!

In the past it was unheard of to weight based on a single no-fault claim in the last 5 years but more companies seem to be doing it now. Same with speeding tickets of course, and even speed awareness courses.
 
Two points:

1) Since when do members of the public become involved with checking the roadworthiness of other people's cars? I thought that was a job for the authorities - ie VOSA, MoT testers and the Police if they were minded to do so?

2) I don't believe that the condition of anyone's tyres has anything to do with an underwriters obligations to third party claims? Kind of ironic though bearing in kind that the taxi is the one that was crashed into?

I might have been harsh on the OP, but I just find it ridiculous to cast aspersions onto someone else for your own shortcomings.

OP *reversed* out of his driveway into a road and crashed into another car, then looks to proceed by not doing things 'by the book' (ie contacting his insurance company straight away). Then goes on about someone else's tyres?

I just don't understand how that is relevant. Surely you accept your mistake, and move on. Tyres relevant how? Casting the first stone when you're trying to break the rules of your insurance policy? :rolleyes:

I think the taxi driver would welcome a private payment from the OP .

While the bald tyre won't affect a 3rd party payment , his own insurer might look on a failure to keep a vehicle legal and roadworthy as a reason to reduce or refuse payment altogether .

Similarly , if this came to the attention of the OP's insurer , against whom a claim might be made in this case , they also could take a similar view .
 
I think the taxi driver would welcome a private payment from the OP .

While the bald tyre won't affect a 3rd party payment , his own insurer might look on a failure to keep a vehicle legal and roadworthy as a reason to reduce or refuse payment altogether .

Similarly , if this came to the attention of the OP's insurer , against whom a claim might be made in this case , they also could take a similar view .

As you say, the tyre - bald or otherwise - cannot affect third party liability under the taxi's insurance policy.

This is the end of the matter.

Combined with the fact that someone else reversed out into a road and hit his car, and not the other way round, I ask again the relevance of this legendary tyre?

MoT testers, VOSA, Police (if they have an interest) decide the roadworthyness of other people's vehicles - not members of the public. The taxi didn't hit anyone.

I would love to see the reaction on here if the OP was the one parked up and someone reversed into them...
 
There is no obligation on you to report it to your insurer unless you intend to make a claim as there were no injuries or damage to any street furniture.

I would see what settlement in cash they are willing to take and if it is less than your excess then take it. If more, then you need to consider your premium will rise for up to 5 years, so think about that and decide if you want to pursue a claim.

As mentioned, on a taxi they will probably settle and take the cash. They don't want to be making claims either as it raises their rates as well.

There is usually a contractual obligation to report any and all incidents to your insurer ( it is in the terms and conditions of the policy ) , regardless of whether any claim is made .

Having said the above , many choose to deal with minor incidents out with insurance , and it is a choice they make .

I myself did this when my car was wrecked on my driveway by an uninsured driver who crashed through my garden wall - I notified my insurer , who initially treated as a claim , and it took several telephone calls and letters to have the claim cancelled , and reduced to notification only . After telling them I did not need the vehicle uplifted , they still instructed a recovery company , which I had to send away ! The vehicle was inspected and classified as a Cat C total loss , but instead of accepting the low offer from my insurer I kept the car and broke it myself , making more than double their offer out of it . I subsequently verified via other insurers that there were no claims on record against myself .
 
I have read the ops post and cannot see anywhere in it where he is trying to not do the right thing.

He does mention the bald tyre in the post which I agree is irrelevant to the incident.

He is merely asking for advice which is what the forums are for.

Sometimes what is written in print can be misconstrued.

I too have been on the sharp end of someone's comments when I merely asked for advice, you could have merely said the bald tyre is not relevant and offered your advice.

Maybe I am reading into some posts intent that was not meant, if so I apologise.
The OP said in the very first post that they haven't reported this incident to their insurance company. We all know why.

Then casts aspersions - or paints a picture as they later say, about the car that *they* reversed into. Totally irrelevant information.

They made a mistake. To paint a picture that this taxi is dodgy/badly maintained etc doesn't make any different to the fact they are trying to get away with having an accident and not informing their insurance company by paying them off instead.

As I say, I would love to see the reaction here if a taxi had reversed out into a road and hit a member's car. People would be shouting about the poor driving, what bodyshop to use etc.

OP could find themselves in a sticky situation if they pay cash for this incident and don't declare it, as the insurance company have a right to know. Fraud?
 
As you say, the tyre - bald or otherwise - cannot affect third party liability under the taxi's insurance policy.

This is the end of the matter.

Combined with the fact that someone else reversed out into a road and hit his car, and not the other way round, I ask again the relevance of this legendary tyre?

MoT testers, VOSA, Police (if they have an interest) decide the roadworthyness of other people's vehicles - not members of the public. The taxi didn't hit anyone.

I would love to see the reaction on here if the OP was the one parked up and someone reversed into them...

There is a statutory obligation on vehicle owners to keep their vehicles in legal and roadworthy condition , insurers also reinforce this as a condition of cover .

While , in the event of the taxi hitting someone , the bald tyre would not be a reason to refuse a claim by a third party , the insurer can use it as a reason to refuse a claim for damage to their own vehicle ( suppose the OP absconded or just refused to pay anything and the taxi driver was left claiming against his own insurance - this is why vehicle inspectors will check things like tyres ) .

If the OP placed the matter in the hands of his insurer , they might take the view that the other vehicle was unroadworthy , illegal and therefore uninsured , and refuse to pay .
 
As you say, the tyre - bald or otherwise - cannot affect third party liability under the taxi's insurance policy.

This is the end of the matter.

Combined with the fact that someone else reversed out into a road and hit his car, and not the other way round, I ask again the relevance of this legendary tyre?

MoT testers, VOSA, Police (if they have an interest) decide the roadworthyness of other people's vehicles - not members of the public. The taxi didn't hit anyone.

I would love to see the reaction on here if the OP was the one parked up and someone reversed into them...

To be fair the only person bleating on about the tyre is you.
 
If the OP placed the matter in the hands of his insurer , they might take the view that the other vehicle was unroadworthy , illegal and therefore uninsured , and refuse to pay .

Can they do that?

Are you certain?

How is the other vehicle uninsured?
 
To be fair the only person bleating on about the tyre is you.

Only because the OP decided to mention it, and suggested that the car shouldn't have been on the road.

Would the accident have not happened if they had brand new tyres fitted whilst parked up?
 
Can they do that?

Are you certain?

How is the other vehicle uninsured?

They can , although in fairness I don't think they would .

It would be uninsured if the insurers responsible for that vehicle agreed that failure to keep the vehicle legal and roadworthy breached their terms and conditions of insurance .

While it isn't very likely , a particularly awkward insurer could just use this as an excuse not to pay .
 
Only because the OP decided to mention it, and suggested that the car shouldn't have been on the road.

Would the accident have not happened if they had brand new tyres fitted whilst parked up?

No, it wouldn't as you say.

I think, maybe, that he had the thought in the back of his head that a vehicle in an non-roadworthy condition may not be covered by the driver's insurance and was trying to work through what the consequences of this were to him.

That's my characteristically charitable view anyway. :D
 
They can , although in fairness I don't think they would .

It would be uninsured if the insurers responsible for that vehicle agreed that failure to keep the vehicle legal and roadworthy breached their terms and conditions of insurance .

While it isn't very likely , a particularly awkward insurer could just use this as an excuse not to pay .

You say they can, so can you show evidence of any motor insurance underwriter who states this?

Can you show an example as I don't recall ever seeing terms and conditions that say a vehicle is uninsured in respect of third party claims if a tyre is below tread limits, or for any other issue. Usually the terms and conditions are get out clauses in respect to the policy holder.

I don't think you are correct on this as any car under such a policy would be uninsured for any defect like this, and I'm not sure that would be acceptable cover.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom