[Lane1IsLava]

My daughter rage kicked our (parked) car door into a newish car parked in the next bay, causing a dent to their side panel.

We left an apology note with contact info (owner not present).

When they contacted us, we asked that they get a quote asap, so we can decide whether to go through insurance or settle out of pocket.

(Note - we did not notify our insurance company)

Fast forward 5 months, with no contact in between, and we receive a quote of £2k for side panel and door repair.
(NB. we caused no damage to the door, but can see existing parking knocks visible on the photos we took at the time)

We can't afford £2k personal cost, but are now worried about involving the insurance company at such a late stage, fearing we may get penalised for failing to declare an accident.

Anyone able to advise where we stand here? Any advice greatly appreciated

[NMNeil]

The bad news is that if you look on your policy it will more than likely give you either 24 or 48 hours to contact them after an accident, even if you don't intend to make a claim.
After that any claim will be denied.
https://www.simplyquote.co.uk/insigh...y-requirements

[Rolebama]

One Sunday morning, around 6.10am, I was driving my AA van on the A40, when I was hit by a private car. It was very foggy, and I didn't see which one did it. I reported to the Police at around 6.25am, and I advised Control. A week later, the AA received a letter alleging I had been seen at around 11.30pm, on the Wednesday night, at a different location, hitting her parked car, and driving off.
When the AA looked into it, I was told that she had initially contacted her insurer on the Thursday, saying I had hit her on the Sunday morning. Her insurer had rejected her claim as there was a 4day interval, so she had invented the alternative version of events in an effort to get the AA to pay for her repairs. I received a letter from the Police stating that they were not going to pursue the matter, which I handed to the AA, who wrote to her advising that they held her responsible for the damage to my van, and would appreciate expedited payment. I dropped my van off at the bodyshop a little later, and, apparently, she paid the full amount in cash.
If she had not invented her spurious claim, she would have got away with it.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by NMNeil

The bad news is that if you look on your policy it will more than likely give you either 24 or 48 hours to contact them after an accident, even if you don't intend to make a claim.
After that any claim will be denied.
https://www.simplyquote.co.uk/insigh...y-requirements

I've never seen a policy with such a clause, and I doubt whether it could be enforced. My current policy needs claims to be notified "as soon as reasonably practicable".
I doubt whether the Ombudsman, or any court, would agree that 24/48 hours is reasonable.

Having said that, the OP was certainly required to notify his insurer and clearly failed to do so.

But in any event, the insurer can not reject a claim by a 3rd party, who has six years to make a claim.

[olduser]

I would contact my insurers, and put myself at their mercy.

You could explain what happened, particularly the bit about the third party failing to get back in contact, this probably is best done in writing, include copies of any correspondence and copies of photographs.
The next bit is hard - wait and see what happens!

Good Luck.

[Lily]

Hi there @Lane1IsLava! Welcome to the RAC Community.

That sounds really stressful. Leaving a note and staying open to contact was absolutely the right thing to do.

Like our kind members have mentioned, at this stage, it’s best to let your insurer know what happened, even if it’s been a while. I agree with @olduser, explain the person took 5 months to write back, demanding a lot of money and share the pics.

Best of lucks, let us know how it goes.

[NMNeil]

Originally Posted by Beelzebub

I've never seen a policy with such a clause, and I doubt whether it could be enforced. My current policy needs claims to be notified "as soon as reasonably practicable".
I doubt whether the Ombudsman, or any court, would agree that 24/48 hours is reasonable.

Page 24
https://mktgblobpubaccess1.blob.core...ance-Guide.pdf
And an insurance policy is a legally binding contract accepted by both parties, so there's no recourse through the Ombudsman or the courts if the wording of the policy is clear as written and needs no interpretation.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by NMNeil

And an insurance policy is a legally binding contract accepted by both parties, so there's no recourse through the Ombudsman or the courts if the wording of the policy is clear as written and needs no interpretation.

Oh yes there is.

In 1977, the Unfair Contract Terms Act recognises that the consumer is at a disadvantage in entering such contracts, and gave the courts power to "strike out" offending clauses, or even to void the entire contract. Largely superseded by the Consumer Rights Act.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by Beelzebub

I've never seen a policy with such a clause, and I doubt whether it could be enforced. My current policy needs claims to be notified "as soon as reasonably practicable".
I doubt whether the Ombudsman, or any court, would agree that 24/48 hours is reasonable.

Having said that, the OP was certainly required to notify his insurer and clearly failed to do so.

But in any event, the insurer can not reject a claim by a 3rd party, who has six years to make a claim.

There's quite a wide range of practices around this, with some insurers, as we can see from @NMNeil 's post with fairly aggressive language around 48 hours and using the word "must" - others may suggest you "should" inform them within 7 days. Some of the bigger companies use language around "you must inform as soon as reasonably possible" - often open to interpretation.
@Lane1IsLava you can check this out in your specific policy booklet, usually under the "General Conditions that cover the whole policy" section, or something similar. I would agree with several of the responses here in your situation and reach out to enlist the assistance of your insurer.

Let us know how you get on.

[NMNeil]

Originally Posted by Beelzebub

Oh yes there is.

In 1977, the Unfair Contract Terms Act recognises that the consumer is at a disadvantage in entering such contracts, and gave the courts power to "strike out" offending clauses, or even to void the entire contract. Largely superseded by the Consumer Rights Act.

Putting that all accidents shall be reported within 48 hours isn't an offending clause as it's not hidden in any way and the wording on the contract/policy is perfectly clear.

"The starting point for the court is to identify the intention of the contracting parties. This is an objective test; the court is concerned to identify the intention of the parties by reference to "what a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would have been available to the parties would have understood them to be using the language in the contract to mean"
https://www.ashurst.com/en/insights/...r-english-law/

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by NMNeil

Putting that all accidents shall be reported within 48 hours isn't an offending clause as it's not hidden in any way and the wording on the contract/policy is perfectly clear.

"The starting point for the court is to identify the intention of the contracting parties. This is an objective test; the court is concerned to identify the intention of the parties by reference to "what a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would have been available to the parties would have understood them to be using the language in the contract to mean"
https://www.ashurst.com/en/insights/...r-english-law/

But the actual law says "A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer." [Consumer Rights Act 2015, s62(4)]

The Ombudsman also has the power to rule against the insurer if he regards a term as unfair, and does so.. For example, clauses requiring a car to be taxed or to have a valid MOT have been ruled to be unenforceable.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by Beelzebub

But the actual law says "A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer." [Consumer Rights Act 2015, s62(4)]

The Ombudsman also has the power to rule against the insurer if he regards a term as unfair, and does so.. For example, clauses requiring a car to be taxed or to have a valid MOT have been ruled to be unenforceable.

I think most insurers have most of this covered these days so that it's difficult to say anything is unfair that they include in their wording - having it nailed on from the start will save them money and time in the long run.

It's also why the MOT rule doesn't exist anymore, it was replaced with the line that says that you're vehicle must be maintained a roadworthy condition at all times (or similar depending on the insurer) - it actually works more in the insurer's favour as well to be fair in that instance as often you could have an accident that was caused by unroadworthiness but on the day the MOT was carried out the car was fine.

I would contend that there are very few decisions taken these days to say that insurers terms are unfair - there may be some discussion around the enforcement of those clauses, but the clauses in general will be fairly cut and dry these days.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by Nick

It's also why the MOT rule doesn't exist anymore, it was replaced with the line that says that you're vehicle must be maintained a roadworthy condition at all times (or similar depending on the insurer) - it actually works more in the insurer's favour as well to be fair in that instance as often you could have an accident that was caused by unroadworthiness but on the day the MOT was carried out the car was fine.
.

My policy (AA!) wants the car to be roadworthy AND have a valid MOT if required. I believe the Ombudsman has ruled in the past that the MOT clause is unenforceable.

In fact, the AA require me to keep the car in "an efficient and roadworthy condition". I'm at a loss to understand the relevance of "efficiency".

[NMNeil]

@Beelzebub When the daughter of the OP deliberately damaged the car, she committed the criminal offence of vandalism and there's a strong possibility the owner of the car won't be covered by his/her insurance, so may be looking for the full cost of the repairs.
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/k...ndalism-cover/
I don't know if the OP's insurance company would even look at any claim as both vehicles were stationary and neither collided with each other. The damage was not caused by the OP, the policy holder, but by her daughter who was not in the car at the time. That's important as obviously if the daughter had deliberately opened her door and hit the car that's different, but in this case the daughter was outside of the OP's car and kicked the other car door.
So at the time the daughter was not a passenger, but a pedestrian.
This is a deep legal rabbit hole and it may be worth asking a solicitor for advice.
https://www.12kbw.co.uk/wp-content/u...ns_SWQC-PM.pdf
And remember the #1 priority of all insurance companies "Avoid paying out on any claims if at all possible"

[Nick]

I'm not sure many people would see the damage caused in this instance as vandalism - yes the act was deliberate, however the damage to the other vehicle was not. I don't think there'd be much resistance to covering the damage as it arose out of the use of the insured vehicle.

[NMNeil]

@Nick From the RAC link I posted

What is car vandalism?

Car vandalism occurs when someone deliberately damages a vehicle. It’s a criminal offense and common examples of car vandalism include:

• Dented or scratched bodywork
• Broken window(s)
• Slashed tyres
• Broken door mirror(s)
• Graffiti
• Broken headlights
• Twisted or broken windscreen wipers

The claim for the damage is 2000 pounds inferring that it was major damage, it does then meet the element of criminal damage.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48

[olduser]

I think, the damage was done by kicking the OP's car door into the third party's car door, or have I misread it?

Is it vandalism?

One thing that all acts of vandalism have in common is intent to damage or harm.

In this case, the intent is likely to have been to exit Mum/Dad's car quickly to show discontent, or possibly to damage the parents car but kicking a car door open to damage an adjacent car is reasoning way beyond the average angry person. I am left with - there was no intent to damage the next car, it was accidental. Accidental damage is covered by third party insurance, and the third party may have a comprehensive policy which also covers accidental damage.
But I am not a lawyer.

The point that has not yet been developed is - In your contract, you have agreed to report any damage to, or done by you while you are in the car, even if you don't make a claim.
Also this is another, of many, examples of why it is not a good idea to try to settle outside insurance.

Depending on where this is in the country, £2,000 to replace a door skin, and spray to match could be a reasonable price.