My dog was knocked down

zl1whqvjs75cdy

So the guy should just suck it up? I don't agree with his reaction to the initial incident, he definitely should have been more sympathetic. But at the end of the day his car has been damaged through no fault of his own, why should he not seek appropriate costs? He sounds like a total cock bag mind.

gizmo555

logik wrote: »

I am sorry OP, but what? Not only is this guy demanding money that far outweighs the cost of even an entire new bumper for the car but he is threatening you???

Why have you not reported this to the Gardai?

What threat? He said if he didn't get satisfaction he'd involve the guards, and that's a reason to report him to the guards?

The OP should consider himself lucky it's only property damage that's involved and not an injury or death.

ZiabR

gizmo555 wrote: »

What threat? He said if he didn't get satisfaction he'd involve the guards, and that's a reason to report him to the guards?

The OP should consider himself lucky it's only property damage that's involved and not an injury or death.

Demanding money before Friday is a threat, whatever way you look at it. As it was an accident, you should report this to the Gardai anyway.

If what the OP is saying it true then your man wanted cash before Friday with NO intention of getting the car fixed.

Let the assessor do their job and give their view on the costs of repair. Have the insurance company pay the garage directly but DO NOT give him a cent.

gizmo555

logik wrote: »

If what the OP is saying it true then your man wanted cash before Friday with NO intention of getting the car fixed.

He's entitled to be paid the cost of repairing the damage. Whether he then gets the repair done or not is entirely up to him and his intentions are none of the OP's business.

MayoAreMagic

DBB wrote: »

Well hang on.
My post that you have quoted was in reply to a side issue regarding whether the kid should have been walking the dog, a post that had nothing to do with what the driver is entitled to... I'd thank you not to put words in my mouth by making out I have said something that I didn't, due to it being quoted by you out of context.
Sigh.
What I wrote regarding the driver's entitlements is in black and white so I'm not sure what the problem is.
I have made it clear, several times and from the outset, that I have no issue whatsoever with the car owner getting compensated for the damage to his car. Indeed I was one of the first posters to tell the op he is fully liable for the damages caused by his not-under-effectual-control dog.
What I took issue with, as have many other posters here, is the way the driver pulled a figure out of the air within moments of the accident happening.
He comes across as a chancer as a result.
End of.

It actually doesn't matter what you were replying to, the logic used should apply for both or for nobody, regardless of context. If you can list out what the child/parent is entitled to do within the law as a defence, then you cannot turn around and be critical of the driver for simply exercising what he is entitled to do within the law in the same breath. It is a double standard. You are calling the guy a chancer for following the same criteria you are defending the child/parent with. Maybe suggesting the money in the fashion he did could be viewed as a bit gruff, but then that is an opinion. Someone else could have an opinion that the child should have had a proper hold of the dogs leash, particularly with a car coming, that there is a serious possibility that he in fact didn't have a hold of it at all and we are only getting one side here - so maybe there is a bit of 'chancing' going on there too? But just like your opinion that the dirver is a chancer, the above is only opinion also. If there was no law as regards what age the child has to be to walk a dog, regardless of the details of how things occurred, then there in no law regarding the tone the driver has to take when looking for what he is entitled to.

Ashbx

Lemlin wrote: »

Also involving the insurance company does not mean that the OP's No Claims Bonus will be effected, most insurance companies will complete an investigation and then allow a Policy Holder the chance to settle privately with the third party if they wish to. They are willing to take the hit for investigation costs such as an assessor.
.

I had a bad situation where I was in a car accident. No-one was claiming anything from eachother. My car was worse off and we decided that we would settle it ourselves and not go through the insurance company. However some eejit who saw the crash took it upon themselves to call the guards. The guards notified my insurance company and lo and behold next renewal, my no claims bonus was gone despite not getting a CENT from my insurance company.

Took me months to convince them to give it back! Very cheeky of the insurance company but they claim it was a simple typo! So OP, unfortunately yes you are liable but if you do go through insurance, just make sure your policy does not change!

joe6pack

gizmo555 wrote: »

The OP should consider himself lucky it's only property damage that's involved and not an injury or death.

I think considering the dog was not injured in fact didn't even lose his footing when he was struck by the car that this could result in the driver's death is a bit far fetched and very unlikely.

MayoAreMagic

joe6pack wrote: »

I think considering the dog was not injured in fact didn't even lose his footing when he was struck by the car that this could result in the driver's death is a bit far fetched and very unlikely.

Yes that is true. Although it would also indicate that neither the dog or child would be too upset by this minor incident, and the whole 'being insensitive after an accident' angle has been quite overplayed...

gizmo555

joe6pack wrote: »

I think considering the dog was not injured in fact didn't even lose his footing when he was struck by the car that this could result in the driver's death is a bit far fetched and very unlikely.

I didn't say the driver, you did. What if your child had run after the dog and been knocked down? What if the driver had swerved to avoid your dog and hit someone else passing by? etc, etc, etc.

Like I say, you should consider yourself lucky that it's only property damage and you have insurance cover, so what's the problem? Let the driver and your insurers sort it out between themselves and move on.

joe6pack

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Yes that is true. Although it would also indicate that neither the dog or child would be too upset by this minor incident, and the whole 'being insensitive after an accident' angle has been quite overplayed...

Maybe
But you see children can tend to take a different view of situations like these than an adult would.

lazza14

What kind of low life scumbag asks you to pay damage after he hits your dog ?

Seriously, If that were me, his car would be getting burnt out soon enough ...

MayoAreMagic

joe6pack wrote: »

Maybe
But you see children can tend to take a different view of situations like these than an adult would.

A young child maybe. This fella is 12 or 13 isn't he?

Knine

Seriously burn out his car?

Everyone knows how much I love dogs but if my car was to be damaged in an impact with a dog I would expect to have the damage repaired.

The car driver pulling figures out of his head though was a joke. The independent assessor will sort it out. I have great sympathy for the child involved.

Mark Tapley

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

It actually doesn't matter what you were replying to, the logic used should apply for both or for nobody, regardless of context. If you can list out what the child/parent is entitled to do within the law as a defence, then you cannot turn around and be critical of the driver for simply exercising what he is entitled to do within the law in the same breath. It is a double standard. You are calling the guy a chancer for following the same criteria you are defending the child/parent with. Maybe suggesting the money in the fashion he did could be viewed as a bit gruff, but then that is an opinion. Someone else could have an opinion that the child should have had a proper hold of the dogs leash, particularly with a car coming, that there is a serious possibility that he in fact didn't have a hold of it at all and we are only getting one side here - so maybe there is a bit of 'chancing' going on there too? But just like your opinion that the dirver is a chancer, the above is only opinion also. If there was no law as regards what age the child has to be to walk a dog, regardless of the details of how things occurred, then there in no law regarding the tone the driver has to take when looking for what he is entitled to.

The driver is under no legal obligation to act like a decent human being but he should give it a go anyway.

Knine

lazza14 wrote: »

What kind of low life scumbag asks you to pay damage after he hits your dog ?

Seriously, If that were me, his car would be getting burnt out soon enough ...

The same kind of scumbag who threatens to burn out someones car.

H3llR4iser

OP, you should probably have asked the question in the legal advice forum; Here, it isn't surprising at all that you're getting many biased replies about the driver theoretically trying to "screw you".

From his point of view, he had an accident caused by your dog, and you are trying to wriggle out of paying - it's a situation that happens very often and sets a scenario, even when it's clear from your posts that you aren't actually trying to be dishonest.

As for the cost of the repairs, I haven't seen the car and don't know about the damage, but I wouldn't be surprised if the quoted estimate turns out to be realistic - the price of spares does not go down as a car ages; If it needs a new panel, a bumper and a few hours work, it'd easily be a repair worth above the 1000 mark.

The assessor should clear things up, anyway.

CarrickMcJoe

First, good your dog is all right. Kid will be shaken but hopefully will be ok.

€500 seems a bit much, you can buy a 2002 Mondeo for €800. Has your dog managed to write off the car. Unfortunately, you are liable for the cost though.

daireaire28

Sorry to here that!

You are liable for not having sufficient supervision over the dog. Dogs should always be under supervision and I'm sure you know this now.

It's a tricky situation for both angles as you know.

But by no means had the man the right to pull a random figure out of his head for damage.

If he gets in contact with you again and still has the same figure in mind, maybe think of getting the guards involved but only if you feel it is necessary!

I'm delighted that your dog is fine!

Lemlin

Ashbx wrote: »

I had a bad situation where I was in a car accident. No-one was claiming anything from eachother. My car was worse off and we decided that we would settle it ourselves and not go through the insurance company. However some eejit who saw the crash took it upon themselves to call the guards. The guards notified my insurance company and lo and behold next renewal, my no claims bonus was gone despite not getting a CENT from my insurance company.

Took me months to convince them to give it back! Very cheeky of the insurance company but they claim it was a simple typo! So OP, unfortunately yes you are liable but if you do go through insurance, just make sure your policy does not change!

I'd be going to the financial ombudsman about that case to be honest.

daireaire28 wrote: »

Sorry to here that!

You are liable for not having sufficient supervision over the dog. Dogs should always be under supervision and I'm sure you know this now.

It's a tricky situation for both angles as you know.

But by no means had the man the right to pull a random figure out of his head for damage.

If he gets in contact with you again and still has the same figure in mind, maybe think of getting the guards involved but only if you feel it is necessary!

I'm delighted that your dog is fine!

The OP has notified his insurance company and they are dealing with it. If the third party contacts him again, he should direct him to his legal representative, his insurer.

The Gardai wouldn't be too interested in this case tbh.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

OP, you should probably have asked the question in the legal advice forum; Here, it isn't surprising at all that you're getting many biased replies about the driver theoretically trying to "screw you".

From his point of view, he had an accident caused by your dog, and you are trying to wriggle out of paying - it's a situation that happens very often and sets a scenario, even when it's clear from your posts that you aren't actually trying to be dishonest.

As for the cost of the repairs, I haven't seen the car and don't know about the damage, but I wouldn't be surprised if the quoted estimate turns out to be realistic - the price of spares does not go down as a car ages; If it needs a new panel, a bumper and a few hours work, it'd easily be a repair worth above the 1000 mark.

The assessor should clear things up, anyway.

This post is totally correct IMO.

DBB

lazza14 wrote: »

What kind of low life scumbag asks you to pay damage after he hits your dog ?

Seriously, If that were me, his car would be getting burnt out soon enough ...

Mod note: Do not advocate violence to any living beings in this forum. It is explicitly against the forum charter.
Edited for clarity: that violence includes deliberate damage to a person's property too

DBB

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

It actually doesn't matter what you were replying to, the logic used should apply for both or for nobody, regardless of context.

Of course context matters. To criticise me for clarifying a point of law, and side issue, that is not connected to the driver's right to compensation, by saying they are one and the same, is ludicrous. I don't know how anyone could have any form of conversation or debate, going by your logic. It just comes across as starting a row for the sake of starting a row!

gimmick

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

So the guy should just suck it up? I don't agree with his reaction to the initial incident, he definitely should have been more sympathetic. But at the end of the day his car has been damaged through no fault of his own, why should he not seek appropriate costs? He sounds like a total cock bag mind.

No one is saying he should suck it up. At all. Not even the OP. However knocking on the door demanding €1500 before Friday is not only threatening, it is simply not possible for the vast majority of people in this country.

At a guess this guy won't be happy is going the insurance route as he wont get a few quid for his troubles.

gimmick

DBB wrote: »

Mod note: Do not advocate violence to any living beings in this forum. It is explicitly against the forum charter.

I know people see their cars as children, but not everyone :pac:

DBB

gimmick wrote: »

I know people see their cars as children, but not everyone :pac:

Lol, point taken, but you know what I meant!

MayoAreMagic

Any update on this? What did the assessor have to say?

joe6pack

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Any update on this? What did the assessor have to say?

Have handed it over to my house insurance and haven't heard anything back from them yet.
But I have asked to be informed of any decision they come to.

Also just FYI I was told that this claim WILL effect my no claims bonus and subsequent policy premiums.

Lemlin

joe6pack wrote: »

Have handed it over to my house insurance and haven't heard anything back from them yet.
But I have asked to be informed of any decision they come to.

Also just FYI I was told that this claim WILL effect my no claims bonus and subsequent policy premiums.

Any claim would effect your No Claims Bonus and premium.

Rips

My friend knocked over a child on a bike. The kid had earphones in and cycled straight out in front of her on a 100kmph road. There were witnesses and the police were called.

Luckily she was driving slowly and the child is relatively unhurt, she ought to have been killed.

My friend is distraught about the incidence, if she had swerved instead of breaking she could have killed herself and her toddler. Not only that, but she was not far away from her house, imagine the implications for her, emotionally and everything else, if the injuries were serious.

She is still seeking damages from the parents, her car is brand new and the bike did a lot of damage besides, it might get them to cop on and teach their child a bit of road sense.

Be glad your dog didn't pull your son across the road, I'd say.

I hope the dog is ok.