Sentry mode - Thank you! Merc hit the car & drove off

[ItsBlacknWhite]

Sat in coffee shop this morning, just sat down and started listening to a podcast, through my airpods a notification that Sentry mode triggered alarm state, car alarm triggered. Look up to see Merc passing my car and making a quick exit from the car park. I’ve seen it there before charging, I was parked next to the charging space. They’ve attempted to swing into the space and caught my rear side bumper and wheel arch. Then reversed a little and driven through the space and out the car park. Sentry mode caught it all. Reported to the police for not stopping at a road incident and reported to the insurance. Stuff happens and it’s a pain, it’s just the not stopping that bugs me. No one hurt of course and it’s repairable damage. Grateful for Sentry mode!

 

[Overworked]

With it on camera it certainly is BlacknWhite!!

 

[Durzel]

This sort of stuff really winds me up.

Accidents happen, they're annoying but it's just that - an accident.

Driving off after you've had one is a deliberate act to evade responsibility. That's a considered and deliberate choice that these people have made, which can't be passed off as an innocent mistake.

Hopefully the Police are pretty proactive with this. If it comes to it you'll have to get in touch with the DVLA to request the third party's insurance details.

 

[crouchy]

Not quite so black and white when it comes to the insurance companies. We had ours hit in a supermarket car park, reg is on full display. The third parties insurance company said they would not accept liability until they heard from their driver, which of course he just doesn't respond. 6 months later, they are now taking the driver and his insurance company to court to recover the costs. Police were pretty useless for me, they just said he is insured, have the insurance companies sort it.....

 

[ItsBlacknWhite]

Well your experience doesn’t fill me with confidence. i emailed the video to the police, they responded “We will view this, however it is correct that you are dealing with this through your insurance company.” I have a niggling feeling I won’t hear anymore from them. Talking to my insurance company this morning, they at least found the other parties insurance details from the reg I provided. Have uploaded all the video to their portal. Bodyshop and hire car company all in touch within an hour. Body shop will submit a quote to my insurance so waiting for that to be approved, then the wait to hear if parts are available or back order etc.

 

[Cardo]

Well your experience doesn’t fill me with confidence. i emailed the video to the police, they responded “We will view this, however it is correct that you are dealing with this through your insurance company.” I have a niggling feeling I won’t hear anymore from them. Talking to my insurance company this morning, they at least found the other parties insurance details from the reg I provided. Have uploaded all the video to their portal. Bodyshop and hire car company all in touch within an hour. Body shop will submit a quote to my insurance so waiting for that to be approved, then the wait to hear if parts are available or back order etc.

As per crouchy’s reply, the police won’t do anything about it. Police don’t get involved in minor RTCs unless there is some truly outrageous driving. Yes, failing to stop is an offence, but it’s very rarely enforced for this kind of thing. It’s left to insurance companies to sort out. At least as it’s all covered on video you can get your car sorted and your insurance company will recoup the costs from the other party.

 

[GRiLLA]

I'll add my warning to all not-at-fault accidents, watch out for your insurance passing you on to claims managment companies and rental companies. A bigger bunch of crooks you'll never find. They will stretch out any repair process as long as possible if they can provide you with a rental, which is charged to the other drivers insurance at a rediculous price, tied in with a loan that you've taken out to pay for it all. Be very cagey with what you sign, especially at the rental shop. Eventually you may need to justify in court why you needed a car at that price and why you needed a credit agreement to pay for it.

If you can find it, my feeling is your best bet for getting a repair done quickly is to contact the at-fault party's insurance directly, or their appointed claims company, they may try to contact you. They will at least be motivated to keep the cost down by getting things moving.

 

[zoomer0056]

What's a Merc?

 

[GRiLLA]

What's a Merc?

This is the UK forum, common shortening of Mercedes-Benz, a manufacturer of military vehicles for the Nazis.

 

[Durzel]

I'll add my warning to all not-at-fault accidents, watch out for your insurance passing you on to claims managment companies and rental companies. A bigger bunch of crooks you'll never find. They will stretch out any repair process as long as possible if they can provide you with a rental, which is charged to the other drivers insurance at a rediculous price, tied in with a loan that you've taken out to pay for it all. Be very cagey with what you sign, especially at the rental shop. Eventually you may need to justify in court why you needed a car at that price and why you needed a credit agreement to pay for it.

If you can find it, my feeling is your best bet for getting a repair done quickly is to contact the at-fault party's insurance directly, or their appointed claims company, they may try to contact you. They will at least be motivated to keep the cost down by getting things moving.

Sounds like it might be too late for that as he’s already engaged his insurer, but I agree that generally speaking for something like this I’d go straight to the TP insurer as they will (usually) be highly motivated to control costs themselves.

 

[Doudeau]

Sounds like it might be too late for that as he’s already engaged his insurer, but I agree that generally speaking for something like this I’d go straight to the TP insurer as they will (usually) be highly motivated to control costs themselves.

I agree this is the best approach and that they want to control costs by avoiding too many 3rd parties getting involved. You can also leverage this to ensure they look after you.

I had a hit and run on my car in a gym car park a few years back and the police couldn’t have been less interested. It took a few weeks of stalking to find the other driver (she foolishly went back to the gym at the same time of day) to be able to claim against her.

I insisted her insurance company needed to provide me with a decent loan car for the hassle she’d put me thru or I’d go thru my insurance company for a loan car and they, without hesitation, provided a new Audi R8 while my significantly less valuable 911 was in a bodyshop. I do miss cars that make those noises .

 

[Billbrown1982]

I've been lucky (touch wood) and never had to deal with anything like this but how would you go about contacting the 3rd party insurance in a hit and run event? You'd have to contact your own insurance to get their details and by then its too late as they are involved right?

 

[Durzel]

Not had to do it myself, but reliably informed you can contact askMID to get this info:

askMID

www.askmid.com

Your insurer would have direct access to this database, so would get the same info. As said though once your insurer is involved they will act on your behalf and at that point you’ve lost control of the process, I think.

 

[Wattsisname]

What's a Merc?

You say Benz we say Merc. "Tomay toes"', "tomar toes". Let's call the whole thing off and agree on a " Tezla" or maybe a "Tessla"...

 

[GRiLLA]

Not had to do it myself, but reliably informed you can contact askMID to get this info:

askMID

www.askmid.com

Your insurer would have direct access to this database, so would get the same info. As said though once your insurer is involved they will act on your behalf and at that point you’ve lost control of the process, I think.

Personal experience I was able to tell my insurer to stand down once I was contacted by the other party with no issue. Nothing had actually started.

You can also appoint your own claims manager, Novo do this and I've only heard good things about them in this role.

I've not tried but I believe that you can also insist that you stay with your insurance rather than being passed to a claims firm, they will claim that you'll then have more difficulty reclaiming your excess from the other party, I don't know how true that is.

 

[GlynG]

As per crouchy’s reply, the police won’t do anything about it. Police don’t get involved in minor RTCs unless there is some truly outrageous driving. Yes, failing to stop is an offence, but it’s very rarely enforced for this kind of thing. It’s left to insurance companies to sort out. At least as it’s all covered on video you can get your car sorted and your insurance company will recoup the costs from the other party.

Your right, The police try not to get involved in anything to do with crime and are very selective in what they do react to, I believe "low hanging fruit" is the phrase I'm looking for - which is normally having a good car chase of a scrote in a nicked car or a kid on an e-scooter.

The damage in a car park was an accident - and not anything the police would get involved in, but, driving off after causing damage to a third party property is an offence and its not the job of the police to decide which offences they want to deal with and what offences are below them - they took an oath to uphold the law and protect the public - however somehow they have confused the word "protect" with persecute"

People driving off after a minor collision if they think they can get away with it simply reflects the degree of dishonesty within people - and the majority of people would do it, but its in line with societies values because kids are brought up in an era whereby whatever happens its someone else's fault - we live in times whereby there is always an "expert" or "professional" that will defend or mitigate actions to minimise the responsibility of the individual.
However, the police shouldn't be able to simply "bosh it off" as a minor road accident after a hit and run - the resulting value of the damage should not be the deciding factor.
If there are laws that are graded as "not for enforcement" then they should be removed from statute so its clear to everyone, however, the reason they still exist is so when the police actually catch a perpetrator for something quite tasty, something they want to get involved in, they can also include a list of other offences to prosecute - and make their "books" look good - or as i say - low hanging fruit.

The law is there to persuade people to behave in accordance with societies values, fail to comply and there is a consequence, just where is the consequence when the people employed to uphold and enforce the law choose which bits to enforce or get involved in and don't take any action to deter those that hit and run.

In this case the Merc driver damaged another's property, drove off, and only because of video evidence will the drivers insurance be required to cover the costs, what action has been taken against the driver as a punishment for the offence of driving away? - absolutely nothing - so where is the deterrent? - and if there is no deterrent then the driver will not address that inherent dishonesty in the future, it also encourages others that to drive off is OK - which leads to proliferation of that offence because no one takes it seriously. Perhaps if there were a £1000 fine plus 20% of the value of the damage caused for driving off after causing an accident - as an absolute offence, it would address those behaviours.

 

[init6]

You would think video evidence of damage is 'low hanging fruit' Maybe not low enough for some.

 

[Durzel]

Your right, The police try not to get involved in anything to do with crime and are very selective in what they do react to, I believe "low hanging fruit" is the phrase I'm looking for - which is normally having a good car chase of a scrote in a nicked car or a kid on an e-scooter.

The damage in a car park was an accident - and not anything the police would get involved in, but, driving off after causing damage to a third party property is an offence and its not the job of the police to decide which offences they want to deal with and what offences are below them - they took an oath to uphold the law and protect the public - however somehow they have confused the word "protect" with persecute"

People driving off after a minor collision if they think they can get away with it simply reflects the degree of dishonesty within people - and the majority of people would do it, but its in line with societies values because kids are brought up in an era whereby whatever happens its someone else's fault - we live in times whereby there is always an "expert" or "professional" that will defend or mitigate actions to minimise the responsibility of the individual.
However, the police shouldn't be able to simply "bosh it off" as a minor road accident after a hit and run - the resulting value of the damage should not be the deciding factor.
If there are laws that are graded as "not for enforcement" then they should be removed from statute so its clear to everyone, however, the reason they still exist is so when the police actually catch a perpetrator for something quite tasty, something they want to get involved in, they can also include a list of other offences to prosecute - and make their "books" look good - or as i say - low hanging fruit.

The law is there to persuade people to behave in accordance with societies values, fail to comply and there is a consequence, just where is the consequence when the people employed to uphold and enforce the law choose which bits to enforce or get involved in and don't take any action to deter those that hit and run.

In this case the Merc driver damaged another's property, drove off, and only because of video evidence will the drivers insurance be required to cover the costs, what action has been taken against the driver as a punishment for the offence of driving away? - absolutely nothing - so where is the deterrent? - and if there is no deterrent then the driver will not address that inherent dishonesty in the future, it also encourages others that to drive off is OK - which leads to proliferation of that offence because no one takes it seriously. Perhaps if there were a £1000 fine plus 20% of the value of the damage caused for driving off after causing an accident - as an absolute offence, it would address those behaviours.

You're essentially right - there's no downside to driving off after an accident. Technically you could get done for failure to stop/failure to report, but as you say with Police numbers what they are they are more likely just going to disregard it as long as both parties are insured. In this day and age threatening prosecution for these offences is essentially a hollow threat, and people by and large probably realise that.

The practical worst case scenario therefore if you drive off from an accident is that you've been recorded on camera, or seen by a witness, but after that things play out basically as normal. That person's insurance isn't tainted any more than any regular claim would - there's no onward penalty for lying, no points/fine for their behaviour, etc. If you haven't been recorded/witnessed then you basically get off scott free.

I don't know how this could be resolved really, not so long as insurance ultimately deals with these matters. It really sucks because I strongly feel there should be some punitive penalty in such cases where it is unambiguous that an insured party has driven off knowing they have had an accident. This means that it would be up to insurers to levy some kind of premium hike above and beyond what someone would get from just having a claim, and since it's a highly competitive market it would need to be an industry wide standardised penalty, otherwise someone who gets penalised by their insurer would just jump ship to someone else who doesn't.

The answer to a lot of what you've said is more Police - a lot more. The downside - if you want to call it that - is that more Police on the road would mean people would get done far more often for things that a lot of us do casually (e.g. minor speeding - enough to get prosecuted, but not egregious). Like your driving off example, people speed because statistically the chances of them getting caught outside of static/mobile cameras is minimal, due to Policing numbers.

 

[Cardo]

Your right, The police try not to get involved in anything to do with crime and are very selective in what they do react to, I believe "low hanging fruit" is the phrase I'm looking for - which is normally having a good car chase of a scrote in a nicked car or a kid on an e-scooter.

The damage in a car park was an accident - and not anything the police would get involved in, but, driving off after causing damage to a third party property is an offence and its not the job of the police to decide which offences they want to deal with and what offences are below them - they took an oath to uphold the law and protect the public - however somehow they have confused the word "protect" with persecute"

People driving off after a minor collision if they think they can get away with it simply reflects the degree of dishonesty within people - and the majority of people would do it, but its in line with societies values because kids are brought up in an era whereby whatever happens its someone else's fault - we live in times whereby there is always an "expert" or "professional" that will defend or mitigate actions to minimise the responsibility of the individual.
However, the police shouldn't be able to simply "bosh it off" as a minor road accident after a hit and run - the resulting value of the damage should not be the deciding factor.
If there are laws that are graded as "not for enforcement" then they should be removed from statute so its clear to everyone, however, the reason they still exist is so when the police actually catch a perpetrator for something quite tasty, something they want to get involved in, they can also include a list of other offences to prosecute - and make their "books" look good - or as i say - low hanging fruit.

The law is there to persuade people to behave in accordance with societies values, fail to comply and there is a consequence, just where is the consequence when the people employed to uphold and enforce the law choose which bits to enforce or get involved in and don't take any action to deter those that hit and run.

In this case the Merc driver damaged another's property, drove off, and only because of video evidence will the drivers insurance be required to cover the costs, what action has been taken against the driver as a punishment for the offence of driving away? - absolutely nothing - so where is the deterrent? - and if there is no deterrent then the driver will not address that inherent dishonesty in the future, it also encourages others that to drive off is OK - which leads to proliferation of that offence because no one takes it seriously. Perhaps if there were a £1000 fine plus 20% of the value of the damage caused for driving off after causing an accident - as an absolute offence, it would address those behaviours.

As someone who spent a not inconsiderable number of years in the service, I can tell you it’s just not that simple. There are an utterly ridiculous number of offences on the books, and this increases every year as every successive government comes out with yet more and more laws. It is simply impossible to prosecute every single offence, even if the evidence is available. Fortunately, the police have discretion and aren’t forced to prosecute every single wrongdoing, despite your beliefs. It would be impossible.

In the case of RTCs, insurance companies are already there to deal with the aftermath, so it’s not like nothing happens. Yes, it would be better if those who FTS were penalised more often, but unfortunately there simply aren’t the resources to deal with that. I appreciate it’s a lazy trope, but would you prefer the police were dealing with someone who failed to stop after a fender bender or going to the aid of a battered partner?

I do agree we have ended up in a situation where people have no fear of consequences for their actions. However, this is not down to the police. Successive governments have tied both hands of the police and courts behind their backs so the consequences of wrongdoings, if they can even be convicted, are so inconsequential that those who know the system have absolutely no fear of the outcome of being caught.

Though, the real kicker is these days the police are so busy policing themselves that there’s no time to deal with the public. That’s the real crime.

 

[Nick77]

I used Novo after a young girl hit my parked car. Can't recommend them enough. They deal with all the insurance companies and the repairer.

Yes their loan rentals are probably expensive compared to standard insurance companies firms, but you get like for like (in my case a Model 3). My insurance company wanted to fob me off with a shitty 1.0l hatchback.

They didn't delay things either. As soon as the part came in from Tesla they were waiting for, the repairer had it back outside my house within 48 hours.