When news happens, text AND and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Unfair insurance bizarre
12:29pm Thursday 22nd August 2013 in Letters
IN the wee small hours this morning some Numpty high on booze (and, according to the Police, possibly something more) did serious unprovoked damage tomymotor vehicle while it was innocently parked in an officially designated parking area alongside the block of flats where I live in Andover.
Of course he was male, and white.
Being of “a certain age” I was up and about my private business when a noise outside attracted me to the window at 4.30ish, and I actually witnessed the unfolding scene.
The police were called and caught the guy, while I got dressed and went outside to witness an amazing demonstration of kindness (honest) and tolerance as Hampshire’s finest restrainedaverylarge and powerful man and, eventually, packed him away in a paddy wagon havingdecided that, despite his selfinflicted injuries, it would be inadvisable to load him into the (by then) attendant ambulance.
Another demonstration of our public servants doing their best was the decision by the paramedics, noticing the Numpty was stripped to the waist in these predawn hours, to raid their ambulance for a blanket to protect him from the chill.
Another Saturday night, another “episode”. And so what?
Well, apart from the extraordinary tolerance and almost gentleness of our emergency services, nothing much.
And they followed through with spectacular efficiency.
The police called on me at 9.30am to take my statement, the forensics Johnnies were here by 11am to collect their evidence (mainly blood samples, I gather) and the victimsupport teamwill, I am told, swing into action next week.
But there is a downside.
In reporting the episode to my insurers I was told that because the damage was caused by an individual, then the normal rules would not apply.
They could not apportion fault in negotiation with another company, so I would be responsible for the excess on my policy, which happens to be £200.
However, I could of course take the Numpty to court and claim from him both the cost of repairs and the insurance excess.
The insurers would happily recommend the lawyers, and maybe (but not necessarily) pay for them. But that misses the point.
The chances are that the man is indigent and penniless and I will never get financial satisfaction through the courts. But that, it seems, is irrelevant.
This is not your problem, I acknowledge, but it strikes me as bizarre and unfair and maybe, just, worthy of a public comment from you. Why penalise me for a nonmotoring accident? That is akin to a home insurance company saying that losses incurred by burglary are covered, but not losses due to arson.
Am I right, or just overexcited?
Ian Mackley, Weyhill Road, Andover