A 3rd Car in a week is Dumped in a West Midlands Canal

[BilgePump]

I'm a little flabbergasted at the quoted £10k per recovery. When our sailing club crane in/out we get a big crane with the capacity at long reach to lift boats far heavier than a car. It and a couple of guys are with us from about 7am to 3pm and we pay north of a grand. Members do the ropework and ground prep etc but does the extra manpower, risk assessments, pickup truck, storage etc really all add up to the nearly nine thousand extra. I can imagine recovery being more complex in remote locations but the one shown in Alan's original post looks relatively good access.

[Tracy D'arth]

6 minutes ago, BilgePump said:

I'm a little flabbergasted at the quoted £10k per recovery. When our sailing club crane in/out we get a big crane with the capacity at long reach to lift boats far heavier than a car. It and a couple of guys are with us from about 7am to 3pm and we pay north of a grand. Members do the ropework and ground prep etc but does the extra manpower, risk assessments, pickup truck, storage etc really all add up to the nearly nine thousand extra. I can imagine recovery being more complex in remote locations but the one shown in Alan's original post looks relatively good access.

Does seem wildly excessive but then that's regulations for you. I used to pull them out with a land rover and winch/Harvey Frost jib.

[Victor Vectis]

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

But if’d you’d have walked up the hill you’d have found a very good locals pub, the Vine/Bull & Bladder.

 

I was going to say that too.

[Tacet]

3 hours ago, BEngo said:

What are they thinking?  The cars are insured, or should be, so  CRT should be claiming their  removal (and storage) costs off the registered keeper, who will pass the claim to his insurer.

 

If vehicle not insured pass claim to the motor insurers bureau.  They have a fund for uninsured losses.

Is not the owner (or anyone else, come to that) only liable if it has been negligent?  If you're car has been stolen though no fault of your own, where does a claim lie for any damage caused by the thief?  Keeping your car in CRTs lock for an unwarranted length of time is probably a fault in itself, but not any damage to the structure in the act of dumping it.

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Tacet said:

Is not the owner (or anyone else, come to that) only liable if it has been negligent?  If you're car has been stolen though no fault of your own, where does a claim lie for any damage caused by the thief?  Keeping your car in CRTs lock for an unwarranted length of time is probably a fault in itself, but not any damage to the structure in the act of dumping it.

It's not to do with fault, it's to do with liability -- that's what "third party" insurance covers. Doesn't matter if you were in the car at the time or not, if the car caused the damage it's the insurers -- not the owner -- who are liable, and this includes consequential damages.

 

Unless somebody knows better... 😉

Edited November 21, 2022 by IanD

[springy]

Third car was in the GU , Olton according to the Birmingham Mail, - West Midlands but not Black Country.

 

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/car-dumped-solihull-canal-days-25536421

 

springy 

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

It's not to do with fault, it's to do with liability -- that's what "third party" insurance covers. Doesn't matter if you were in the car at the time or not, if the car caused the damage it's the insurers -- not the owner -- who are liable, and this includes consequential damages.

 

Unless somebody knows better... 😉

 

But the car didn't spontaneously jump into the cut. Someone put it there and that person is liable, not the car or the car owner, I'd have thought.

 

Never take legal advice from a plumber. 

 

 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

But the car didn't spontaneously jump into the cut. Someone put it there and that person is liable, not the car or the car owner, I'd have thought.

 

Never take legal advice from a plumber. 

 

 

The thief might well be liable, but IIRC the way the system works is that the insurers have to pay out first -- because they insured the car -- and then try and recover costs from the thief.

 

If they were caught (unlikely), and if they have loads of money (even less likely)...

Edited November 21, 2022 by IanD

[MtB]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

The thief might well be liable, but IIRC the way the system works is that the insurers have to pay out first -- because they insured the car -- and then try and recover costs from the thief.

 

If they were caught (unlikely), and if they have loads of money (even less likely)...

 

I remain to be convinced. I think the thief was driving uninsured, so the MIB would pick up the tab regardless. 

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I remain to be convinced. I think the thief was driving uninsured, so the MIB would pick up the tab regardless. 

...which is paid for by the insurers, isn't it?

 

Either way you're not liable, and the chances of recovering the costs from the thief are next to zero -- but CART shouldn't have to bear the cost, which was the point.

Edited November 21, 2022 by IanD

[Tracy D'arth]

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I remain to be convinced. I think the thief was driving uninsured, so the MIB would pick up the tab regardless. 

No, all the stolen vehicles I recovered from all sorts of places were the liability of the insurer to recover. In the event of no insurer either the Motor Insurance Claims Bureau or the police paid for the recovery as a consequence of an illegal act, i.e. theft.

[MtB]

40 minutes ago, IanD said:

...which is paid for by the insurers, isn't it?

 

Either way you're not liable, and the chances of recovering the costs from the thief are next to zero -- but CART shouldn't have to bear the cost, which was the point.

 

Which is what I'm saying. Perhaps  misunderstood but it seemed to me people were saying the specific firm insuring the vehicle paid out, possibly even affecting the NCB of the owner, which I don't think is the case. I think the MIB pays out which is a fund all car insurers fund collectively, and the individual insurer of that specific vehicle would hear nothing about it. The MIB even pays out when the vehicle concerned is not insured at all, or so I believe.

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Which is what I'm saying. Perhaps  misunderstood but it seemed to me people were saying the specific firm insuring the vehicle paid out, possibly even affecting the NCB of the owner, which I don't think is the case. I think the MIB pays out which is a fund all car insurers fund collectively, and the individual insurer of that specific vehicle would hear nothing about it. The MIB even pays out when the vehicle concerned is not insured at all, or so I believe.

That doesn't agree with what I said and Tracy confirmed; if the car is insured the insurer pays out regardless of whether it was stolen or not, if it's not insured the MIB pays out. I expect all the cars found recently in the canals were insured since they were stolen not driven by an uninsured owner... 😉

[BrumSaint]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

The back door is still there - it is just 'open'

 

This fake Specsavers advert is not funny it is racist and should be removed.

[Cheshire cat]

I'll post this again cos I've already put it on the other thread. 

 

I had two cars stolen the same night. The thieves forced a window to steal the keys from my house. The milkman veyy kindly woke us up to tell us he'd seen them being driven away.

 

One of the cars was spotted by the police ten days later and they gave chase. Ultimately the driver crashed it into a wall and then legged it. I had to provide my insurance details and a claim was made by the owner of the wall against my insurance. I queried it at the time with the pc at the station and he said that is how things work.  In the grand scheme of things it didn't matter too much because the car needed £5K worth of repairs and I had the pleasure of driving around in a Nissan Almera for three months. 

 

As an aside, the second car was discovered parked up within 24 hours. Apart from a kerbed alloy it wasn't damaged so it was recovered to a secure compound. My plan was to collect it and forget it had been nicked but the owner of the compound warned me that the thief still had a key so if they came back and stole it again the insurance company would refuse to pay out. I took his advice and had the locks changed at which point that car also became an insurance job.   

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Tracy D'arth said:

No, all the stolen vehicles I recovered from all sorts of places were the liability of the insurer to recover. In the event of no insurer either the Motor Insurance Claims Bureau or the police paid for the recovery as a consequence of an illegal act, i.e. theft.

But remember that a claimant (whether or not the insured) has a duty to mitigate the claim. In the case of a car dumped in a lock then CaRT are acting accordingly if they arrange to remove the vehicle (having checked if anyone else will do it quickly) as there is a value attached to removing someone's right to navigate. By the same token, if a boat sinks  in a situation that does not seriously impede navigation then they leave it where it is until reasonable options have been explored and they consider its condition to be a hazard itself.

[Ray T]

4 hours ago, Goliath said:

Nothing funny about that bit of canal, it’s the bottom of Delph locks.

A decent place to moor overnight. 
Black Delph Bridge, I think it’s called. 

 

Moored there overnight many moons ago.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I’ve started 2 BCN challenges from there. 
On both mornings of the challenge we reversed down the first lock, and waited for the 8am start. 
Vulpes was there with me one year. 
Room for two boats in there. 
 

There were some youths close by fishing into the night and keeping a small fire going. They were interested in the boats and had a chat with us. And were very considerate with the noise they made later at night. 👍

[MtB]

11 minutes ago, Ray T said:

Moored there overnight many moons ago.

 

 

Oh no!

 

I never had you down as a centreline moorer, Ray!

\

 

[Ray T]

19 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Oh no!

 

I never had you down as a centreline moorer, Ray!

\

 

I was waiting for this. 😃

 

Usually don't but wasn't sure of the area so added one more obstacle to anyone who may have wished to untie the boat "as a "lark."

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, Ray T said:

I was waiting for this. 😃

 

Usually don't but wasn't sure of the area so added one more obstacle to anyone who may have wished to untie the boat "as a "lark."

 

Phew....

 

 

[Tacet]

5 hours ago, IanD said:

It's not to do with fault, it's to do with liability -- that's what "third party" insurance covers. Doesn't matter if you were in the car at the time or not, if the car caused the damage it's the insurers -- not the owner -- who are liable, and this includes consequential damages.

 

Unless somebody knows better... 😉

Hmmm. If you are not at fault, you are not usually liable.  And the insurers are not generally directly liable, but only indemnify you in contract.  If the insurer was liable itself for all damage caused by the car without reference to the insured actions, it would not be possible to resist a claim arising from an oncoming car on the wrong side of by the road etc

 

Probably not a very good analogy, but if someone breaks in and steals my kitchen knives, I would feel rather put out if I was held responsible for a murder or two committed by the thief using my knives.

[David Mack]

From the Olton article linked by Springy:

"The Canal and River Trust confirmed that they will try and recover costs from the driver's insurance company."

[ditchcrawler]

It wouldn't be much of a story if they said people keep dumping cars in our canals but luckily it doesn't cost us anything to remove them.

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Tacet said:

Hmmm. If you are not at fault, you are not usually liable.  And the insurers are not generally directly liable, but only indemnify you in contract.  If the insurer was liable itself for all damage caused by the car without reference to the insured actions, it would not be possible to resist a claim arising from an oncoming car on the wrong side of by the road etc

 

Probably not a very good analogy, but if someone breaks in and steals my kitchen knives, I would feel rather put out if I was held responsible for a murder or two committed by the thief using my knives.

 

This pretty much summarises my understanding of the situation too. 

 

There may be an industry-wide protocol for an individual insurance company to pay out when a car they insure causes a loss after being stolen but if there is, I'd say this is a voluntary co-operation rather than a legal obligation. I think the telling point would be whether a vehicle insurance company paying out to compensate CRT for lifting it out of a lock counts as policy-holder claim and affects their NCD. 

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by MtB
Remove a stray word.