Jump to content

Claiming from hire company for damage


pearley

Featured Posts

Who said they could?

 

 

 

You mean the Hirer surely

 

 

 

Well that's different than you posted earlier in the thread LOL, you're getting there though!

 

Stating the obvious LOL

 

 

 

I don't need to be, as the hire company is liable being the the owner of the boat and hopefully the insured.

. This is great even though I,m a bit new and know nothing in comparison to you and Martin the forum gods ,every time i look on here your still trying to drive every one into submission with your constant rambling thinking you have some massive point to prove but in reality you are just looking like a bigger and bigger ass the whole time and quite a rude ass at that. I,ll just get my popcorn and be back in 10. Edited by craftycarper
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's an even more simple and basic point that Julynian seems unable to grasp.

 

If the person steering the boat (or driving the car) is not liable, why would they want/need/be forced to have insurance in the first place?

 

 

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. This is great even though I,m a bit new and know nothing in comparison to you and Martin the forum gods ,every time i look on here your still trying to drive every one into submission with your constant rambling thinking you have some massive point to prove

Would you kindly leave me out of your snide comments, you may have noticed I had withdrawn from this debate until you mentioned me.

 

I happen to think now reading all the thread that Julyian is mistaken but I fully understand what he his saying and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Responsibility and liability are 2 different things. If I have an accident in my car through wreckless driving, I could be prosecuted, however my insurers will be the people paying out to any third party, as I have paid for a policy agreement for them to cover my Liability in such an event.

Surely if your insurance company refuse to pay out because deep in the small print they have a get out you will be required to pay.

 

So you are ultimately liable the insurance company is just your way of offsetting the financial implications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's an even more simple and basic point that Julynian seems unable to grasp.

 

If the person steering the boat (or driving the car) is not liable, why would they want/need/be forced to have insurance in the first place?

 

 

 

MtB

 

They are liable to the hire boat company, not the 3rd party claimant. Read the terms & cons.

. This is great even though I,m a bit new and know nothing in comparison to you and Martin the forum gods ,every time i look on here your still trying to drive every one into submission with your constant rambling thinking you have some massive point to prove but in reality you are just looking like a bigger and bigger ass the whole time and quite a rude ass at that. I,ll just get my popcorn and be back in 10.

 

I really don't give a toss what you believe. As I said to another member, good luck claiming from a hirer if you get hit by a hire boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They are liable to the hire boat company, not the 3rd party claimant. Read the terms & cons.

 

I don't need to. You can't change fundamental legal liability principles with terms and conditions in a contract.

 

MtB

P.S. Is it my turn yet to be insulted and called names for not agreeing with you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't need to. You can't change fundamental legal liability principles with terms and conditions in a contract.

 

MtBP.S. Is it my turn yet to be insulted and called names for not agreeing with you?

. How about if you spend your whole weekend being rude to people and making yourself look a complete tool does that not eventually shift legal liability ? Edited by craftycarper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's an even more simple and basic point that Julynian seems unable to grasp.

 

If the person steering the boat (or driving the car) is not liable, why would they want/need/be forced to have insurance in the first place?

 

 

 

MtB

 

Their not forced to have insurance, their required either to pay the required insurance excess the hire boat company requires or a waver to cover the same. The hirer is not insuring the boat, the hire company is, the hirers contract with the hire company is to cover the company's excess.

 

Insurance diverts liability from the driver to the insurance company except for any excess requirement. Quite simple really LOL

 

I don't need to. You can't change fundamental legal liability principles with terms and conditions in a contract.

 

MtB

P.S. Is it my turn yet to be insulted and called names for not agreeing with you?

 

And if you look at the hire company's contract you'll see the company requires indemnity from the hirer against any claim from a third party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Julynian, why do you not understand this? (see below)

 

 

How can the hire company possibly be liable for something over which it has no control? If the hirer has purchased some sort of indemnity from them, how could you, as the third party, possibly know about it? Your claim is against the person steering the boat that hit you. In practice any compensation you get may come from somewhere else, but that isn't the point.

 

The same argument applies to motor insurance. If that were not so, all those claims management companies who sue for uninsured losses would very quickly go out of business.

 

How can the hire company possibly be liable for something over which it has no control?

 

 

Because they undertake to do so by being required to have insurance. The hire company has an agreement with the hirer, as you can see in the terms and conditions allowing the the right for the hire company to claim back from the hirer any claims they may receive from a 3rd party. Again the hirer liability is to the company and why the hire companies require a deposit from them.

 

If the hirer has purchased some sort of indemnity from them, how could you, as the third party, possibly know about it?

 

 

I neither know or care, my claim is against the hire company not the hirer.

 

Your claim is against the person steering the boat that hit you. In practice any compensation you get may come from somewhere else, but that isn't the point.

 

 

No it isn't The hirer of the boat has either paid a deposit or waver for deposit, the hirers agreement is with the hire company, the company either have the deposit or accepted a waver fee to cover the deposit. The hirer has passed on his liability in doing so in exactly the same way as you do with your car insurance.

 

The same argument applies to motor insurance. If that were not so, all those claims management companies who sue for uninsured losses would very quickly go out of business.

 

 

Blimey the claims are made against the owner of the vehicle, his liability is taken on by the insurance company except for any excess he/she agreed to pay.

. How about if you spend your whole weekend being rude to people and making yourself look a complete tool does that not eventually shift legal liability ?

 

Clearly you are completely clueless LOL As usual it seems laugh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a couple of very significant points before my bed time A ....if your last to post does,nt mean your right and B ....putting lol on the end of a sentence does,nt make it funny instead of rude . If anyone requires evidence to verify these two points please just read the last 10 pages

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't need to. You can't change fundamental legal liability principles with terms and conditions in a contract.

 

MtB

P.S. Is it my turn yet to be insulted and called names for not agreeing with you?

 

Clearly you do Muppet LOL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only joking t&c smile.png

Just a couple of very significant points before my bed time A ....if your last to post does,nt mean your right and B ....putting lol on the end of a sentence does,nt make it funny instead of rude . If anyone requires evidence to verify these two points please just read the last 10 pages

 

I'm laughing LOL

 

Nite!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

have come to the conclusion that Julyninny is a complete and utter dickhead and thank goodness I don't work for him, or have to sit in a the same room or I think my layed back and mellow outlook on life would take on a different appearance.

 

Just admit you are wrong and and let us get on with our lives

 

Don't bother to reply because I will not take on board your totally inane and insulting comments

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

have come to the conclusion that Julyninny is a complete and utter dickhead and thank goodness I don't work for him, or have to sit in a the same room or I think my layed back and mellow outlook on life would take on a different appearance.

 

Just admit you are wrong and and let us get on with our lives

 

Don't bother to reply because I will not take on board your totally inane and insulting comments

 

I'm not wrong LOL

 

What a shame you have to resort to that, says more about you me thinks.

 

Please do the courtesy of supplying some kind of evidence I'm wrong as I have done for you.

 

It seems this was debated last year.

 

As well as myself, I recall that not only Starcoaster successfully claimed from the HIRE Company, but an accompanying boat in the same incident did also.

 

Also reading through that thread it appears a couple of other boaters made claims from HIRE companies following similar impacts. So five successful claims from hire boaters.

 

Not heard yet of any claim against a hirer. Surprise Surprise.

 

It's not my fault people can't see the wood for the trees and post complete and utter bollox based on nothing what so ever.

 

I would suggest that anyone having an issue with a hire boat collision get information from a solicitor. Hire boat companies will be laughing their socks off at the ignorance shown on here by certain posters, and easily fob people off based on some of the crap posted, Include yourself in that Tommy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

 

And one wonders why people hesitate to post on here....As for "Newbies". You make this sound like some sort of club where new members are looked down on.

 

Some people need to get a life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A superior sense of humour possibly smile.png

I have been watching your "stone walling" with interest. I notice you didn't comment on post #179.

 

Can you explain why "Find Law UK" under the heading of "Overview of car and vehicle accident liability" makes no mention of insurance companies if as you state the insurance company is liable.

 

N.B. I know it is talking about road accidents but I suspect that in law boating accidents would be treated the same.

 

EDIT: Not quote correct insurance is mentioned but secondary to the driver being liable.

Edited by Jerra
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Responsibility and liability are 2 different things. If I have an accident in my car through wreckless driving, I could be prosecuted, however my insurers will be the people paying out to any third party, as I have paid for a policy agreement for them to cover my Liability in such an event.

 

Exactly - it is your liability but you have a contract with the insurance company to cover it. In the hirers position, they have a contract with the hiring company that the hiring company provide insurance cover; but the original liability is still with the steerer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has now been resolved satisfactorily.

 

When the hirers returned their boat they reported the collision and confirmed that they were at fault. AW will be paying for the damage caused.

 

I was surprised that a simple question could engender so much heated debate but I would say the AW terms and conditions do state that the hire cost includes insurance cover for, amongst other things, third party liability. As others have said if the hirer damages the boat due to cilling then they, the hirer, bear the cost. AW do not take a damage deposit but they do charge a compulsory £50 collision damage waiver.

 

Despite the supposition in some posts, I never asked or thought about asking for compensation. I'm not even sure what I could be compensated for.

 

I admit I was disappointed with the slow response from AW Oxford base, whose telephone number doesn't appear on their website, but if their head office had told me that the Oxford manager was on holiday until last Friday I would have understood. As it was when Martin returned from his break he was very pleasant and helpful and, as I said at the beginning, all has been resolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not wrong LOL

 

What a shame you have to resort to that, says more about you me thinks.

 

Please do the courtesy of supplying some kind of evidence I'm wrong as I have done for you.

 

It seems this was debated last year.

 

As well as myself, I recall that not only Starcoaster successfully claimed from the HIRE Company, but an accompanying boat in the same incident did also.

 

Also reading through that thread it appears a couple of other boaters made claims from HIRE companies following similar impacts. So five successful claims from hire boaters.

 

Not heard yet of any claim against a hirer. Surprise Surprise.

 

It's not my fault people can't see the wood for the trees and post complete and utter bollox based on nothing what so ever.

 

I would suggest that anyone having an issue with a hire boat collision get information from a solicitor. Hire boat companies will be laughing their socks off at the ignorance shown on here by certain posters, and easily fob people off based on some of the crap posted, Include yourself in that Tommy.

 

It is quite breathtaking that you seem to believe that sprinkling the odd infantile "LOL" gives you carte blanche to fling abuse around.

 

NOBODY has suggested that seeking compensation direct from the hire company won't work. As a matter of administrative convenience, it will usually suit them to deal direct, because doing so allows them to manage the issue.

 

However, the thread has been considering a "claim" in the legal sense. The question is "what happens if the hire company says go away".

 

In that case, the owner of the damaged boat cannot claim in court against the hire company, because they are not liable for the damage. The hirer is.

 

If you win against the hirer in court, then the hirer can take the hire company to court, for breach of contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> This has now been resolved satisfactorily. <<

 

 

Delighted to hear it. The term 'compensation' used here includes money paid to puts things back as they were before the incident, ie your repair costs. We weren't on about compo culture (at least, I wasn't!) and no criticism was intended of your actions or motivation.

 

 

It is quite breathtaking that you seem to believe that sprinkling the odd infantile "LOL" gives you carte blanche to fling abuse around.

 

NOBODY has suggested that seeking compensation direct from the hire company won't work. As a matter of administrative convenience, it will usually suit them to deal direct, because doing so allows them to manage the issue.

 

However, the thread has been considering a "claim" in the legal sense. The question is "what happens if the hire company says go away".

 

In that case, the owner of the damaged boat cannot claim in court against the hire company, because they are not liable for the damage. The hirer is.

 

If you win against the hirer in court, then the hirer can take the hire company to court, for breach of contract.

 

Dave, you're a gent for taking your turn to explain the concept to Julynian. However, I suspect your words will fall on the same stony ground as did mine and Jerra's, to mention just two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.