BMW wrecked Freelander broken rear light lens
And the bumper, rear door bottom trim possible body work alignment issues ...
And the bumper, rear door bottom trim possible body work alignment issues ...
Nodge68
Well-Known Member
I think it's unlikely for there to be any alignment issues.
The rear crash beam is really good at absorbing energy, so I suspect this is mainly cosmetic damage.
I've repaired much worse, with nothing more than a replacement bumper, lights, and crash beam.
On the Freelander, if the main support structure of the floor starts to deform, the rear door gap closes, but the gap looks fine to me.
The front of a BMW E90 is also very soft, at least the parts that made contact with the back of a FL1 in this shunt.
It's just soft panels, which fold up easily. The only strong part of the BMW E90 is the bumper armature behind the front bumper, which will be lower than the strong parts at the rear of the FL1, so the BMW looks much worse than would be the case, if the bumper armature had made contact, which it looks like it didn't.
Freelander should be an easy fix, although the insurance will write it off, simply because it's old.
Last edited:
Hippo
Lord Hippo
+1
Seen this happen recently to someone else. Peep wanted to pay cash. Got messed about for a few weeks then realised he was being fobbed oft. BMW man has a bill for his own car to pay.
Hippo
Lord Hippo
On the topic of who pays... FL1 insurance will pay for it's own claim. That will be pushed towards the BMW insurer to pay, if it's accepted the BMW driver was at fault. That will be honored and payed by BMW man's insurance regardless of his own cars claim being void or not. The difficult bit will be the claim for BMW damage if there's anything he's done which may void his own insurance.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank the BMW for absorbing the crash impact. Saving the Freelander from further damaged. Cars are designed to do that.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank the BMW for absorbing the crash impact. Saving the Freelander from further damaged. Cars are designed to do that.
ER1C
Well-Known Member
I am not sure it works like that.... I may be wrong but my understanding is the BMW insurance covers him/other drivers (usually) the whole insurance is invalid if he didnt have an MOT so the insurer has no claim to pay. This is the silly thing where an uninsured driver can hit and disable a child and they dont get payout.
Hippo
Lord Hippo
In that case there's a central fund to cover for loss due to the other side not having insurance. But the FL1 insurance may just see it as a no fault claim.
rob_bell
Well-Known Member
OMG - just reading through this thread. Your lad in the Freelander likely saved some childrens' lives! If he couldn't stop for a massive, silver Land Rover, scant chance he'd have stopped for a child.
Not sure what I would do in this situation - a lot will depend on whether you believe the other party that they will pay up.
Not sure what I would do in this situation - a lot will depend on whether you believe the other party that they will pay up.
might have stopped for an adult thoughOMG - just reading through this thread. Your lad in the Freelander likely saved some childrens' lives! If he couldn't stop for a massive, silver Land Rover, scant chance he'd have stopped for a child.
Not sure what I would do in this situation - a lot will depend on whether you believe the other party that they will pay up.
By law all accidents should be reported to the police. If your son doesn't report it he is technically breaking the law. And yes I only found this out the other day, as, like many others, I too have done the "pay for the damage" thing in both directions!
Just putting that out there.
As he (BMW driver) has no MOT he committed an offence. The law will then investigate whether or not he has any insurance, as they will whether he has a licence.
I find it very funny he told your son about his lack of the MOT, why would he do that? Was he hoping for sympathy and to just drive/go away having promised to pay?
Hope it all pans out all right.
Just putting that out there.
As he (BMW driver) has no MOT he committed an offence. The law will then investigate whether or not he has any insurance, as they will whether he has a licence.
I find it very funny he told your son about his lack of the MOT, why would he do that? Was he hoping for sympathy and to just drive/go away having promised to pay?
Hope it all pans out all right.
But 'the law' doesn't do much about no MOT in normal circumstances, no road tax is a different matterBy law all accidents should be reported to the police. If your son doesn't report it he is technically breaking the law. And yes I only found this out the other day, as, like many others, I too have done the "pay for the damage" thing in both directions!
Just putting that out there.
As he (BMW driver) has no MOT he committed an offence. The law will then investigate whether or not he has any insurance, as they will whether he has a licence.
I find it very funny he told your son about his lack of the MOT, why would he do that? Was he hoping for sympathy and to just drive/go away having promised to pay?
Hope it all pans out all right.
Depends what you mean by "do". I once had to "produce" papers for my company car and it turned out that the idiot company secretary had let the MOT slip, by a couple of weeks. In fact he would not have known about it had I not been stopped for a "routine check" and asked to produce. The company put it through an MOT straightaway so that when I went with the papers to the plods I could at least tell them what happened. The plod was OK about it, sympathised and told me to tell the prick not to let it happen again. From then on, every different car they gave me, I insisted on seeing the MOT for it. (I had three cars before they gave me a new one!)
But I agree, probably the most they could do would be a fine of some sort and points. If he has no MOT and it could be proved that the accident was due to the vehicle having dodgy brakes which could have been picked up at an MOT then he is guilty of driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition, whatever that is when put into legaleeze! and that would be a lot more serious. It is a technicality that no MOT usually means no insurance which again is punishable, but no road tax I have a funny feeling is actually a civil matter.
At least that is what I was told years ago.
Have i got things the wrong way round again? I need to stop talking rubbish!!Depends what you mean by "do". I once had to "produce" papers for my company car and it turned out that the idiot company secretary had let the MOT slip, by a couple of weeks. In fact he would not have known about it had I not been stopped for a "routine check" and asked to produce. The company put it through an MOT straightaway so that when I went with the papers to the plods I could at least tell them what happened. The plod was OK about it, sympathised and told me to tell the prick not to let it happen again. From then on, every different car they gave me, I insisted on seeing the MOT for it. (I had three cars before they gave me a new one!)
If he has no MOT and it could be proved that the accident was due to the vehicle having dodgy brakes which could have been picked up at an MOT then he is guilty of driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition, whatever that is when put into legaleeze! and that would be a lot more serious. It is a technicality that no MOT usually means no insurance which again is punishable, but no road tax I have a funny feeling is actually a civil matter.
At least that is what I was told years ago.
But then i might be dangerous and even taken seriously!
Alibro
Well-Known Member
Looks like it expired in Oct last year so not just a week or two..
Just take HIS pride and joy as settlement. Get his Beemer sorted/ scrap it and enjoy the money.
Seriously, report him to polis, take advice off your insurer ( if your son has legal assistance)and sue him (he’ll claim he’s ‘no money, no job, etc’) for the rest of his days.
Seriously, report him to polis, take advice off your insurer ( if your son has legal assistance)and sue him (he’ll claim he’s ‘no money, no job, etc’) for the rest of his days.
