New helmet - other party refusing to pay

Originally Posted by rpwoodman

Thanks for taking the time to do that for me Matt - appreciate it.
I thought it was just me who had an extremely low opinion of insurers - it seems not!

That's ok, no worries.
Not the greatest fan of insurance. Had my phone nicked once from work. Thought someone may have picked it up by accident so gave them a week to put it back where they found it, which they didn't.
Went and got a police statement, phoned up insurance and they refused to cough up as I didn't report it within 24hrs. So went back down police station and they 'adjusted' the date on the statement for me. Was then sucessful in my claim heh heh .

Had a helmet incident myself this morn but I'll put that in another thread.

Here's a good link for you Rupert (and anyone else too). Just found it. It's the full EN22.05 standard.
http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29...egs/22rv4e.pdf

Get a letter from the legal people from my insurers a couple days ago.
The 3rd party are offering to settle:

£318 expenses (helmet of ~£240 and bupa physio of £7
£750 compensation

Which seems ok to me. My biggest concern was getting the money I'd paid out refunded as opposed to any compensation (tho I did hurt quite a lot for a few weeks, but I just accept this as a consequence of doing something which can be relatively dangerous).

So thanks for all the input chaps.

Rgds

Rupert

Originally Posted by Ceri JC

I'd say it depends on the sort of lid. If they offer a service of checking it for damage (I think I remember reading about Arai/Shoei offering this for £30 or thereabouts)...

Arai check it as a free service - for the first 5 years. At least with HG and Infinity they do.

Nice to here it has been sorted anyways!

...

Originally Posted by timwilky

Just a bit more on the issue of a contribution towards betterment.

It is a standard tool used by insurance companies to reduce costs. For instance if a tyre needs to be replaced as a result of damage then they could require you to contribute for the percentage of the tyre that is already worn. The same with exhausts or panels on cars with pre-existing damage or corrosion.

Again with leathers etc. They do not operate a new for old. so you may only get 60% of the cost of a year old leathers etc.

Actually while the percentage reduction for wear and tear is something people need to agree on [and this was my gripe last year on the van accident] that does not apply to the lids according to my solicitor.

That doesnt mean you go out and buy a more expensive lid, however a replacement lid is generally accepted as a necessity and that it should be a like for like replacement. Because generally there is no wear and tear on the lid - theyre designed effectively for one impact and if you have that impact thats the lid damaged and pretty much unusable. And because its mandatory legal requirement while insurers argue everything else, my solicitor was pretty much stating they cant really argue over the lid.

Nice result Rpwoodman