Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Paid childcare

Discuss everything related to paid childcare here, including childminders, nannies, nurseries and au pairs.

Original poster

Nanny Car Crash - what to do?

106 replies

ChocolateBiscuitCake · 02/03/2017 18:54

Firstly, she is okay (no children thankfully in car).

It happened on a country lane. Very narrow section that is notoriously difficult to navigate. Nanny stops when she sees an oncoming driver with horse box 20m away. Rather than stopping and pulling over early on (which she could have), the horse driver continues to the edge of nanny's car and insists nanny reverses - which nanny says she couldn't (not sure how true this is, but this is the version of events!). So after a war of words, horse driver ploughs forward and takes off the side of MY car.

Horse driver doesn't stop, until nanny runs after. No apology and I have been given the drivers name & number. I will call for the horse ladies version of events but, I wanted to check:

  • Who do you think is in the wrong?
  • How do I present this to the insurance company?
  • What happens if horse lady won't give her insurance details (her phone number suggests she lives in our village).
  • How do the insurance companies decide who is in the wrong?
  • How much is reasonable to ask nanny to pay for (she is on very good salary and lives in, so has no bills etc to budget for!), given there has to be an element of anger in this debacle otherwise it wouldn't have happened?? In my mind it was avoidable.

Part of me is furious at nanny as she should know that horse boxes are difficult to reverse so should have tried harder to reverse, regardless of whether horse driver was being unhelpful and difficult.

I am obviously furious that the horse driver has caused significant damage to an expensive car.

Any advise is much appreciated, please.

Off to find wine....

OP posts:
SuchHysteria · 02/03/2017 20:39

I agree that the nanny is not at fault and shouldn't be asked to pay. The high excess is your choice. If I damaged someone else's property I would generally offer to pay but I wouldn't if it was my employers property and I was using it for work purposes.

JigglyTuff · 02/03/2017 20:37

Are you sure that she was just doing a Mexican stand off and refusing to reverse? Because reversing an expensive car that she presumably knows you're quite precious about (and nothing wrong with that) down a 'notoriously tricky' bit of road isn't easy if they're roads you're used to. If they're roads you're not that used to and you're an inexperienced driver, then I can quite see how she just became a bit paralysed.

I have seen very competent London drivers be reduced to quivering jelly when dealing with narrow lanes with high hedgerows.

And it really isn't her fault that you're inadequately insured. If you can't afford the insurance, you can't afford the car

Kr1stina · 02/03/2017 20:36

Maybe she was scared to reverse your car in a narrow lane.

Maybe she was scared of the other driver, who was clearly a nutter as she hit a stationary vehicle and drove off. Which makes me suspect that she ( other driver ) was under the influence of alcohol, as no one who is reasonable would do this.

Maybe nanny was working out what to do ,when nutter took the side off the car.

Either way it's a judgement call and you can't be sure what you would have done until you were in the situation.

I'm afraid that staff don't always do things exactly the way you do. If you are going to hire people you have to live with this.

Helenluvsrob · 02/03/2017 20:32

Assuming nanny was stationary it can't be her fault the other driver kept going !

HappyFlappy · 02/03/2017 20:32

Just as matter of interest- if nanny HAD reversed your car, and had damaged it in some way - what would your response have been then?

SlothMama · 02/03/2017 20:31

First off I think it'd be a good idea to put a dashcam in that car for when Nanny is driving this will easily prove fault in an accident.

I can see what you mean about the excess, however I have a car that my company provide for me to complete my duties. If I have a crash and it's my fault my company won't make me pay the excess. The agreement is the only time I would have to if I have 3 accidents within the same year that are all my fault.

So I can't see why she should contribute to the excess costs? In future don't let her drive your car.

HappyFlappy · 02/03/2017 20:30

If I damage something that belongs to someone - I offer to pay for the repair.

But nanny didn't damage the car OP - horse lady did.

Maybe nanny should/could have reversed - but horse lady certainly SHOULD NOT have proceeded regardless.

I'm glad I don't work for you.

Original poster
ChocolateBiscuitCake · 02/03/2017 20:21

Okay - I have thought about why I am so cross.

How you choose to drive when you own and pay for your own car is entirely up to you.

How you choose to behave in your bosses car, whilst in contractual hours on the way to pick up a child, in my opinion is different.

If I choose at home to swear and get cross and be stubborn, then that is up to me. But in the office, I keep my calm, talk to people respectfully and don't have general stand offs. Sometimes you just bite your tongue and walk away.

I know she could not have expected the horse lady to drive into the car. But I am really disappointed that she didn't think "this isn't my car, I am running an errand whilst on duty, I will be the bigger person and reverse the car". It feels really "off" that she wouldn't want to be the bigger person and reverse out of the way, whether she was in the right or wrong to do so, because she was effectively at work.

And yes, it is an expensive car. So yes it has expensive insurance. Even more reason not to get road rage and REVERSE so none of this would happen. For something so avoidable, had it been me driving someone else's car (under these circumstances) and obviously insured, I would offer to pay. But that is me - I won't ask my nanny to.

I will get her to report to the police for an incident number and speak to my insurers tomorrow.

OP posts:
Kr1stina · 02/03/2017 20:11

The excessive excess is because we insure 3 cars (mine, husbands, nanny's) and it is the only way to keep the ridiculous cost down!...Or not, as it now transpires!

I insure three cars and don't have such high excesses or ridiculous costs. Your costs are high because

  1. You have high value vehicles and / or
  2. Someone is a high risk driver and /or
  3. You live in a high risk area

I'm guessing that none of these is the nanny's fault . So there's no reason to expect her to pay for your choices .

JigglyTuff · 02/03/2017 20:04

And ironically, I suspect the reason she was too scared to reverse is because she was worried about damaging your precious car

mowgelijeffs · 02/03/2017 20:03

You know what it is such a faff with the paper work. Just make sure she tells the truth to you and the insurer and get your car fixed, it's not the end of the world and just take it as a life experience.
Some fool crashed into our car before Christmas and I was so frustrated with the paper work and him pretending it wasn't his fault, but it's just a car and it's just a life experience.

I know it's so annoying but try not to get mad at your nanny, she will be upset that it happened.

JigglyTuff · 02/03/2017 20:02

No, you are not 'generous' - those are the T&Cs of the job. You have got her a car because she needs one to ferry your children about - it's not a bloody perk.

And how you expect her to 'know' that horse boxes are difficult to reverse is beyond me. Unless you've grown up with ponies like you have, she probably has no idea.

And finally, if you're too cheap to pay out for decent insurance, then this is what happens.

Zero sympathy

Original poster
ChocolateBiscuitCake · 02/03/2017 19:58

No - there is no underlying problem and I have not suggested there is a problem.

Once again - if she had made the effort to reverse (there is a rear camera on the car!), then this would not have happened. I've been hot headed before - I know what it feels like to be angered by another arsey driver. But she was sitting in my car and made a conscious decision not to help the horse lady by reversing, because she was cross (I get it, I know the feeling, especially around here where the lanes can get narrow).

She could not have expected/predicted what happened next, but my car has been damaged and I am cross (with both parties!). The obvious cost of repair aside, it is time, paperwork, getting car to garage (and finding the time) when I work and have 4 young children.

I just want to understand what is reasonable.

If I damage something that belongs to someone - I offer to pay for the repair. Until Apples explained how the insurance process works, I imagined it was nanny's word v. horse lady's word and insurer might laugh and say tough. Now, I know that because nanny was stationary, horse lady is at fault.

I now know it is not reasonable to expect nanny to contribute.

No other issues. Promise! (Although now questioning nanny's temper issues?!?!?!) Wink

OP posts:
Anotherminime · 02/03/2017 19:57

It sounds like the horse box driver was at fault here and you need to report to the police and pursue it via your insurance company.

However to give the point of view of a person who tows a horse trailer, it might not have been easy for them to pull over. You can't break suddenly with horses on board (20m isn't far) and manouvering into a space may not be feasible with the trailer attached. Whilst I am perfectly competent at reversing my trailer, in this situation (assuming I couldn't have pulled over to get out the way) I would expect the driver to reverse to a suitable spot as even with the most expert person behind the wheel reversing a trailer is a nightmare and manovering to the side of the road could be very challenging.

The fact that your nanny refused and got into an argument with them, does not in anyway excuse the horse trailer drivers appalling behaviour, but I think she was being quite unreasonable to expect them to reverse. Of course that assumes that she couldn't reverse because she didn't want to rather than it being because there were loads of cars already behind her. I'd be having a discussion with her about that.

DianaMemorialJam · 02/03/2017 19:53

My suggestion to contribute is because if she had reversed, this wouldn't have happened

Um no... Assuming the nanny is telling the truth, it wouldn't have happened if the horse box driver wasn't one with a propensity to breaking the law by wilfully hitting other people's cars. Like a pp said, if the horse box driver was so convinced they were in the right they should have called the police.

cansu · 02/03/2017 19:52

You see the things you pay for nanny as part of her package as somehow being kind or generous. It is strange that you mention these parts of her employment as a reason to have her pay the excess! I wonder if you see any benefits you or your husband have at work in the same way.

cestlavielife · 02/03/2017 19:50

Had a nanny crash... Insurers will deal with it.
Your nanny has to tell insurers what happened from her pic
Don't call the other party ! Let insurance deal.

It is your issue to pay the excess. Your choice to have a big excess. Not the nanny.

Backingvocals · 02/03/2017 19:46

I'm guessing you have other issues with your nanny? She has absolutely no liability here so I'm assuming your wish to have her contribute comes out of some other underlying problem?

Original poster
ChocolateBiscuitCake · 02/03/2017 19:44

imatter - I hear you - it came out wrong. Apologies. Of course we pay her insurance to drive our car. We are generous in all other areas of phone, sky, bills, separate accommodation etc, own car (obviously insured!) so it just stings when this event was avoidable and whilst nanny claims she was stationary I suspect she got hot headed (as I would have done!).

My suggestion to contribute is because if she had reversed, this wouldn't have happened! However, like I said, I won't suggest it!

The excessive excess is because we insure 3 cars (mine, husbands, nanny's) and it is the only way to keep the ridiculous cost down!...Or not, as it now transpires!

OP posts:
Goodgriefisitginfizzoclock · 02/03/2017 19:44

Did it happen as she has said though? Would want to hear the other version. I have horses and a lorry, of course they may not have been on board but the long term loading problem potential for the horses after a scary incident would suggest it may have not quite happened like this. I would ( and have switched off my engine and insists the other driver reverse I am driving 3.5Ton of livestock surely the car driver should reverse! - remember horses can't hold on with their hooves!)

HappyFlappy · 02/03/2017 19:43

Nanny was stationary - how could she be responsible? She wasn't moving and presumably had tucked in as far as she could.

Though if I was her I would have reversed even if I was in the right - just not worth the aggro.

Starlight2345 · 02/03/2017 19:38

You have £1,00 excess ?? that is more than the insurance I pay. Shock

TomHaverford · 02/03/2017 19:37

Do you have other trust issues with your nanny? If I had someone living in my house and looking after my children I would hope that I could trust them to tell me the truth in a situation this serious.

turbohamster · 02/03/2017 19:37

As your nanny doesn't get to choose the level of your insurance excess the fact that it's set at £1000 is immaterial.

Littleballerina · 02/03/2017 19:37

Did she report to the police?
Horse person is at fault. They took the side of your car off, not nanny.

Swipe left for the next trending thread