Liverpool Lou

Who would, but where has it been suggested that the repair would be "bodged up"?

What's that got to do with it? But if they were both in "identical condition", it, obviously, would not make any difference as they would both be in identical condition!

Accident damaged once, scratched once and the insurer(s) decide if it's "totalled".

"...no car this damaged will even be properly roadworthy". Jesus....

Nonsense, she deserves the used vehicle in the same condition as it was when she left with it the dealer for the body repair, nothing more.

"It was an accident, the damage was not "actively caused", which suggests that it was deliberate." Did the car damage itself? Was this an example of the third law of thermodynamics, entropy increasing? Someone caused that damage by their actions, so I think "actively caused" is an accurate description. No one used the word deliberate, well except you. I said it was irresponsibility, unbelievable irresponsibility and carelessness. "I've just been pointing out that that her demands are unreasonable" So when you express your opinion that is "pointing out" the way things really are?. You have been pontificating but you don't have the pontiff's doctrine of infallibility to support you. You say "She left the car with the dealer for a body repair prior to the accident." The original post says: "On June 2nd she put her car into the service center for checks as she was planning an up country trip." So you either have poor reading comprehension or if you deliberately stated an untruth to support your argument, what does that make you? You have referred to the insurance carrier. I would be surprised if the insurance covered this damage as this is a result of egregious carelessness and irresponsibility. I don't know why you are so triggered by this, it's a little strange. You have made 30 posts in this discussion, that is a lot of posts in a short time. Reminds me of the whole "Karen" phenomenon of hysterical over-reaction to small things. "So when you express your opinion that is "pointing out" the way things really are?". That can be the case, sure. I tend to go for accuracy, not speculation or gratuitous falsehoods, so on many occasions my opinions are also facts. "you don't have the pontiff's doctrine of infallibility to support you". Er, neither do you. "The original post says: "On June 2nd she put her car into the service center for checks as she was planning an up country trip." Read the part of the OP to which I was referring... "On 29th July she put her car back in for the paint job as agreed". "I would be surprised if the insurance covered this damage as this is a result of egregious carelessness and irresponsibility". So you think that car insurance doesn't cover carelessness on the part of the insured driver, eh? You're wrong, and that's not my "opinion". Who said that the driver was "egregiously careless and irresponsible"... there was rear damage so it's not unlikely that the car was struck from behind. "I don't know why you are so triggered by this, it's a little strange. You have made 30 posts in this discussion, that is a lot of posts in a short time". I'm not "triggered", as you put it, I'm responding to other comments but I do tend to comment on the irrational garbage which occasionally gets posted here over and over (not referring to you, of course). Thanks for monitoring my posts so closely, something that there is no need for you to do as the forum rules do not restrict the number of comments. How many do you think would be the ideal number, anyway? "Reminds me of the whole "Karen" phenomenon of hysterical over-reaction to small things". Be careful, you're on thin ice, there.

...or unknown numbers if a delivery is expected.

Perhaps you were too slow and someone reported the offenders before you did. It was never claimed that everyone who reported offences would be rewarded, for you to suggest that it was is the big lie.

He also faces the prospect of a small fine and no jail time, five years is the maximum punishment, it is not mandatory.

Sixteen months old is nearly two years old, as far the age of a car is concerned, it is definitely not one year old. Maybe that poster was just emphasising that the car wasn't new for those who think that insurers replace old cars with new ones or that this woman should get a brand new car. One thing that posters so far haven't taken into consideration is that the car has been driven for nearly two years by a woman. I'm sure that's a good thing though.

I sure do. What did I write that suggests that I don't understand the concept of crumple zones?

Maybe I read that part wrong but she's still expecting nearly two years of free motoring! If the car's written off she can still buy a new car from that dealer with the insurance money.

Nissan isn't Honda. You weren't demanding anew car either!

I agree with that but that is not how things work. Insurers do not go on the hunt for an identical older car, they repair it or they offer the market value if they write it off. Than she can go and buy an identical older car. I sympathise with the woman, I would be pizzed-off also, but what she is demanding is daft. If she can get a new car out of the insurer or dealer, good for her...but she won't.

She left the car with the dealer for a body repair prior to the accident. It was an accident, the damage was not "actively caused", which suggests that it was deliberate. I didn't say that it was an act of God. I'm not "hell bent on attacking her", I've just been pointing out that that her demands are unreasonable. No one gets a new car provided by insurers to replace an old car (particularly one that has not even been paid for!), it gets repaired. If it cannot be economically repaired, then the insured is paid the current market value of the car before the accident, or the sum insured. If the car is repaired, no one can reasonably demand that all the finance payments to date and the initial deposit are refunded, either, as she is demanding. What if the car was six years old on seven-year finance, would a refund of seventy-two installments plus the deposit be reasonable?

It seems that I have more of an idea about it than you do.

No one gets a new car to replace damaged old one, doesn't matter what you'd be demanding, insurance does not work that way. You'd be "taking it there" also.

If he left a valid will, what's the "swindle"?

No, not in terms of any privileged inheritance. The valid will determines who gets what.

No, a POA appointee cannot alter the donor's will. POAs end on the death of the donor so after his death there will be no POA.

"The op doesn't need a keyboard lawyer". Even though he seems to have got one calling himself Kingsofisaan!

The "club" part was added on, illegally, after the restaurant licence was issued

Just as your own country does, eh? VoA is not the subject of this thread, it's VE.

Your idea, so, presumably, you.

Yes. A death certificate has to be issued, and will be, if your death is reported here. The police will inform the Embassy which has the responsibility of informing any family in the UK. The Embassy will have access to the death certificate.