Letter from L&V.

[Druk]

In the post this morning stating that they've had notification from AN Other Insurance Co that my car was in an 'incident' at the doctors surgery on 30th Jan 2017.

No other info but they wanted pictures of my car.

On that day I was at the docs and did reverse into a parked car: squarely rear bumper to rear bumper but so gently that I did not notice. When I got out my car there was the other driver claiming that I had 'bumped' him, and, tbh, the cars were actually just touching. We closely examined both cars and agreed there was not a scratch on either. Mea Culpa nonetheless (I think).
Shook hands like gentlemen do and went our separate ways.

Looks to me like this guy is now trying it on. Any ideas where I stand? Especially if they decide to pay out based on his statement. Other than fair wear-and-tear there is not a mark on my rear bumper that could be attributable to any 'incident'/collision and it's obvious from the marks that are there that it's not been repaired/resprayed recently...if ever.

 

[renault12ts]

Just deny it. He's a creep. Were there any other witnesses?

 

[trapperjohn]

Hmm. Take the pictures I guess, time stamped if you can, but hang on to them til someone with more experience of this type of things pops up on here.

Wonder if the surgery has CCTV covering the car park. That could help if things get a bit "warm"

Doctors surgery, private land, same as a supermarket wee oopsie methinks. But I mean it does not even rate an oopsie.

This from an RAC Website. But I'm guessing you are there way before me.
http://www.rac.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?5536-Reversing-accident-split-liability

 

[vijilants]

I've been down this road before...a guy drove past me and smashed my door mirror.

I chased after him and caught him, but when it went through the insurance company he totally denied it or even knowing about the incident.

He had also told his insurance company not to accept the claim.

As a result, my insurance company were unable to put a claim through to my disgust, and I was left to repair my car.

Had another incident where a guy reveresed in to the side of the other half's car whilst she was parked....unfortunately she didnt take any pics of the contact, but he denied liability and claimed she hit her !!! Her car would have been travelling sideways to sustain the damage on her car ! Again we were unable to claim from his insurance.

So, the moral of this tale is if you deny it and there are no witnesses, and no pics showing impact, you don't have to accept liablity and nothing can be done regardless of who was at fault.

 

[bob6600]

Any CCTV?

 

[brucemillar]

Derek

I would urge honesty. Not as I am saintly, rather that it is likely that if he is claiming, then he has either a witness or CCTV evidence to support his claim.

I would suggest that you respond stating what you stated on here that there was zero damage after he reversed into your rear bumper and that he accepted this as a fact.

 

[renault12ts]

Derek

I would urge honesty. Not as I am saintly, rather that it is likely that if he is claiming, then he has either a witness or CCTV evidence to support his claim.

I would suggest that you respond stating what you stated on here that there was zero damage after he reversed into your rear bumper and that he accepted this as a fact.

Brilliant.

 

[Dryce]

On that day I was at the docs and did reverse into a parked car: squarely rear bumper to rear bumper but so gently that I did not notice. When I got out my car there was the other driver claiming that I had 'bumped' him, and, tbh, the cars were actually just touching. We closely examined both cars and agreed there was not a scratch on either. Mea Culpa nonetheless (I think).
Shook hands like gentlemen do and went our separate ways.

There's a tendency for some people in these situations to try and brush it over as they don't want hassle any more than you do - then a bit later be a bit more diligent in checking their car and become unhappy at finding even quite a small mark or impression in their bodywork.

 

[Druk]

There's a tendency for some people in these situations to try and brush it over as they don't want hassle any more than you do - then a bit later be a bit more diligent in checking their car and become unhappy at finding even quite a small mark or impression in their bodywork.

This is what I'm inclined to think may be the case but since I have no further info at present I'm just putting out feelers. Any 'small mark' on his car would be entirely down to the layers of dirt it had and which weren't disturbed by 'the incident'. There were no witnesses at the time that I'm aware of although it's entirely possible some may be conjured up later from the pub.

What's the script on what TJ alluded to re: private land?



.

 

[markjay]

Did you take any photos at the time of the incidence?

 

[Druk]

Did you take any photos at the time of the incidence?

No, because to my mind there was nothing to photograph other than two perfectly normal looking bumpers, one of them very dirty. There was no 'incident' of any tiny consequence, it was a non-event, so it never entered my mind that at some later date some twally would invent a claim.
One simply can't go through life photographing every happenstance just on the off-chance that...






.

 

[trapperjohn]

What's the script on what TJ alluded to re: private land?



.[/QUOTE]

I thought perhaps there was no claim if it was on private land it appears not. Sorry Druk.

Minor car accident on private land - legal aspects

 

[davidjpowell]

If his bumper was dirty, maybe there was a mark when it was cleaned. I don't see what you can do other than take the photo's.

This will either help or not help - depending on what they are trying to show...

 

[scgfull]

In the defence of the "injured" party, I was bumped in the rear when stopped at a roundabout, this was a very minor slight bump. On intial inspection all appeared OK but later when I opened the tailgate I could then clearly see a crack and distortion in the bumper that was hidden from view by the tailgate when closed.

On further deeper investigation the full extent of the distortion could be seen which resulted in a complete replacement of the rear bumper.

A similar thing could have occurred here.

 

[ash59fifty-uk]

I'd literally do what Bruce mentioned, switch the tables on him and play dumb!

 

[grober]

PM'd

 

[notsofast]

Can't really advise you one way or another but I can share an related incident that occurred more than 18 months ago and just got settled last week.
I pulled up at a junction waiting for a safe gap to turn left. Guy in a van runs into the back of my car. No damage obvious to his van at all but the back of my car had damage to the bumper, tail gate, rear cross member and boot floor. I did not have my phone or a camera and there were no witnesses other than a second passenger in his van. We exchanged details and off we went. I immediately put together a comprehensive report and contacted my insurance company. The next day the van driver asked me to get a quote to repair the car away from the insurance which I did within 20 minutes (very local body shop) and called him back with the £3,000 estimate. At this stage I felt they were going to be difficult so took a screen dump of the received phone numbers on my phone showing both the drivers and his bosses phone numbers which was also forwarded to the insurance company. His boss did not want him to claim on the company insurance so they simply stuck their head in the sand hoping the issue would go away.
My insurance company sorted out my car, covered the rental and also covered my excess even though they were not obliged to. Eventually my insurance company passed the claim to a legal firm who began legal proceedings directly against the van driver for all the insurance companies costs. I am not sure if the other party claimed against his bosses insurance company or stumped up himself but I received a letter last week advising they had recovered all their costs so case closed.
Axa insurance - thoroughly recommend them. I renewed with them last year and will likely do so again as long as they are relatively competitive. I don't mind an extra £20 or £30 based on their superb service previously.
You may need to be prepared to defend your position in court if you ignore them altogether.....

 

[notsofast]

In the defence of the "injured" party, I was bumped in the rear when stopped at a roundabout, this was a very minor slight bump. On intial inspection all appeared OK but later when I opened the tailgate I could then clearly see a crack and distortion in the bumper that was hidden from view by the tailgate when closed.

On further deeper investigation the full extent of the distortion could be seen which resulted in a complete replacement of the rear bumper.

A similar thing could have occurred here.

A few years ago my wife ran into the back of a VW Polo in her Clio. The rear of the Polo was caved in but the Clio showed virtually no damage. We only had 3rd party insurance on this car so they paid out to repair the other car. The Clio bumper needed popped back into shape without no visible damage but the impact was enough to initiate a crumple in the collapsible section in the chassis leg. If the Clio was repaired properly then it almost would have been a write off (only worth a couple of grand) but the damage was all but impossible to spot unless the bumper was removed.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Welcome to the "Ignore The Parking Sensors, What Do They Know" Club

 

[davidjpowell]

Welcome to the "Ignore The Parking Sensors, What Do They Know" Club

In the Volvo's case they are a little slow and like to announce where you have been instead of where you are going....

Need to get a couple of smart repairs done!