Driver accepts liability, now denies it.

Driver accepts liability, now denies it.

Author
Discussion

berlintaxi

8,535 posts

172 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
5. Why do people without a clue continue to post as if they know what they are talking about in threads like this?
Because it makes them feel clever and superior, bks to the fact they will lead the OP right up the garden path to misery.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
SK425 said:
I'm surprised by that one. If you're trying to establish what happened, why would a witness who heard someone explain what happened be irrelevant?
Look at it this way. What is a court likely to consider and the other sides counsel? So you didn't see the incident? Did you hear it? Were you there at all? So all you heard was a conversation after the fact without having seen the incident or the aftermath? Highly unlikely to be viewed as credible especially as a next door neighbour. Would they even go to court?

eatcustard

1,003 posts

126 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
OP

Cant give legal info, but, I think you are shafted, you will have to claim on your own insurance (if fully comp)

But to make yourself feel better poo in his letterbox smile

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
desolate said:

A witness doesn't necessarily have to witness the incident.

I can think of quite a few Accident Management Companies who will take it on with a witness statement.

As the OP has already had the knock back from the TP insurer it seems perfectly reasonable to me.

If the story is true the TP needs fking with a big stick. His insurer should pursue him for any increase in costs and he should be blacklisted.
You really don't understand this do you? Nothing that you've posted has any grounding in reality.

B.J.W

Original Poster:

5,782 posts

214 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
pork911 said:
B.J.W said:
Some advice here much appreciated....

I'll give the abridged version.

My truck is parked outside my house
Neighbour comes over to me

"I'm very sorry, I've just reversed my car into your truck. I'm very sorry, I will pay for damage"

He doesn't want to go through insurance and asks me to get a cash repair quote.

Bill for repair is £1500. When presented with this he flips his lid.

It's now going through insurance. I have a witness who saw him come over to me and heard the conversation with him accepting liability.

I spoke to my insurer today. The other party is now denying he hit my car. I've taken pictures of the damage to his car and mine and set them off to the insurer. His insurer says that they won't accept a 3rd party statement about the overheard conversation. The damage to his car is negligible.

He's now saying that I'm harassing him and that he's scared to take his kids to the car. I haven't spoken to him since the incident, other than today when he smiled and waved at us when he drove up.

I'm at my wits end! Any thoughts on next steps?
Are you fully comp? Is the truck driveable?

Since you have presumably given as much information in your OP to your insurer, the photos and the witnesses' details you should respond to any of your insurer's requests, chill and ignore the guy who hit your truck.

Most of the posts in this thread are absolute bks.
Hi. The truck is drive-able.

I have pictures of damage to my vehicle and damage to his. The independent party sent a written statement to the insurer - they are not interested.

I attempted to have a quiet word with him yesterday to establish why he is now denying it. He started to shout at me, claiming I was harassing him and that he is now scared to take his children out to the car because of me!

This is the same person who accused other neighbours of racial abuse when they asked why he had complained about their dog barking.

Equally, this is the same person who was abusive to an elderly lady who lives next door to him when she said no to him asking if he could park his car on her property because he didn't want to leave it on the road.

I might also add that he reversed into my fiancées car on 2 occasions before I moved in.

He thinks he can say and do what he pleases.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
You really don't understand this do you? Nothing that you've posted has any grounding in reality.
Unlike you I have no agenda.

I can tell you I have been in court in a case were a witness did not see the incident and their statement was vital. That was real.


There is no point in me arguing with you over the internet as it will in no way improve my life nor help the OP.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
Oh good. This is more of a "bloody immigrants" thread rather than an insurance one. I'm out, good luck resolving it.

B.J.W

Original Poster:

5,782 posts

214 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
Oh good. This is more of a "bloody immigrants" thread rather than an insurance one. I'm out, good luck resolving it.
Hang on a bloody second!

I answered a perfectly reasonable question about having a quiet word with him with a few examples of why that particular course of action was not likely to be successful.

His race/religion has NOTHING to do with it - YOU are the one that has highlighted this.

If it was I would have highlighted it in my opening post. I didn't do this!

All I want is some thoughts on whether I am doing anything wrong in dealing with a liar who thinks he can get away with damaging people's property. You appear to be the one with the agenda, in which case you are welcome to post elsewhere - which is a shame because your advice was helpful


Edited by B.J.W on Wednesday 9th July 09:09

tenpenceshort

32,880 posts

216 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
SK425 said:
I'm surprised by that one. If you're trying to establish what happened, why would a witness who heard someone explain what happened be irrelevant?
Look at it this way. What is a court likely to consider and the other sides counsel? So you didn't see the incident? Did you hear it? Were you there at all? So all you heard was a conversation after the fact without having seen the incident or the aftermath? Highly unlikely to be viewed as credible especially as a next door neighbour. Would they even go to court?
From what we've heard so far I would have thought the neighbour's defence would be that the incident did not happen. Aside from photographs of the corresponding damage, the OP's main evidence to support that it did would be the statement of the witness, who was present during the admission.

I'm not sure if that would be considered hearsay evidence (seeming the statement is regards the witness hearing the defendant admit liability directly in their presence)? Even were it to be, my understanding is that it would be admissible at trial by virtue of Civil Evidence Act 1995 and the issue for the court to decide would be how much weight to give it. Without sufficient reason to doubt the credibility, I don't see why the weight would be so heavily reduced so as to make it worthless?

Should also point out, the witness might not necessarily have to attend court (see CPR 33).

It might be the insurer has internal policies/rules that preclude fighting such cases on economic grounds, seeming costs are not recoverable for something of this value, however I'm not convinced as you are that the neighbour's statement is of little use were they to proceed. That the insurer may dress it up another way to placate a client makes little difference to this.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
It's of no use. Why do you continue to post in the style of a solicitor? Your other half is one but a corporate lawyer doing M&As and you're a salesman selling software to legal practices. At least be honest about what you're posting.

The next door neighbour's evidence is worthless.

B.J.W

Original Poster:

5,782 posts

214 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
It's of no use. Why do you continue to post in the style of a solicitor? Your other half is one but a corporate lawyer doing M&As and you're a salesman selling software to legal practices. At least be honest about what you're posting.

The next door neighbour's evidence is worthless.
Why is it considered useless? I'm assuming that a 3rd party has to physically witness a collision?

Is my only available course of action to rely on an independent assessor examining the damage to both vehicles?

tenpenceshort

32,880 posts

216 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
It's of no use. Why do you continue to post in the style of a solicitor? Your other half is one but a corporate lawyer doing M&As and you're a salesman selling software to legal practices. At least be honest about what you're posting.

The next door neighbour's evidence is worthless.
Loon, perhaps you could explain why what I have posted is wrong and not attack me personally? I don't pretend to be a solicitor and what my OH does for a living is neither here nor there (she's actually a full time sleep deprived mum at the moment and the last thing we sit and chat about is law). As for my profession, I sell things for a living. Not to legal practices.

There is no question of my honesty because I haven't pretended to be anything else.

If you can explain to me why the neighbour's evidence is either inadmissible or otherwise worthless I might just learn something from you. I suspect the insurer doesn't want to proceed and your own wouldn't because it makes little commercial sense rather than it being legally difficult. What is legally possible and what happens in the real world are often two different things.

You might once again default to the "well I work in the business and that's that", however maybe on this occasion you'll surprise me?

Edited for shocking typo!


Edited by tenpenceshort on Wednesday 9th July 09:54

selym

9,539 posts

170 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
tenpenceshort said:
LoonR1 said:
It's of no use. Why do you continue to post in the style of a solicitor? Your other half is one but a corporate lawyer doing M&As and you're a salesman selling software to legal practices. At least be honest about what you're posting.

The next door neighbour's evidence is worthless.
Loon, perhaps you could explain why what I have posted is wrong and not attack me personally? I don't pretend to be a solicitor and what my OH does for a living is neither hear nor there (she's actually a full time sleep deprived mum at the moment and the last thing we sit and chat about is law). As for my profession, I sell things for a living. Not to legal practices.

There is no question of my honesty because I haven't pretended to be anything else.

If you can explain to me why the neighbour's evidence is either inadmissible or otherwise worthless I might just learn something from you. I suspect the insurer doesn't want to proceed and your own wouldn't because it makes little commercial sense rather than it being legally difficult. What is legally possible and what happens in the real world are often two different things.

You might once again default to the "well I work in the business and that's that", however maybe on this occasion you'll surprise me?
Remember, he works in the insurance business but not the law business so his legal take is no more relevant than yours.

I am a techie in the Air Force so wouldn't expect anyone to take too much notice of my advice on piloting fast jets.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
I've answered it already. A decent solicitor will tear their statement apart. A court wants to hear about the incident not what was said afterwards

tenpenceshort

32,880 posts

216 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
I've answered it already. A decent solicitor will tear their statement apart. A court wants to hear about the incident not what was said afterwards
The incident itself wouldn't be the purpose of the statement.

The claimant will allege the defendant made an admission on the scene. The defendant will deny this. The witness will provide a statement saying they witnessed the admission. It is proof of the admission not the circumstances of the accident. If the court accepts the admission was made then the defence, reliant on the court accepting the incident did not happen at all, I would have thought is significantly weakened?

selym

9,539 posts

170 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
tenpenceshort said:
LoonR1 said:
I've answered it already. A decent solicitor will tear their statement apart. A court wants to hear about the incident not what was said afterwards
The incident itself wouldn't be the purpose of the statement.

The claimant will allege the defendant made an admission on the scene. The defendant will deny this. The witness will provide a statement saying they witnessed the admission. It is proof of the admission not the circumstances of the accident. If the court accepts the admission was made then the defence, reliant on the court accepting the incident did not happen at all, I would have thought is significantly weakened?
If it is deemed to be in the interests of justice, would it not be accepted as admissable evidence?

pork911

7,086 posts

182 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
B.J.W said:
Hi. The truck is drive-able.

I have pictures of damage to my vehicle and damage to his. The independent party sent a written statement to the insurer - they are not interested.

I attempted to have a quiet word with him yesterday to establish why he is now denying it. He started to shout at me, claiming I was harassing him and that he is now scared to take his children out to the car because of me!

This is the same person who accused other neighbours of racial abuse when they asked why he had complained about their dog barking.

Equally, this is the same person who was abusive to an elderly lady who lives next door to him when she said no to him asking if he could park his car on her property because he didn't want to leave it on the road.

I might also add that he reversed into my fiancées car on 2 occasions before I moved in.

He thinks he can say and do what he pleases.
Ignore the guy he's not going to change his mind and further interaction is just going to make it look like a neighbourly dispute.


Which insurer is not interested in what the neighbour heard?


That neighbour is an entirely valid witness and are not worthless. They may or may not make a difference depending on how the three of you come across and any other evidence.

SK425

1,034 posts

148 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
Look at it this way. What is a court likely to consider and the other sides counsel? So you didn't see the incident? Did you hear it? Were you there at all? So all you heard was a conversation after the fact without having seen the incident or the aftermath? Highly unlikely to be viewed as credible especially as a next door neighbour. Would they even go to court?
I get that the witness can be challenged, but then so could a witness to the actual incident. But if you and I end up in court (or our insurers do) trying to establish whether I drove into your parked car, and you can produce a witness who heard me owning up to doing it though I now deny it was me, I'd be surprised if the court felt that witness was of no value. Hence I'd be surprised if the insurer's, before a court was involved, felt it was of no value.

tenpenceshort

32,880 posts

216 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
If you're the insurer, even if you go to court and win, how much will it cost to get there and be represented versus how much you can recover? Therein lies the problem with a low value claim without personal injury. It would make almost no financial sense to fight a disputed claim of this value in the small claims court.

B.J.W

Original Poster:

5,782 posts

214 months

Wednesday 9th July 2014
quotequote all
pork911 said:
Ignore the guy he's not going to change his mind and further interaction is just going to make it look like a neighbourly dispute.


Which insurer is not interested in what the neighbour heard?


That neighbour is an entirely valid witness and are not worthless. They may or may not make a difference depending on how the three of you come across and any other evidence.
His insurer is not accepting the witness statement.