Intentional Crash and Witnesses

Intentional Crash and Witnesses

Author
Discussion

Mouse1903

Original Poster:

839 posts

152 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
My poor sister was involved in a deliberate crash on Friday. Driving from work the only car up ahead was a Yaris. She was keeping her distance but the driver decided to come to a full emergency stop for absolutely no reason, no traffic up ahead etc. Now a couple from the other side of the road saw it happen and were so shocked they made their way to the accident scene to act as witnesses.

Her 5 year old Fiat 500 has probably at least around 2k damage to it, both airbags went off and the impact of this smashed the windscreen. She had a bit of delayed shock over the weekend and had bruised both her shins. It was a polish trio in the car ahead, women in her 40's driving and a girl and guy in their 20's. After initially asking my sister was ok due to the smoke and not knowing if she could move, she managed to get out and he became agressive with her, saying it was her fault because she crashed into them.

Police arrived and basically said it's insurance call, but even with witnesses the 3 in their car work against her 2. This lot in the Yaris had only insured the car for 3 days starting on the day of the accident. Her insurance called her to get more statements but said it may go to court. Her insurance won't go up too much but she lost her £200 excess.

Is it worth getting a solicitor involved in this should it get to court? Police said if she was under 25 she could have been charged for dangerous driving - I know the consensus of the law is it is always the person behinds fault no matter the circumstances. Angers me this is a blatant insurance scam for them to gain from and my sister to lose.

Mk3Spitfire

2,921 posts

127 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Mouse1903 said:
My poor sister was involved in a deliberate crash on Friday. Driving from work the only car up ahead was a Yaris. She was keeping her distance but the driver decided to come to a full emergency stop for absolutely no reason, no traffic up ahead etc. Now a couple from the other side of the road saw it happen and were so shocked they made their way to the accident scene to act as witnesses.

Her 5 year old Fiat 500 has probably at least around 2k damage to it, both airbags went off and the impact of this smashed the windscreen. She had a bit of delayed shock over the weekend and had bruised both her shins. It was a polish trio in the car ahead, women in her 40's driving and a girl and guy in their 20's. After initially asking my sister was ok due to the smoke and not knowing if she could move, she managed to get out and he became agressive with her, saying it was her fault because she crashed into them.

Police arrived and basically said it's insurance call, but even with witnesses the 3 in their car work against her 2. This lot in the Yaris had only insured the car for 3 days starting on the day of the accident. Her insurance called her to get more statements but said it may go to court. Her insurance won't go up too much but she lost her £200 excess.

Is it worth getting a solicitor involved in this should it get to court? Police said if she was under 25 she could have been charged for dangerous driving - I know the consensus of the law is it is always the person behinds fault no matter the circumstances. Angers me this is a blatant insurance scam for them to gain from and my sister to lose.
Terrible. Almost certainly a scam as you say based on those circumstances. I am sure there is plenty of literature on the net by now on cash for crash scams and almost certainly some lawyer type experts.
Unfortunately however, and again like you say, she will probably be classed as being at fault, being the car behind. The argument is that you should always leave enough room to stop even if the car in front does do exactly what they did and emergency stop. Without wanting to sound like a dick....maybe she should have been leaving slightly more room? After all...in other circumstances the emergency stop could have been genuine...

Good luck though as scams like this are disgusting and those who set them up lower than low.




ETA - I'm not really sure where the correlation between being under 25 and a dangerous driving offence comes from?
Edited by Mk3Spitfire on Tuesday 22 July 13:09


Edited by Mk3Spitfire on Tuesday 22 July 13:10

Cliftonite

8,405 posts

137 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Mk3Spitfire said:
Terrible. Almost certainly a scam as you say based on those circumstances. I am sure there is plenty of literature on the net by now on cash for crash scams and almost certainly some lawyer type experts.
Unfortunately however, and again like you say, she will probably be classed as being at fault, being the car behind. The argument is that you should always leave enough room to stop even if the car in front does do exactly what they did and emergency stop. Without wanting to sound like a dick....maybe she should have been leaving slightly more room? After all...in other circumstances the emergency stop could have been genuine...

Good luck though as scams like this are disgusting and those who set them up lower than low.


ETA - I'm not really sure where the correlation between being under 25 and a dangerous driving offence comes from?
Edited by Mk3Spitfire on Tuesday 22 July 13:09


Edited by Mk3Spitfire on Tuesday 22 July 13:10
Me neither (re ETA). And do two independent witnesses not trump the word of two stooges in the car?



Mouse1903

Original Poster:

839 posts

152 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Not according to the cops. I would have thought no matter if there were more in the car in front, the couple in the car travelling on the opposite side of the road are "neutrals" so to speak with no connection to either party

speedking31

3,541 posts

135 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
"... keeping her distance ..." and "... both airbags went off ..." are not really compatible.

What was the speed limit? Did the Yaris show brake lights? Was the smoke tyre smoke, or steam from the engine bay?

V8forweekends

2,481 posts

123 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
I don't work in insurance any longer, but when I did, "witnesses" in your own car even if they were not known to you didn't "count" for anything.

Nezquick

1,451 posts

125 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Sounds like a typical "slam on" type incident which is commonly associated with fraudulent claims. That's backed up by the fact the Yaris had only been insured 3 days - it's a common scam.

Tell your sister that she needs to be adamant with her insurers - she will not accept that she was to blame. The two "independent" witnesses will hopefully back her on this and their evidence will carry much more weight than that of 3 people who all know each other and are in on it.

Good luck!!

eatcustard

1,003 posts

126 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Nezquick said:
Sounds like a typical "slam on" type incident which is commonly associated with fraudulent claims. That's backed up by the fact the Yaris had only been insured 3 days - it's a common scam.

Tell your sister that she needs to be adamant with her insurers - she will not accept that she was to blame. The two "independent" witnesses will hopefully back her on this and their evidence will carry much more weight than that of 3 people who all know each other and are in on it.

Good luck!!
But she went into the back of them, even if its a scam, keep a safe distance at all times.
What if a kid had run out in front of the "scammer" outcome would still be the same.

I cant see how she will not be at fault.

R11ysf

1,931 posts

181 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
OP, look in to "Operation Catcher" which was est up to tackle this sort of fraud.

Contact them and see what they say.

aw51 121565

4,771 posts

232 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Her insurer will pay out; their overriding concern is to minimise their costs (sod what the policyholder wants to happen!) and paying out will be cheaper than litigation...

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
V8forweekends said:
I don't work in insurance any longer, but when I did, "witnesses" in your own car even if they were not known to you didn't "count" for anything.
Even if their accounts were hostile to the driver?

amancalledrob

1,248 posts

133 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Mouse1903 said:
Not according to the cops. I would have thought no matter if there were more in the car in front, the couple in the car travelling on the opposite side of the road are "neutrals" so to speak with no connection to either party
My sister and her OH both work for an insurer. Naturally this doesn't make me an expert, but she's forever complaining about the can of worms opened when police officers share their opinion on who's 'at fault', since they're so often wrong.

aka_kerrly

12,415 posts

209 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Awful situation to be in, this crash for cash malarkey really is so out of hand & insurers plus the police really need to take these kind of incidents seriously.




Mouse1903 said:
Police said if she was under 25 she could have been charged for dangerous driving - I know the consensus of the law is it is always the person behinds fault no matter the circumstances. Angers me this is a blatant insurance scam for them to gain from and my sister to lose.
That is crazy, what is the justification for this then? So if you were 26 with 2 months driving experience you can smash into the back of someone and risk no charge but if you're 25 with 7 years driving experience and potentially 7 years no claims and make one mistake you are judged as dangerous.

Mr Classic

224 posts

118 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
It's always the person behind fault, UNLESS the car in front stopped for no reason, as the two independent witnesses will agree happened.

Motorrad

6,811 posts

186 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Hope it works out well for her.

Following an incident where some overtook then pulled in front and brake tested me in an obvious cash for crash attempt I now use front and rear dashcam. The only reason I avoided a claim was my natural suspicion of them and good reactions.

I suggest dashcams are the only real defence against these fkers.

Mk3Spitfire

2,921 posts

127 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
amancalledrob said:
My sister and her OH both work for an insurer. Naturally this doesn't make me an expert, but she's forever complaining about the can of worms opened when police officers share their opinion on who's 'at fault', since they're so often wrong.
Hence why at the majority of minor crashes you will hear officers stating "the police don't proportion blame, get in touch with your ins company".
And people don't like hearing that either.

Centurion07

10,381 posts

246 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Nezquick said:
Sounds like a typical "slam on" type incident which is commonly associated with fraudulent claims. That's backed up by the fact the Yaris had only been insured 3 days - it's a common scam.

Tell your sister that she needs to be adamant with her insurers - she will not accept that she was to blame. The two "independent" witnesses will hopefully back her on this and their evidence will carry much more weight than that of 3 people who all know each other and are in on it.

Good luck!!
I don't think insurers work like that.

If what the OP says is accurate, that the Yaris was the only car ahead, as in it didn't overtake & slam on, it didn't pull out in front and slam on, then the only person with any blame is OP's sister, scam or not.

aka_kerrly

12,415 posts

209 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Centurion07 said:
I don't think insurers work like that.

If what the OP says is accurate, that the Yaris was the only car ahead, as in it didn't overtake & slam on, it didn't pull out in front and slam on, then the only person with any blame is OP's sister, scam or not.
Ideally your only real chance of "winning" as such is if you had dash cam footage to prove the was no logical reason and show the severity of the stop.

Rude-boy

22,227 posts

232 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Mouse1903 said:
Not according to the cops. I would have thought no matter if there were more in the car in front, the couple in the car travelling on the opposite side of the road are "neutrals" so to speak with no connection to either party
Not a Police bash but I think that the attending officers are either in need of some further training or are hoping young girl, feed her some BS that makes it sound as though this isn't a dubious as it sounds and maybe we'll only have to fill out one form rather than be in the middle of a long and pain in the arse case that we all know will fold as soon as the 'victims' return to Poland once they realise they have been rumbled.


Rude-boy

22,227 posts

232 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Mr Classic said:
It's always the person behind fault, UNLESS the car in front stopped for no reason, as the two independent witnesses will agree happened.
No my field and know little or nothing but that is also my understanding.

Regardless you sister and my best friend share something in common. Victims of morons but will both now be leaving a damn big gap...