Accident who's fault.
Discussion
Reversing out of my drive today onto a busy cul de sac reversing past a parked car, I was doing this slowly as its not always easy to see. I stopped as I could see a car creeping past me and the car has caught the drivers side rear into my passenger side rear of my bumper. The other car claims they did not see me.
Is this me at fault for this accident? How will the insurance company look at this? I have a large excess to pay but if I am 100% at fault I am happy to pay this but at this point I am unsure.
Is this me at fault for this accident? How will the insurance company look at this? I have a large excess to pay but if I am 100% at fault I am happy to pay this but at this point I am unsure.
I'm afraid you will almost certainly be found at fault if you were reversing out of a driveway onto a road, especially if the other driver decides you were moving at the time. If you're lucky it will go 50/50 but unlikely.
Why on earth would you not reverse in if it that bad to reverse out?
Why on earth would you not reverse in if it that bad to reverse out?
Cyberprog said:
IIRC the highway code states you should not reverse from a minor road to a major one. So your drive is a minor road, compared to the street, which is the major road. So the OP is at fault for reversing off.
Rule 201 : https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using...This has 50/50 all over it.
Regardless of how slow you were going or how careless the other party might be. Insurers will never be able to tell exactly and therefore it's easy for them to go 50/50. Unless you phone them everyday and say your not accepting it and threaten ever legal eagle in the land on them you'll have no choice but to accept it.
Regardless of how slow you were going or how careless the other party might be. Insurers will never be able to tell exactly and therefore it's easy for them to go 50/50. Unless you phone them everyday and say your not accepting it and threaten ever legal eagle in the land on them you'll have no choice but to accept it.
Three points here:
1. A stationary vehicle is a hazard but cannot be at fault as the manoeuvring vehicle has a duty to drive so as to avoid hazards.
2. Even if you settle without claiming, you have a contractual obligation to report the collision to your insurer, as per the question asked at every renewal time, "Any accidents, claims or convictions in the last five years?"
3. Rule 201 is guidance NOT law.
I'm an ex-accident investigator, we make recommendations to the claims handlers; how they deal with the claim is up to them. IMHO, this is NOT your fault providing you can prove you were stationary at time. However as has been said, the insurer may settle as a 50/50 because:
a. It's a low value claim and not worth their time defending it.
b. Both drivers loose their NCB which means both will face higher premiums next year, ergo the insurer earns more.
1. A stationary vehicle is a hazard but cannot be at fault as the manoeuvring vehicle has a duty to drive so as to avoid hazards.
2. Even if you settle without claiming, you have a contractual obligation to report the collision to your insurer, as per the question asked at every renewal time, "Any accidents, claims or convictions in the last five years?"
3. Rule 201 is guidance NOT law.
I'm an ex-accident investigator, we make recommendations to the claims handlers; how they deal with the claim is up to them. IMHO, this is NOT your fault providing you can prove you were stationary at time. However as has been said, the insurer may settle as a 50/50 because:
a. It's a low value claim and not worth their time defending it.
b. Both drivers loose their NCB which means both will face higher premiums next year, ergo the insurer earns more.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff