When is an accident an accident...
Discussion
An interesting scenario happening to a mate (yes really...)
He returned to his car in a car park to find it across the roadway, resting onto another car, with a parking ticket. Somewhat perplexed he checked his car and the other car carefully for damage. Saw none. Took photo's to prove.
His car has an electronic parking break, known to be a bit odd. He has no way of knowing whether it failed, whether he failed, or even if he was punted out of his space (unlikely).
From his point of view as there was no damage, he appealed the parking ticket (and won), and moved on with his life.
Owner of other car has now made a substantial claim for damage. This does not fit in with the photo's and his insurance company are not rolling over...
He has now heard via his company that the Police are on his case for Driving with Due Care and Attention and Leaving the Scene of an Accident.
I suspect in these circumstances, most of us would leave once we have checked, confirmed and documented no damage.
I have no more details, but it is an interesting scenario. Friend is a bit like Michael Douglas from Falling Down at present...
He returned to his car in a car park to find it across the roadway, resting onto another car, with a parking ticket. Somewhat perplexed he checked his car and the other car carefully for damage. Saw none. Took photo's to prove.
His car has an electronic parking break, known to be a bit odd. He has no way of knowing whether it failed, whether he failed, or even if he was punted out of his space (unlikely).
From his point of view as there was no damage, he appealed the parking ticket (and won), and moved on with his life.
Owner of other car has now made a substantial claim for damage. This does not fit in with the photo's and his insurance company are not rolling over...
He has now heard via his company that the Police are on his case for Driving with Due Care and Attention and Leaving the Scene of an Accident.
I suspect in these circumstances, most of us would leave once we have checked, confirmed and documented no damage.
I have no more details, but it is an interesting scenario. Friend is a bit like Michael Douglas from Falling Down at present...
Does he still have the pictures? If so, the third party needs to prove the damage was as a result of this collision. If his pics show an intact drivers door for instance, and the 3rd party has a door that's stoved in, then I'd call custard and speak to the BiB as this sounds like insurance fraud. Your mate, through "falling down" shows that insurance fraud isn't a victimless crime.
Second point (but this would be my first reaction) is prove beyond reasonable doubt the car rolled in to the third party, and not that the car rolled away, came to a stop and the third party struck the stationary vehicle.
If this were me, I'd be speaking to the insurance company's fraud department, and I would instruct them to ask the thirdd party about personal injury. If the car was empty, and yet there's a claim for PI then it's deffo a scam
Seems to be a lot of potential scams appearing in these pages.
Second point (but this would be my first reaction) is prove beyond reasonable doubt the car rolled in to the third party, and not that the car rolled away, came to a stop and the third party struck the stationary vehicle.
If this were me, I'd be speaking to the insurance company's fraud department, and I would instruct them to ask the thirdd party about personal injury. If the car was empty, and yet there's a claim for PI then it's deffo a scam
Seems to be a lot of potential scams appearing in these pages.
I agree that there is a high potential for fraud here, but if the damage could be established, there's no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the other car didn't drive into a car that had first rolled away and then come to a stop.
1. The burden of proof for the insurance claim is "on the balance of probabilities." "Beyond all rasonable doubt" only applies to a crime. If we ignore all other factors, what is more likely - that there was one incident at the scene (car rolls away) or two (car rolls away and was subsequently hit after stopping);
2. If the car did roll away and came to a stop without the other car being there, what would have caused that? Without the car it was resting against, surely it would have gone further until it hit something else? (Not necessarily, e.g., if a downhill gradient turned into an uphill and the road then flattened out, but that seems like the most likely option).
3. There is no obligation to report an accident with no damage or injury, and of course no loss sufferered by the car that was hit if there was no damage - so your friend has a defence to the failure to report an accident, assuming that the photos do indeed show no damage. See s.170 (1) (b) of the RTA. Here, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show "beyond all reasonable doubt" that the driver had an obligation to report the acident - i.e., it must be impossible for the driver to introduce an arguable (though not necessarily provable) element of doubt. A simple denial in the face of the evidence is unlikely to create a "reasonable doubt" as there is no "reason" to back up that doubt, so the pictures will be key.
4. Leaving the parking brake off on a hill probably does meet the threshold for driving without due care and attention - that he failed to meet the standard of a careful and competent driver (s.3 ZA (2) RTA 1988). However, if the car experienced a mechanical fault then the threshold would be a bit higher, in that he might have been expected to leave the car in gear if he knew it was dodgy, as the test under s.3 ZA (3) includes matters within his actual knowledge. Again, this has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. If a solicitor is available, I would recommend that he attend the interview with one - there are issues around what he should and should not say about his actual knowledge of a mechanical failure, and the risk of an inference of later invention if he decides to go "no comment" in relation to the two possible charges.
1. The burden of proof for the insurance claim is "on the balance of probabilities." "Beyond all rasonable doubt" only applies to a crime. If we ignore all other factors, what is more likely - that there was one incident at the scene (car rolls away) or two (car rolls away and was subsequently hit after stopping);
2. If the car did roll away and came to a stop without the other car being there, what would have caused that? Without the car it was resting against, surely it would have gone further until it hit something else? (Not necessarily, e.g., if a downhill gradient turned into an uphill and the road then flattened out, but that seems like the most likely option).
3. There is no obligation to report an accident with no damage or injury, and of course no loss sufferered by the car that was hit if there was no damage - so your friend has a defence to the failure to report an accident, assuming that the photos do indeed show no damage. See s.170 (1) (b) of the RTA. Here, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show "beyond all reasonable doubt" that the driver had an obligation to report the acident - i.e., it must be impossible for the driver to introduce an arguable (though not necessarily provable) element of doubt. A simple denial in the face of the evidence is unlikely to create a "reasonable doubt" as there is no "reason" to back up that doubt, so the pictures will be key.
4. Leaving the parking brake off on a hill probably does meet the threshold for driving without due care and attention - that he failed to meet the standard of a careful and competent driver (s.3 ZA (2) RTA 1988). However, if the car experienced a mechanical fault then the threshold would be a bit higher, in that he might have been expected to leave the car in gear if he knew it was dodgy, as the test under s.3 ZA (3) includes matters within his actual knowledge. Again, this has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. If a solicitor is available, I would recommend that he attend the interview with one - there are issues around what he should and should not say about his actual knowledge of a mechanical failure, and the risk of an inference of later invention if he decides to go "no comment" in relation to the two possible charges.
Edited by CYMR0 on Saturday 1st July 13:17
Some parts if this make no sense....
1. How did the driver of the other car get your friends details ? No mention of him leaving his details ?
2. The parking attendant put a penalty ticket on a car that had obviously rolled away from somewhere else ? Why didn't he have a parking ticket if he was in the same car park ?
3. Your friends car was "resting onto" the other car ? There is every chance the door was damaged if looked at closely. Square on you might not see it. The 'man in the street' might not see it. A picture might not show it.
4. It feels highly unlikely that a person would go to the effort of making a claim through their insurance if there was no damage. That would be ridiculous....
1. How did the driver of the other car get your friends details ? No mention of him leaving his details ?
2. The parking attendant put a penalty ticket on a car that had obviously rolled away from somewhere else ? Why didn't he have a parking ticket if he was in the same car park ?
3. Your friends car was "resting onto" the other car ? There is every chance the door was damaged if looked at closely. Square on you might not see it. The 'man in the street' might not see it. A picture might not show it.
4. It feels highly unlikely that a person would go to the effort of making a claim through their insurance if there was no damage. That would be ridiculous....
Edited by OddCat on Saturday 1st July 14:41
OddCat said:
Some parts if this make no sense....
1. How did the driver of the other car get your friends details ? No mention of him leaving his details ?
Not known.
2. The parking attendant put a penalty ticket on a car that had obviously rolled away from somewhere else ? Why didn't he have a parking ticket if he was in the same car park ?
Confused. Other car was in a space. Friends car rolled out of a space and got ticket.
3. Your friends car was "resting onto" the other car ? There is every chance the door was damaged if looked at closely. Square on you might not see it. The 'man in the street' might not see it. A picture might not show it.
I believe it was resting bumper to bumper.
4. It feels highly unlikely that a person would go to the effort of making a claim through their insurance if there was no damage. That would be ridiculous....
Maybe. Or maybe not.
1. How did the driver of the other car get your friends details ? No mention of him leaving his details ?
Not known.
2. The parking attendant put a penalty ticket on a car that had obviously rolled away from somewhere else ? Why didn't he have a parking ticket if he was in the same car park ?
Confused. Other car was in a space. Friends car rolled out of a space and got ticket.
3. Your friends car was "resting onto" the other car ? There is every chance the door was damaged if looked at closely. Square on you might not see it. The 'man in the street' might not see it. A picture might not show it.
I believe it was resting bumper to bumper.
4. It feels highly unlikely that a person would go to the effort of making a claim through their insurance if there was no damage. That would be ridiculous....
Maybe. Or maybe not.
Edited by OddCat on Saturday 1st July 14:41
surveyor said:
OddCat said:
Some parts if this make no sense....
1. How did the driver of the other car get your friends details ? No mention of him leaving his details ?
Not known.
YOUR FRIEND LEFT NO DETAILS THEN ? WHEN BLOKE COMES BACK TO HIS CAR HOW WOULD HE EVEN KNOW THERE HAD BEEN AN INCIDENT ?
2. The parking attendant put a penalty ticket on a car that had obviously rolled away from somewhere else ? Why didn't he have a parking ticket if he was in the same car park ?
Confused. Other car was in a space. Friends car rolled out of a space and got ticket.
SO YOUR FRIEND WAS DISPLAYING A VALID TICKET BUT GOT A PENALTY FOR NOT BEING PARKED CORRECTLY !
3. Your friends car was "resting onto" the other car ? There is every chance the door was damaged if looked at closely. Square on you might not see it. The 'man in the street' might not see it. A picture might not show it.
I believe it was resting bumper to bumper.
YOU BELIEVE? YOU DON'T SOUND CONVINCED....BUMPERS REFORM TO A CERTAIN DEGREE BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE IS NO DAMAGE
4. It feels highly unlikely that a person would go to the effort of making a claim through their insurance if there was no damage. That would be ridiculous....
Maybe. Or maybe not.
DEFINITELY MAYBE.
FWIW, IF I FOUND THAT SOME CLOWN HAD LET THEIR CAR CRASH INTO MINE, TAKEN PICTURES TO COVER THEIR @RSE, AND DRIVEN AWAY WITHOUT LEAVING DETAILS I'D BE DISCHUFFED TO SAY THE LEAST
1. How did the driver of the other car get your friends details ? No mention of him leaving his details ?
Not known.
YOUR FRIEND LEFT NO DETAILS THEN ? WHEN BLOKE COMES BACK TO HIS CAR HOW WOULD HE EVEN KNOW THERE HAD BEEN AN INCIDENT ?
2. The parking attendant put a penalty ticket on a car that had obviously rolled away from somewhere else ? Why didn't he have a parking ticket if he was in the same car park ?
Confused. Other car was in a space. Friends car rolled out of a space and got ticket.
SO YOUR FRIEND WAS DISPLAYING A VALID TICKET BUT GOT A PENALTY FOR NOT BEING PARKED CORRECTLY !
3. Your friends car was "resting onto" the other car ? There is every chance the door was damaged if looked at closely. Square on you might not see it. The 'man in the street' might not see it. A picture might not show it.
I believe it was resting bumper to bumper.
YOU BELIEVE? YOU DON'T SOUND CONVINCED....BUMPERS REFORM TO A CERTAIN DEGREE BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE IS NO DAMAGE
4. It feels highly unlikely that a person would go to the effort of making a claim through their insurance if there was no damage. That would be ridiculous....
Maybe. Or maybe not.
DEFINITELY MAYBE.
FWIW, IF I FOUND THAT SOME CLOWN HAD LET THEIR CAR CRASH INTO MINE, TAKEN PICTURES TO COVER THEIR @RSE, AND DRIVEN AWAY WITHOUT LEAVING DETAILS I'D BE DISCHUFFED TO SAY THE LEAST
surveyor said:
His car has an electronic parking break, known to be a bit odd. He has no way of knowing whether it failed, whether he failed, or even if he was punted out of his space (unlikely).
I suppose you don't think too clearly at the time, but he should have been able to see if the EPB was on.My wife's car (VW Tiguan) has one, as well as auto-hold. We never use auto-hold (seems pointless in an auto) and only use the EPB manually, but it can work automatically. Her car is DSG so it locks the transmission in Park anyway.
I have read on Tiguan forums of manual cars rolling away because the EPB allegedly didn't automatically apply and as the auto-hold "fades" with the engine off then the car rolls away after a while.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff