Taxi driver hit rear of car, now disputing he's at fault
Discussion
In June my wife was stopped at a zebra crossing in town. The taxi driver behind her hadn't realised she'd stopped and shunted into the back of her car at relatively low speed but enough to cause this much damage to his car.
Her car, a Skoda Yeti, came away with a scuff to the rear bumper and a dent in the plastic apron which soon popped back into shape a few days later. He apologised at the scene and said he was distracted and hadn't noticed she'd stopped. He gave her his taxi company's card and a name to contact.
I can't remember who instigated the following but her car was collected a week later by a body repair centre. At this point, the plastic had popped back into shape and the scuff was there but hardly horrific and we said this feels like a bit of overkill and we don't mind if the car is left alone, we can live with the scrape. The bodyshop guy said 'You don't know what might have happened underneath, we'll take a look'.
Off it went and came back a week later with what looked like a freshly repainted bumper - all the other marks on it had vanished too.
Last month, she received a letter from her insurers asking for her version of events again as they haven't had a response from his insurers. Today, she's received a letter which says the other party are disputing liability.
The only witness other than my wife was my daughter who was a passenger. There were people about in town but she didn't think to get anybody else's details at the time as the taxi driver was effectively holding his hands up and apologising.
How can we best respond? Thanks in advance.
Her car, a Skoda Yeti, came away with a scuff to the rear bumper and a dent in the plastic apron which soon popped back into shape a few days later. He apologised at the scene and said he was distracted and hadn't noticed she'd stopped. He gave her his taxi company's card and a name to contact.
I can't remember who instigated the following but her car was collected a week later by a body repair centre. At this point, the plastic had popped back into shape and the scuff was there but hardly horrific and we said this feels like a bit of overkill and we don't mind if the car is left alone, we can live with the scrape. The bodyshop guy said 'You don't know what might have happened underneath, we'll take a look'.
Off it went and came back a week later with what looked like a freshly repainted bumper - all the other marks on it had vanished too.
Last month, she received a letter from her insurers asking for her version of events again as they haven't had a response from his insurers. Today, she's received a letter which says the other party are disputing liability.
The only witness other than my wife was my daughter who was a passenger. There were people about in town but she didn't think to get anybody else's details at the time as the taxi driver was effectively holding his hands up and apologising.
How can we best respond? Thanks in advance.
You just tell them what happened, again. There's nothing more you can really add is there, assuming you don't have any dashcam evidence?
Don't really know how the taxi driver could dispute it, unless they are saying your wife just upped and decided to reverse into him at the zebra crossing, for some reason. Doesn't seem plausible to me.
Don't really know how the taxi driver could dispute it, unless they are saying your wife just upped and decided to reverse into him at the zebra crossing, for some reason. Doesn't seem plausible to me.
Liability around insurance claims seems to be ridiculous right now. My wife's car was hit while parked back in January (no other person in the car), we have photos from the scene of damage on both cars, text messages from the third party apologising and offering to fix outside of insurance and our insurance is asking if we're willing to go to court because the third party is denying any knowledge of damage on their car! I have no idea if this is actually the third party or the third party's insurer though...
ts like the "professional driver" in this case.dave123456 said:
Have you established what is being disputed? From you post it suggests that the repair shop undertook work and maybe he s disputing the quantum of the claim not being commensurate with the damage he saw ( and in fairness you allude to).
The letter says he is denying liability for the impact and they want evidence to prove they are at fault.username_checksout said:
dave123456 said:
Have you established what is being disputed? From you post it suggests that the repair shop undertook work and maybe he s disputing the quantum of the claim not being commensurate with the damage he saw ( and in fairness you allude to).
The letter says he is denying liability for the impact and they want evidence to prove they are at fault.dave123456 said:
username_checksout said:
dave123456 said:
Have you established what is being disputed? From you post it suggests that the repair shop undertook work and maybe he s disputing the quantum of the claim not being commensurate with the damage he saw ( and in fairness you allude to).
The letter says he is denying liability for the impact and they want evidence to prove they are at fault.generally the car which drove in to the back of the one in front is deemed at fault when only 2 cars are involved.
I had a similar situation a few years ago when someone went into the back of my Skyline - looked like a takeaway delivery driver so I suspect they were not insured for business purposes.
anyway it took months and months and months but eventually his insurance co paid out. I just left it with my insurance co to sort.
anyway it took months and months and months but eventually his insurance co paid out. I just left it with my insurance co to sort.
We had a car parked on the road, had doorbell footage of a skip driver smashing into it, jumping out and looking at the damage, then driving off (witness got the number plate and company name) - took a year to get them to admit liability and took it literally to the day before court. Often these pricks try it on just to see if they can get away with it.
We had the same with an Asda delivery driver, hit our parked car (different street!) witness caught him, number plate, photos of him driving off. Phoned Asda and they denied any delivery lorry went down that road that night. They started dragging it out until I posted on Twitter the issue and hastagged and atted the crap out of every Asda link I could and within minutes customer services reached out and on the call they admitted liability and it was them.
We had the same with an Asda delivery driver, hit our parked car (different street!) witness caught him, number plate, photos of him driving off. Phoned Asda and they denied any delivery lorry went down that road that night. They started dragging it out until I posted on Twitter the issue and hastagged and atted the crap out of every Asda link I could and within minutes customer services reached out and on the call they admitted liability and it was them.
coldel said:
We had a car parked on the road, had doorbell footage of a skip driver smashing into it, jumping out and looking at the damage, then driving off (witness got the number plate and company name) - took a year to get them to admit liability and took it literally to the day before court. Often these pricks try it on just to see if they can get away with it.
We had the same with an Asda delivery driver, hit our parked car (different street!) witness caught him, number plate, photos of him driving off. Phoned Asda and they denied any delivery lorry went down that road that night. They started dragging it out until I posted on Twitter the issue and hastagged and atted the crap out of every Asda link I could and within minutes customer services reached out and on the call they admitted liability and it was them.
Interestingly the amount of times that people claim our vans have hit them is pretty much a joke, luckily the cameras all work, of the ones I know of they were all dropped after the footage was sent over to the other insurance company showing no chance of the van hitting themWe had the same with an Asda delivery driver, hit our parked car (different street!) witness caught him, number plate, photos of him driving off. Phoned Asda and they denied any delivery lorry went down that road that night. They started dragging it out until I posted on Twitter the issue and hastagged and atted the crap out of every Asda link I could and within minutes customer services reached out and on the call they admitted liability and it was them.
coldel said:
We had a car parked on the road, had doorbell footage of a skip driver smashing into it, jumping out and looking at the damage, then driving off (witness got the number plate and company name) - took a year to get them to admit liability and took it literally to the day before court. Often these pricks try it on just to see if they can get away with it.
We had the same with an Asda delivery driver, hit our parked car (different street!) witness caught him, number plate, photos of him driving off. Phoned Asda and they denied any delivery lorry went down that road that night. They started dragging it out until I posted on Twitter the issue and hastagged and atted the crap out of every Asda link I could and within minutes customer services reached out and on the call they admitted liability and it was them.
Funny you should mention that particular Supermarket. I represented a householder who had found a home shopping van in the middle of their manicured lawn, with bits of their very expensive furniture wedged underneath the vehicle. Photographs obtained, CCTV obtained of the vehicle landing in the garden at warp-factor-four, receipts for the shopping purchased at the date and time of the vehicle handing over the weekly shop, and their driver details obtained. We had the same with an Asda delivery driver, hit our parked car (different street!) witness caught him, number plate, photos of him driving off. Phoned Asda and they denied any delivery lorry went down that road that night. They started dragging it out until I posted on Twitter the issue and hastagged and atted the crap out of every Asda link I could and within minutes customer services reached out and on the call they admitted liability and it was them.
It was a slam-dunker…
The Supermarket had the audacity to deny any responsibility to the claimant whatsoever. Their defence, because their driver had failed to issue the claimant with their own ‘bump-card’ then the accident had never happened. They took it to a hearing and refused to even fold on the steps once they’d seen our disclosure.
They ran the ‘bump-card’ defence. It was a very short hearing. I assume their stance was down to the fact they self-insured and any payout came from their bottom-line.
Insurers will always side with the car that got rear ended unless there's evidence proving she reversed or the call rolled back. The taxi will more than likely have a dashcam but won't send the self incriminating footage, so I wouldn't worry about it. You should have a dashcam though. Peace of mind for as little as £50 and 20 minutes hard wiring it
The photo doesn’t appear to show a dash cam in the taxi but I imagine it’s possible he put in a fake version of events when perhaps he realized the impact an accident might have on his record for his job as a taxi driver.
I had similar but a bit harder to defend, a van reversed out of a driveway opposite a T junction side road I was waiting to pull out of, right across the road backward and in to the front of my car.
He then did a whiplash claim saying I crashed in to the back of him.
My insurers (admiral) were amazing and investigated further and eventually the other insurer backed down.
I had similar but a bit harder to defend, a van reversed out of a driveway opposite a T junction side road I was waiting to pull out of, right across the road backward and in to the front of my car.
He then did a whiplash claim saying I crashed in to the back of him.
My insurers (admiral) were amazing and investigated further and eventually the other insurer backed down.
As others have said, I would reply stating the facts as originally stated and ask for the other party to explain and provide evidence as to why they now consider themselves not to be liable after such a period of time.
I suspect that they are trying it on and I presume that as you have the photographic evidence of the other car involved registration plate, then maybe the taxi driver is now saying someone else was driving the car at the time!
I suspect that they are trying it on and I presume that as you have the photographic evidence of the other car involved registration plate, then maybe the taxi driver is now saying someone else was driving the car at the time!
ADJimbo said:
Funny you should mention that particular Supermarket. I represented a householder who had found a home shopping van in the middle of their manicured lawn, with bits of their very expensive furniture wedged underneath the vehicle. Photographs obtained, CCTV obtained of the vehicle landing in the garden at warp-factor-four, receipts for the shopping purchased at the date and time of the vehicle handing over the weekly shop, and their driver details obtained.
It was a slam-dunker
The Supermarket had the audacity to deny any responsibility to the claimant whatsoever. Their defence, because their driver had failed to issue the claimant with their own bump-card then the accident had never happened. They took it to a hearing and refused to even fold on the steps once they d seen our disclosure.
They ran the bump-card defence. It was a very short hearing. I assume their stance was down to the fact they self-insured and any payout came from their bottom-line.
Does their legal team not get a rollocking from the Court when that happens?It was a slam-dunker
The Supermarket had the audacity to deny any responsibility to the claimant whatsoever. Their defence, because their driver had failed to issue the claimant with their own bump-card then the accident had never happened. They took it to a hearing and refused to even fold on the steps once they d seen our disclosure.
They ran the bump-card defence. It was a very short hearing. I assume their stance was down to the fact they self-insured and any payout came from their bottom-line.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff