Something doesn't ring true = daughter's car accident
Discussion
Been thinking about this for the past week or so and decided that throwing i out to the learned PH massive might be illumiating, so...
About 3 weeks ago we heard that our daugher (25, lives with her grandparents) has had an accident. The story was that she was driving down a country lane (no cenre markings) when a woman in a Corsa came round a bend "on the wrong side of the road" and they hit. So far so good, except:
The damage to daughter's car consists of a slighly cracked number plate and a couple of dents (one about 7 inch diameter and another close to it about half that size) in the bonnet about 3 - 4 inches back from the front edge. No damage to the grille, bumper or lights.
The woman is apparently making a personal injury claim for £8k, but no claim for any damage to her car. Seems odd that someone who goes straight for the ambulance chasers wouldn't also be claiming for a least a scratch on her paintwork, but I guess it takes all sorts!
The police have been chasing daughter for a statement (we know this for fact because my wife was visiting when they phoned last week). Seems strange that they're getting involved for a low speed (must have been for the damage involved), no witness, car-on-car on a country lane.
Our daughter's insurers conducted a 2 hour telephone interview with her, which seems a little excessive for what would presumably be a knock-for-knock if it happened as and where she said. She claims they asked her what was happening "about the impending prosecution" during it. She's also since changed her version to the woman being "parked on the wrong side of the road round a bend".
Now, my wife and I have our suspicions about what really happened, but it'd be interesting to see what initial conclusions the PH sleuths might come to from the above info including the damage?
About 3 weeks ago we heard that our daugher (25, lives with her grandparents) has had an accident. The story was that she was driving down a country lane (no cenre markings) when a woman in a Corsa came round a bend "on the wrong side of the road" and they hit. So far so good, except:
The damage to daughter's car consists of a slighly cracked number plate and a couple of dents (one about 7 inch diameter and another close to it about half that size) in the bonnet about 3 - 4 inches back from the front edge. No damage to the grille, bumper or lights.
The woman is apparently making a personal injury claim for £8k, but no claim for any damage to her car. Seems odd that someone who goes straight for the ambulance chasers wouldn't also be claiming for a least a scratch on her paintwork, but I guess it takes all sorts!
The police have been chasing daughter for a statement (we know this for fact because my wife was visiting when they phoned last week). Seems strange that they're getting involved for a low speed (must have been for the damage involved), no witness, car-on-car on a country lane.
Our daughter's insurers conducted a 2 hour telephone interview with her, which seems a little excessive for what would presumably be a knock-for-knock if it happened as and where she said. She claims they asked her what was happening "about the impending prosecution" during it. She's also since changed her version to the woman being "parked on the wrong side of the road round a bend".
Now, my wife and I have our suspicions about what really happened, but it'd be interesting to see what initial conclusions the PH sleuths might come to from the above info including the damage?
Variomatic said:
She's also since changed her version
oh dear. Presumably she's been offered a sum of money for this 'risk-free scam', and now she's in the s
t. Does she work?Out of interest are you estranged?
edit
oh just read the pedestrian theories above - I assumed the other woman was claiming via her insurance company ie she was in a car, but it was a setup for them to share personal injury monies. I hadn't thought of it being a genuine 'accident' but with a pedestrian.
Edited by CoolHands on Sunday 3rd August 23:18
CoolHands said:
oh dear. Presumably she's been offered a sum of money for this 'risk-free scam', and now she's in the st. Does she work?
Out of interest are you estranged?
Pretty sure it was a genuine accident, just not convinced it was as she's said. Yes, we are (semi) estranged but her mum's worried she's digging herself a hole she might have problems bluffing her way out of this time.t. Does she work?Out of interest are you estranged?
thing is, if someone's claiming against her I can't see why she'd lie to the police - the other person will tell them what happened so seems a bit daft. Maybe advise her if she's been a bit silly and told the police an inaccurate version of events, she'd be better off fessing up to them before it goes further.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Why do you need 'us' to say. From the info. there is an obvious (maybe wrong) conclusion.
Only way to find out is to speak to (or have someone else speak to) her.
Unfortunately, on her past history, she could quite easily be charged with hiting a pedestrian, go to court, be found guilty, and still swear blind that "it wasn't like that".Only way to find out is to speak to (or have someone else speak to) her.
The reason for asking was just to see if others would read the same into the damage (accurate description because I've actually seen it), extended insurance "interview" and police involvement as we are.
Marshalla, fair comment re whether it exists, which I can't help with I'm afraid. But the other car must have existed because (as she pointed out early on) she could "say exactly what was in its footwell and she'd hardly be able to make those details up would she?"
CoolHands said:
thing is, if someone's claiming against her I can't see why she'd lie to the police - the other person will tell them what happened so seems a bit daft.
She has a knack for keeping 2 or 3 different versions of the truth going depending on the audience. So, apart from it not being in any way her fault, the version she's given the police may well be nothing like what we've been told.Though why the police would be bothering in the first place with a low speed knock-for-knock on a single track road is beyond me!
Variomatic said:
Our daughter's insurers conducted a 2 hour telephone interview with her
They were doing that to stress test her. To find out if she was lying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_risk_analysis
http://www.capita-softwareandmanagedservices.co.uk...
Variomatic said:
Marshalla, fair comment re whether it exists, which I can't help with I'm afraid. But the other car must have existed because (as she pointed out early on) she could "say exactly what was in its footwell and she'd hardly be able to make those details up would she?"
How did it manage to leap up and damage her car's bonnet, but not the front or side then ? Based on the information provided, there seems little chance that there is any other car.
(However, the investigator's mantra that "absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence" should be borne in mind).
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff