Wife in a bump advice
Discussion
Hi,
The Mrs has been involved in a bump today. She pulled out of a junction through stationary cars in traffic and a car on the moving side of the road hit her. She was stationary.
No damage to her car whatsoever, so I am imagining it was very low speed, but the car that hit her has damaged the bumper... pic below.
Details exchanged at the scene - no fault admitted by anyone.
I have spoken with the chap and he has said he doesn't want to go through insurance. He has very quickly come back to me with a quote of £550 as there is "damage to the metal bars inside". Seems crazy to me. Suspect the car isn't worth that more than £300. I have checked the DVLA database and he has tax and MOT, so assume it is insured.
Any advice on my best course of action? Tempted to just say go through insurance, but obviously it is a claim.
The Mrs has been involved in a bump today. She pulled out of a junction through stationary cars in traffic and a car on the moving side of the road hit her. She was stationary.
No damage to her car whatsoever, so I am imagining it was very low speed, but the car that hit her has damaged the bumper... pic below.
Details exchanged at the scene - no fault admitted by anyone.
I have spoken with the chap and he has said he doesn't want to go through insurance. He has very quickly come back to me with a quote of £550 as there is "damage to the metal bars inside". Seems crazy to me. Suspect the car isn't worth that more than £300. I have checked the DVLA database and he has tax and MOT, so assume it is insured.
Any advice on my best course of action? Tempted to just say go through insurance, but obviously it is a claim.
https://ownvehicle.askmid.com/ will tell you (to a reasonable degree of accuracy, newly insured cars don't always appear) if it's insured.
If no one is admitting blame then chances are it's going to be 50/50. If he's adamant he doesn't want to go through insurance then he either isn't insured himself, or feels he has more to lose from a claim. Either way I'd say you have the better hand of cards....
If no one is admitting blame then chances are it's going to be 50/50. If he's adamant he doesn't want to go through insurance then he either isn't insured himself, or feels he has more to lose from a claim. Either way I'd say you have the better hand of cards....
Yeah I'd be tempted to say that you prefer to go through insurance. Since (in your opinion) he is at fault then it's your choice to make.
Call me cynical but I agree with the guy above - coming back quickly with an overinflated quote strikes me as someone who is either looking to make a quick buck (whose to say the real quote isn't much less and he just wants to pocket the difference?) and/or might chase you for more later.
It'll still be 50/50 I imagine even if she was stationary, unless she has impartial witnesses.
Call me cynical but I agree with the guy above - coming back quickly with an overinflated quote strikes me as someone who is either looking to make a quick buck (whose to say the real quote isn't much less and he just wants to pocket the difference?) and/or might chase you for more later.
It'll still be 50/50 I imagine even if she was stationary, unless she has impartial witnesses.
panholio said:
Thanks very much all.
I have told him we will go through insurance and he has said "fine"
It'll cost you a lot more than 550 in the long run with a fault claim against you. And it does sound as if your mrs is at fault as she was emerging into the traffic on the main road. If I were you I'd counter offer in a reasonable manner - maybe 250?I have told him we will go through insurance and he has said "fine"
You mentioned "No damage to her car whatsoever, so I am imagining it was very low speed, but the car that hit her has damaged the bumper... pic below."
Can I ask a really stupid question?
The damage in that picture is on the near side. Where was the impact point on your wife's car?
For the other drivers near side to be damaged, I can only assume your wife was almost fully into the opposing lane and the pictured vehicle veers to the centre and clipped the rear offside of her car?
If he's hit the back of her car, is he not entirely at fault?
I'm either overthinking this or not thinking at all.
Sorry.
Can I ask a really stupid question?
The damage in that picture is on the near side. Where was the impact point on your wife's car?
For the other drivers near side to be damaged, I can only assume your wife was almost fully into the opposing lane and the pictured vehicle veers to the centre and clipped the rear offside of her car?
If he's hit the back of her car, is he not entirely at fault?
I'm either overthinking this or not thinking at all.
Sorry.
Pixel Pusher said:
Can I ask a really stupid question?
The damage in that picture is on the near side. Where was the impact point on your wife's car?
For the other drivers near side to be damaged, I can only assume your wife was almost fully into the opposing lane and the pictured vehicle veers to the centre and clipped the rear offside of her car?
If he's hit the back of her car, is he not entirely at fault?
I'm either overthinking this or not thinking at all.
Sorry.
These were my thoughts as well - if the OP's wife was nudging through a gap in a line of stationary traffic to try and get to into the opposite lane, I'm struggling to see how the other party's car can be damaged on the nearside.The damage in that picture is on the near side. Where was the impact point on your wife's car?
For the other drivers near side to be damaged, I can only assume your wife was almost fully into the opposing lane and the pictured vehicle veers to the centre and clipped the rear offside of her car?
If he's hit the back of her car, is he not entirely at fault?
I'm either overthinking this or not thinking at all.
Sorry.
I'm suspecting an opportunist who already had the damage and spotted a chance to get it sorted for free and maybe make a few quid as well
Also, any damage that had "bent the metal bars" would have cause a lot more plastic damage than the OP's picture shows. Additionally, if the accident had "bent the metal bars", the OP's wife's car would have considerable damage too.
In the OP's position, I'd be calling the other party's bluff and letting the insurance sort it out.
Sounds like the chancer who did my insurance co. years ago.
Car park, less than walking pace. He goes into my rear quarter. No visible damage to my car at all other than light scuff in the paint. His car £2K of damage and 3 months off work with whiplash plus compo claim.
Smiled a lot when years later an ex-colleague of his told me how he tried the same again, the insurance co. went after him and he ended up in court and got done for it.
Good luck to the OP, i'd just pass to the insurance co. along with messages from him.
Car park, less than walking pace. He goes into my rear quarter. No visible damage to my car at all other than light scuff in the paint. His car £2K of damage and 3 months off work with whiplash plus compo claim.
Smiled a lot when years later an ex-colleague of his told me how he tried the same again, the insurance co. went after him and he ended up in court and got done for it.
Good luck to the OP, i'd just pass to the insurance co. along with messages from him.
Nigel_O said:
These were my thoughts as well - if the OP's wife was nudging through a gap in a line of stationary traffic to try and get to into the opposite lane, I'm struggling to see how the other party's car can be damaged on the nearside.
I'm suspecting an opportunist who already had the damage and spotted a chance to get it sorted for free and maybe make a few quid as well
Also, any damage that had "bent the metal bars" would have cause a lot more plastic damage than the OP's picture shows. Additionally, if the accident had "bent the metal bars", the OP's wife's car would have considerable damage too.
In the OP's position, I'd be calling the other party's bluff and letting the insurance sort it out.
Maybe I'm not going mad then but I'm still struggling.I'm suspecting an opportunist who already had the damage and spotted a chance to get it sorted for free and maybe make a few quid as well
Also, any damage that had "bent the metal bars" would have cause a lot more plastic damage than the OP's picture shows. Additionally, if the accident had "bent the metal bars", the OP's wife's car would have considerable damage too.
In the OP's position, I'd be calling the other party's bluff and letting the insurance sort it out.
The OP has confirmed that his wife's nearside passenger door was hit.
So the nearside of both vehicles.
Pixel Pusher said:
Maybe I'm not going mad then but I'm still struggling.
The OP has confirmed that his wife's nearside passenger door was hit.
So the nearside of both vehicles.
Well, we haven't seen the offside of the other party's car have we. The offside could have taken the bump and be a bit damaged, but it's also popped the bumper off the opposite side. Perfectly feasible.The OP has confirmed that his wife's nearside passenger door was hit.
So the nearside of both vehicles.
hornetrider said:
Why do you say that?
OP's wife is emerging onto a main road - ergo it's her fault.
OP said initially that wife was stationary, then "emerging".. so yeah, I'm not convinced of anything at this point. I said I believed it would be 50/50 purely on the strength of both parties disputing liability and painting different versions of the same event.OP's wife is emerging onto a main road - ergo it's her fault.
panholio said:
He hit the front passenger door according to my wife.
He has just messaged me with
"before I go through insurance just to let you know I had 3 kids in the car"
May have to take this discussion offline now.
On the basis of that message definitely go through insurance. It will cost you in the long run, but zedx19 called this at the start.He has just messaged me with
"before I go through insurance just to let you know I had 3 kids in the car"
May have to take this discussion offline now.
Save that message too, and tell your insurance company ASAP about it and also the fact that the other party is intimating that he is going to file a potentially fraudulent personal injury claim. Probably won't change anything in the grand scheme of things, but I'd feel better for it if it were me.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff