Scrape in car park, Insurance what way would they go?

[stuartturbo]

Car park in question has no cctv.
But Son was driving though car park and claimed someone reversed out of space and clipped him
Other driver claims son hit him driving past.
Damage is to rear offside wing/bumper on his car.
Other car is Rear bumper towards near side.
Son has passenger witness to back him up and the damage to me does back his story up.
However the other driver claims he was pulling into the space and my son hit him as he drive past. I'd expect Damage to front on son car not rear!!!.
I Think driver is taking piss with new P plate driver.
What way would the insurance company take.
due to excess I tempted just to swallow the cost even though I generally feel he's not a fault. I may be biased hence second option.
I will pay the company not the other driver.

[Dr Interceptor]

If your son was driving in a straight line, its very difficult to hit someone with the back of your car. If he'd driven into the 3rd party, I would have expected damage to the front of your sons car.

I would suggest the positioning of the damage corroborates the story that the third party reversed out while your son was passing.

[swisstoni]

So, is the driver you think is at fault going to report this to their insurance company?

Or are they wanting money direct from you for repairs?

[The spinner of plates]

IME, without camera footage insurance companies like to go knock for knock for this time of thing.

So likely it will go down as a fault claim for you both.

[Dr Interceptor]

The spinner of plates said:

IME, without camera footage insurance companies like to go knock for knock for this time of thing.

So likely it will go down as a fault claim for you both.

Yup, even though it's obvious what happened... 50/50 claim.

[stuartturbo]

Cheers sort of lol confirmed my thoughts
The other party haven't asked for money as yet.
But I'd insist in paying repairer
He literally had been insured for a day. So I would cancel his policy after and start again. Just so as not to waste a year hopefully claim free.
He wouldn't claim on his car as damage is bearly noticeable. When compared to the rest of the car 😆 🤣 .
I think it's just being 95% certain the other driver is taking the piss but knowing how much agro it will be.
I'm going to wait until car park comes back to me hopefully the ANPR will show a massive time difference between cars entering car park to help sway the argument

[swisstoni]

So the other driver has caused the accident and is wanting money directly off the person he’s hit?

I’d be telling him to jog on and start a claim with his insurers. Chances are that’s the last you’d hear of it.

[andyA700]

If the damage to your son's car is rear offside, then it is obvious that the other driver has caused the accident. They are libel.

[NFT]

Utter pain in the ass, your son will have to declare it for years if the other driver tells theirs... If you make a claim through insurer, they will lock his policy in for the year, and indeed as a victim myself of some bint that took piss, got courtesy car for a minor bumper mark and claimed for the whole right side of her already scraped up shed of a car which I found out later when my insurer called me and informed me wanting me to confirm what occurred as she wanted a completely disproportionate sum and courtesy car when it was not even dented but a mark on plastic rear bumper.

As far as I know you are not obliged to make a claim, may have to tell them someone hit your son through.. and I would avoid doing insurer like little lamb without protest because your son will have larger loss in future inflated premiums if they just pay out and treat your son like a risk in future,

You have a witness, possible ANPR, insurer if you tell them may try get other CCTV from any police/city/town cameras to show time and in store footage could help if they can get it if you act fast, as other driver coming out store exit on internal cameras with shopping then hitting your son will support your claim of events too, the damage is not immediately consistent with other party claiming your son drove into him unless he claims your son drove backwards, the damage to paintwork may show direction of contact force, and your insurer may be able to help get a good evidence package if you make it clear asap that you absolutely refute any suggestion of your son being at fault and insist on witness, that they get any CCTV they can get and look at the damage in a collision investigation because you think it is fraud. A special team of people exist in insurers to cut down on fraudulent claims and you may find more support than you expect.

I don't know your son, but I would be sure he is honest and even consider involving BIB with a complaint that he backed into your son, he is trying to claim your son caused an accident and you consider it fraud, hopefully any enquiries will make it real for other driver if BIB turn up and make enquiries about the incident. IN addition to any serious questioning by his own insurer that may later occur if yours calls his and puts a challenge in that will be potentially disproportionately costly for them to defend.

Edited by NFT on Saturday 9th July 14:53

[TonyF1]

It sounds like the other driving is bluffing on who was at fault. What do you want to achieve, for this go away, other driver to pay for damage to son’s car or go through insurance?

Worse case will be 50/50. Decide from above and call the other driver.

[NFT]

TonyF1 said:

It sounds like the other driving is bluffing on who was at fault. What do you want to achieve, for this go away, other driver to pay for damage to son’s car or go through insurance?

Worse case will be 50/50. Decide from above and call the other driver.

indeed, my view is his son should not have to make any claim, some tit wants to use his son to either get a repair or the situation to stop it going to insurer as recently passed with a lot to lose.

It is possible to diligently make insurer aware, advise them of the situation and request the damage is inspected suspecting the other driver wishes to commit fraud. It should be possible for his insurer to at least look at the damage to determine the forensic value of it in terms of contact direction to then allow the son to avoid making a claim if he wishes, and allow insurer to protect him/themselves from any fraudulent claim.

Insurers are not only to cover damage, they are also infused with lawyers and anti fraud teams, if they think a driver could try defraud them/customer for damage he caused while poor son wants to make no claim, then protect him they should, without making a claim he has to declare elsewhere for years to come.

It would be potentially a costly mistake to shut insurer out hoping the idiots insurer wont later inform them, let the OP's sons insurer earn their money now a customer is at risk of being defrauded by a bloody idiot thinking as he's a new driver he can take the piss is what I say, unless other party wants nothing and just wants situation to vanish into thin air like it never happened.

In a fair world his son should be able to receive offers from the other driver/their insurer having (other driver)made a claim on his own insurance to cover damage to ops car, it sound like he came out a bay without looking and hit ops son, like an idiot, luckily ops son was not walking, and ops son was innocently enjoying his driving progression going to local shops. It's something I simply get disgusted about the idea of, blaming ops son deserves consequences if he tries defraud son/his insurer.

Edited by NFT on Saturday 9th July 18:00

[swisstoni]

If you ‘diligently inform your insurer’ of anything like this they will enter an incident on the insurance database.

There’s no ‘just for info’ option as far as they are concerned.

[Jawls]

As others have said, I think the other driver is taking the piss.

You need to think what your backstop would be though. Would you be willing to go 50/50 on repairs to keep insurers out of it etc? Suppose that depends on the extent of the damage to their car.

I’d also be investigating dashcam solutions for your son’s car, just so that no clown can do this again in future and so your son’s confidence doesn’t get knocked.

[NFT]

swisstoni said:

If you ‘diligently inform your insurer’ of anything like this they will enter an incident on the insurance database.

There’s no ‘just for info’ option as far as they are concerned.

Indeed they do, they record someone crashed into him by backing out of a bay if the case, and that they did everything they could to immediately protect the insurer from loss by suspected fraud.

It sets it as a record that he is a victim, same as if it was parked up and a drunk clipped it, noting, if it is the case, he had & an insurer confirm the matter inspecting the contact damage acting in the insurers strictest interests with clear notice he wishes to make no claim, which he can later explain to a broker that will cut the increased cost down or get rid of 90% of the time.

But if they hear late from the idiots insurer they can cancel the policy as you did not inform them, (including canceling that and getting a new one and not declaring something that's picked up on a regular sweep of future insurers customers if suddenly other parties report is added) for a new driver having to then report an incident, and having had policy cancelled they become uninsurable, almost like they have a history of drunk & uninsured driving.

Going to a broker and explaining your basically the perfect insurable candidate for an insurer as you protect them, as opposed to trying to shut them out is much better a position, and likely he can then pursue the idiot for damage. With forensic evidence from insurer. Who should later be happy to not bump premium up and indeed may likely if he is not making a claim, allow him his no claims bonus.

This was advice from a broker for any future incidents, who I approached after being defrauded by a bint and going like a lamb to insurer and reporting it, allowing them to decide freely, only to later have insurer asking why my minor bumper kiss was going to cost so much with a courtesy car also claimed by the other idiot party getting the whole right side repaired when I had no damage to mine and presumed a small mark on her bumper was my fault, fessed up to insurer blind to industries inner workings and got

Edited by NFT on Sunday 10th July 16:06

[GranpaB]

stuartturbo said:

He literally had been insured for a day. So I would cancel his policy after and start again. Just so as not to waste a year hopefully claim free.

Would this be worth doing though as he would have to declare it anyway?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

The spinner of plates said:

IME, without camera footage insurance companies like to go knock for knock for this time of thing.

May be settled 50/50. But no one has done knock for knock for about 30 years.

[Ron240]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

May be settled 50/50. But no one has done knock for knock for about 30 years.

This is simply commonly used unofficial terminology.
It means the insurers settle with their own customers regardless of who is ultimately at fault...so it is 50/50.
I'm not sure what your point is?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Ron240 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

May be settled 50/50. But no one has done knock for knock for about 30 years.

This is simply commonly used unofficial terminology.
It means the insurers settle with their own customers regardless of who is ultimately at fault...so it is 50/50.
I'm not sure what your point is?

My point is you are wrong, and K for K and 50/50 are 2 entirely different things.

A Ferrari and and Fiesta hit wing mirrors on a country road. Both equally to blame. Both need a new mirror and housing, £100 for the Fiesta, £2500 for the Ferrari.

Knock for knock, which used to exist but was scrapped about 30 years ago, the Fiesta insurer pays £100, the Ferrari insurer pays £2500.

50/50, The Ferrari insurer pays out £2500, but claims £1250 back off the Fiesta insurer. The Fiesta insurer pays £100 but claims £50 quid off the Ferrari insurer. So both insurers end up paying out £1300. Which is much fairer, as the total damage was £2600 and both drivers were 50% to blame.

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Sunday 10th July 22:39

[Ron240]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

My point is you are wrong

No that couldn't possibly be your point because I had not said anything when you originally made it.
You were in too much haste to appear superior and got your wording wrong.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Ron240 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

My point is you are wrong

No that couldn't possibly be your point because I had not said anything when you originally made it.
You were in too much haste to appear superior and got your wording wrong.

You originally said the claim could be settled k for k. I said it wouldn't be settled that way, because it no longer exists. It was wrong information you were providing. But I said it could be settled 50/50. I had no idea you didn't know the difference between k for k and 50/50. That only became clear after your 2nd post giving out incorrect info.

Perhaps you'd like to try for a hat trick!