Found at fault for an accident you didn't cause???
Discussion
Someone I know (not a friend or myself, just an colleague) has been found at fault for an accident he didn't cause.
Keeping it brief, we approached some traffic lights on red, a car had obviously stopped too late and gone over the line a bit. As we approached to a stop a bit behind them, they put it into reverse and sharply moved back, obviously not spotting us, thus crunching into the front of our car.
There were no witnesses.
He was a rather unsavoury fellow, as was his passenger. As details were being exchanged he kept saying about us hitting the back of his car, we were saying 'what are you on about?' etc. Anyway, he was clever about not apologising for hitting us or saying sorry, as we left he was smirking to his passenger. Long & short of it is my colleague has been found at fault by the insurer, lost his no claims and had to pay an excess, as he couldn't prove that it was the other car reversing into him at traffic lights, instead of him hitting the back it. Neither car was written off, just front end & rear end damage.
I don't know any more details other than that, I don't really know him that well to talk to but he said this to me the other day.
How is this fair in the slightest? If there are any legal or insurance people that could comment I'd appreciate
.
Keeping it brief, we approached some traffic lights on red, a car had obviously stopped too late and gone over the line a bit. As we approached to a stop a bit behind them, they put it into reverse and sharply moved back, obviously not spotting us, thus crunching into the front of our car.
There were no witnesses.
He was a rather unsavoury fellow, as was his passenger. As details were being exchanged he kept saying about us hitting the back of his car, we were saying 'what are you on about?' etc. Anyway, he was clever about not apologising for hitting us or saying sorry, as we left he was smirking to his passenger. Long & short of it is my colleague has been found at fault by the insurer, lost his no claims and had to pay an excess, as he couldn't prove that it was the other car reversing into him at traffic lights, instead of him hitting the back it. Neither car was written off, just front end & rear end damage.
I don't know any more details other than that, I don't really know him that well to talk to but he said this to me the other day.
How is this fair in the slightest? If there are any legal or insurance people that could comment I'd appreciate
.Yeah, with no witnesses it's so hard to prove. At the time it seemed like they just didn't notice we were behind, as if they had gone over the line, thought 'oops, lets go back,' crunch. I think maybe the initial mistake was genuine, then as you say a cash for crash scam formed in their minds afterwards. Like I say they we a couple of gobby wideboys.
Blue Oval84 said:
Your word against theirs, and if I were the insurer I would have believed their story over yours too.
It's why I have a dashcam...
This. 2 cars have a collision at the lights. In 99% of occasions, that would be hitting the car in front, not being reversed into by the car in front. Unless the reversing driver is honest, your insurer has to go with the balance of probabilities.It's why I have a dashcam...
Look at it from the other angle. If someone drove into the back of you at a roundabout, then claimed that you reversed into him, would you expect the insurers to say "fair enough, you obviously reversed into him" in spite of your denials and decide that it's your fault?
With no independent witnesses, no CCTV and no physical evidence beyond the fact that the front of your car and the back of his have obviously had a coming together there's no way of knowing who's telling the truth, so the insurers are left settling on the more likely scenario - and sadly it's far more common to drive into the back of people at traffic lights than to reverse into the front of then.
With no independent witnesses, no CCTV and no physical evidence beyond the fact that the front of your car and the back of his have obviously had a coming together there's no way of knowing who's telling the truth, so the insurers are left settling on the more likely scenario - and sadly it's far more common to drive into the back of people at traffic lights than to reverse into the front of then.
Speed Badger said:
Someone I know (not a friend or myself, just an colleague) has been found at fault for an accident he didn't cause.
Keeping it brief, we approached some traffic lights on red, a car had obviously stopped too late and gone over the line a bit. As we approached to a stop a bit behind them, they put it into reverse and sharply moved back, obviously not spotting us, thus crunching into the front of our car.
There were no witnesses.
He was a rather unsavoury fellow, as was his passenger. As details were being exchanged he kept saying about us hitting the back of his car, we were saying 'what are you on about?' etc. Anyway, he was clever about not apologising for hitting us or saying sorry, as we left he was smirking to his passenger. Long & short of it is my colleague has been found at fault by the insurer, lost his no claims and had to pay an excess, as he couldn't prove that it was the other car reversing into him at traffic lights, instead of him hitting the back it. Neither car was written off, just front end & rear end damage.
I don't know any more details other than that, I don't really know him that well to talk to but he said this to me the other day.
How is this fair in the slightest? If there are any legal or insurance people that could comment I'd appreciate.
1. If you don't know him that well, why did he share this story with you and more importantly why the use of "we" "our" and "us" in your second paragraph? Your story falls down even further as you "don't know any more details than that", yet know enough to be able to comment on the other drivers demeanour and character. Impressive for someone you "don't know that well to talk too". Amazing that he's randomly telling all and sundry his story. Keeping it brief, we approached some traffic lights on red, a car had obviously stopped too late and gone over the line a bit. As we approached to a stop a bit behind them, they put it into reverse and sharply moved back, obviously not spotting us, thus crunching into the front of our car.
There were no witnesses.
He was a rather unsavoury fellow, as was his passenger. As details were being exchanged he kept saying about us hitting the back of his car, we were saying 'what are you on about?' etc. Anyway, he was clever about not apologising for hitting us or saying sorry, as we left he was smirking to his passenger. Long & short of it is my colleague has been found at fault by the insurer, lost his no claims and had to pay an excess, as he couldn't prove that it was the other car reversing into him at traffic lights, instead of him hitting the back it. Neither car was written off, just front end & rear end damage.
I don't know any more details other than that, I don't really know him that well to talk to but he said this to me the other day.
How is this fair in the slightest? If there are any legal or insurance people that could comment I'd appreciate
.2. What do you expect an insurer to do? If they run it to court then they'll most likely lose and just incur more unnecessary cost. As someone else has quite rightly stated, what if he had run into the back of you and his defence was that you reversed into him. Would you be happy if his and your insurers accepted that and you paid out?
3. He won't have lost all his NCD
4. If they were only "over the line a bit", then you / your mate / this complete stranger has stopped far too close to the back of the other car. Leaving space is often a good idea.
5. What difference do you think an apology / admission of liability at the scene would make? Hint, the answer is none.
AngryPartsBloke said:
Crash for cash scam.
You should have contacted the Police, there is a special number you can ring set up to deal with thee scams.
Is it hell. You should have contacted the Police, there is a special number you can ring set up to deal with thee scams.
Winky151 said:
Where are the lights situated? In a built up area where they may be CCTV? Traffic cams?
Why? How long do you think this stuff is stored for? What rights do think you have to that data anyway? What makes you think that traffic cams would even have sufficient clarity to show it?Why do you think that it's relevant now after all this time?
LoonR1 said:
Why? How long do you think this stuff is stored for? What rights do think you have to that data anyway? What makes you think that traffic cams would even have sufficient clarity to show it?
Why do you think that it's relevant now after all this time?
I would have thought footage from traffic cameras would be stored for 28 days or so (happy to be corrected). I don't think there's any impediment to the footage being made available. How much clarity would it need to illustrate the reversing to the balance of probabilities standard?Why do you think that it's relevant now after all this time?
LoonR1 said:
Speed Badger said:
Someone I know (not a friend or myself, just an colleague) has been found at fault for an accident he didn't cause.
Keeping it brief, we approached some traffic lights on red, a car had obviously stopped too late and gone over the line a bit. As we approached to a stop a bit behind them, they put it into reverse and sharply moved back, obviously not spotting us, thus crunching into the front of our car.
There were no witnesses.
He was a rather unsavoury fellow, as was his passenger. As details were being exchanged he kept saying about us hitting the back of his car, we were saying 'what are you on about?' etc. Anyway, he was clever about not apologising for hitting us or saying sorry, as we left he was smirking to his passenger. Long & short of it is my colleague has been found at fault by the insurer, lost his no claims and had to pay an excess, as he couldn't prove that it was the other car reversing into him at traffic lights, instead of him hitting the back it. Neither car was written off, just front end & rear end damage.
I don't know any more details other than that, I don't really know him that well to talk to but he said this to me the other day.
How is this fair in the slightest? If there are any legal or insurance people that could comment I'd appreciate.
1. If you don't know him that well, why did he share this story with you and more importantly why the use of "we" "our" and "us" in your second paragraph? Your story falls down even further as you "don't know any more details than that", yet know enough to be able to comment on the other drivers demeanour and character. Impressive for someone you "don't know that well to talk too". Amazing that he's randomly telling all and sundry his story. Keeping it brief, we approached some traffic lights on red, a car had obviously stopped too late and gone over the line a bit. As we approached to a stop a bit behind them, they put it into reverse and sharply moved back, obviously not spotting us, thus crunching into the front of our car.
There were no witnesses.
He was a rather unsavoury fellow, as was his passenger. As details were being exchanged he kept saying about us hitting the back of his car, we were saying 'what are you on about?' etc. Anyway, he was clever about not apologising for hitting us or saying sorry, as we left he was smirking to his passenger. Long & short of it is my colleague has been found at fault by the insurer, lost his no claims and had to pay an excess, as he couldn't prove that it was the other car reversing into him at traffic lights, instead of him hitting the back it. Neither car was written off, just front end & rear end damage.
I don't know any more details other than that, I don't really know him that well to talk to but he said this to me the other day.
How is this fair in the slightest? If there are any legal or insurance people that could comment I'd appreciate
.2. What do you expect an insurer to do? If they run it to court then they'll most likely lose and just incur more unnecessary cost. As someone else has quite rightly stated, what if he had run into the back of you and his defence was that you reversed into him. Would you be happy if his and your insurers accepted that and you paid out?
3. He won't have lost all his NCD
4. If they were only "over the line a bit", then you / your mate / this complete stranger has stopped far too close to the back of the other car. Leaving space is often a good idea.
5. What difference do you think an apology / admission of liability at the scene would make? Hint, the answer is none.
AngryPartsBloke said:
Crash for cash scam.
You should have contacted the Police, there is a special number you can ring set up to deal with thee scams.
Is it hell. You should have contacted the Police, there is a special number you can ring set up to deal with thee scams.
A child in yr3 would have sufficient comprehension skills to work out that the OP was a passenger in his colleague's car at the time of the incident.
I am surprised at how often you get away with implying (none too subtly) that posters are lying when you have no evidence to back up your assertions.
DocJock said:
LoonR1, I am struggling to decide whether your rude and ignorant response (standard MO on this forum it seems) is your natural behaviour or just a persona you adopt to be provocative.
A child in yr3 would have sufficient comprehension skills to work out that the OP was a passenger in his colleague's car at the time of the incident.
I am surprised at how often you get away with implying (none too subtly) that posters are lying when you have no evidence to back up your assertions.
As you like to imply your insults, rather than make them explicit, as that would no doubt be "rude and ignorant", perhaps you can explain the sentence that I've emboldened. I'm particularly interested in how the Yr3 child's comprehension homework would've been marked. A child in yr3 would have sufficient comprehension skills to work out that the OP was a passenger in his colleague's car at the time of the incident.
I am surprised at how often you get away with implying (none too subtly) that posters are lying when you have no evidence to back up your assertions.
Speed Badger said:
Someone I know (not a friend or myself, just an colleague) has been found at fault for an accident he didn't cause.
Keeping it brief, we approached some traffic lights on red, a car had obviously stopped too late and gone over the line a bit. As we approached to a stop a bit behind them, they put it into reverse and sharply moved back, obviously not spotting us, thus crunching into the front of our car.
There were no witnesses.
He was a rather unsavoury fellow, as was his passenger. As details were being exchanged he kept saying about us hitting the back of his car, we were saying 'what are you on about?' etc. Anyway, he was clever about not apologising for hitting us or saying sorry, as we left he was smirking to his passenger. Long & short of it is my colleague has been found at fault by the insurer, lost his no claims and had to pay an excess, as he couldn't prove that it was the other car reversing into him at traffic lights, instead of him hitting the back it. Neither car was written off, just front end & rear end damage.
I don't know any more details other than that, I don't really know him that well to talk to but he said this to me the other day.
How is this fair in the slightest? If there are any legal or insurance people that could comment I'd appreciate.
Keeping it brief, we approached some traffic lights on red, a car had obviously stopped too late and gone over the line a bit. As we approached to a stop a bit behind them, they put it into reverse and sharply moved back, obviously not spotting us, thus crunching into the front of our car.
There were no witnesses.
He was a rather unsavoury fellow, as was his passenger. As details were being exchanged he kept saying about us hitting the back of his car, we were saying 'what are you on about?' etc. Anyway, he was clever about not apologising for hitting us or saying sorry, as we left he was smirking to his passenger. Long & short of it is my colleague has been found at fault by the insurer, lost his no claims and had to pay an excess, as he couldn't prove that it was the other car reversing into him at traffic lights, instead of him hitting the back it. Neither car was written off, just front end & rear end damage.
I don't know any more details other than that, I don't really know him that well to talk to but he said this to me the other day.
How is this fair in the slightest? If there are any legal or insurance people that could comment I'd appreciate
.MoggieMinor said:
Ive thought this for a while. Forward facing cameras will probably be standard equipment at some point, far more important than sat nav in my opinion.
There is as much chance of me having one as there is me having a black box. What some people don't realise is that in the event of a crash you can have it used against you. The day I become a perfect driver is the day I am willing to go around with a machine that could incriminate me and throw me in prison, in my car.
Quite frankly I'd rather have the modest insurance hike.
photosnob said:
There is as much chance of me having one as there is me having a black box. What some people don't realise is that in the event of a crash you can have it used against you.
The day I become a perfect driver is the day I am willing to go around with a machine that could incriminate me and throw me in prison, in my car.
Quite frankly I'd rather have the modest insurance hike.
Well obviously you take out the memory card and say you weren't recording at the time if it's your fault The day I become a perfect driver is the day I am willing to go around with a machine that could incriminate me and throw me in prison, in my car.
Quite frankly I'd rather have the modest insurance hike.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff