Very minor accident - advice please

bishops_2

One other thing that would be very interesting to know, is does anyone have a view on what sort of costs might be involved here?

Other car was a relatively new mini (08 possibly), with black plastic bumpers. Scratch is around an inch long, and white plastic was showing through the black. Am not sure about the scuff mark, as I haven't seen it, but am told that it was very slightly smaller than fist size. I would imagine that t-cut would remove most of this.

Would we be looking at a new bumper, a respray, or what? Relative costs of each, including labour, would be very much appreciated, if anyone can advise.

Thanks again.

bishops_2

Happychappy wrote: »

Bishops, where is the damage to the other car?

You say both vehicle bumpers were damaged, clearly yours was to the rear bumper, was the other vehicle also reversing out of a parking space? because I think this may be a factor which would lead to a 50/50 settlement.

If the other driver was pulling forward with clear unobstructed vision of your car reversing back towards them, then clearly I think you may have a claim against you.

If on the other hand the other lady was also reversing, she may not have effective all round observations and been looking over her shoulder not expecting a car to be on her blind side but still having an obligation to check all round, after all it was a school car park and one cannot assume everything will come from the one way direction, so she clearly had an obligation to check.

I agree with Quentin that as there is a claim etc, hand it to your insurers with as much detail as possible and good luck

Very useful question, thanks very much. This is something that I hadn't asked but, now that I have, I learn that the other party was also reversing. This will be a great help.

Thanks again.

flyingscotno1

Sometimes if you call back and say that you are willing to have the insurance companies deal with it, they will suddenly back down.

I know of an ex-colleague who did similar- reversing in a car park and a car came round and hit them. Damage was limited to a scrape or two, but they came back with an outrageous quote. My colleague stated they wouldn't pay that and would refer it to the insurers and asked for their insurance details. They said they would have to call back to give details, which they did but with a lower amount :rolleyes:. She then never heard anything, they were chancers.

emmell

I would think the key thing here is both cars were reversing, so it could be equal blame.
ML.

bishops_2

flyingscotno1 wrote: »

Sometimes if you call back and say that you are willing to have the insurance companies deal with it, they will suddenly back down.

I know of an ex-colleague who did similar- reversing in a car park and a car came round and hit them. Damage was limited to a scrape or two, but they came back with an outrageous quote. My colleague stated they wouldn't pay that and would refer it to the insurers and asked for their insurance details. They said they would have to call back to give details, which they did but with a lower amount :rolleyes:. She then never heard anything, they were chancers.

Am hoping that you are right. They do appear to be trying it on, and am fairly sure that they will back down.

Just really disappoints me though, how some can be.

The way that it was described to me yesterday afternoon was that the other party wasn't too bothered about the damage, which was very difficult to see. This stance evidently changed though, after she spoke to her husband; her version of events then deviated from reality, and a mysterious witness has appeared out of thin air.

Wife will check today if there is cctv covering this area of the grounds; if not, perhhaps we can get something in this week's newsletter, asking for witnesses. Hopefuly this too will persuade the other party to back down, and cease being economical with the truth.

All this takes time though, and my concern at the moment is for my wife, who is still ver upset, and lost alot of sleep last night.

Thanks again

cyclonebri1

bishops wrote: »

Thanks again.

This reversing certainly does seem to be putting us at fault. I would wonder though how much blame might be attributed to the other party. My belief, from what I have been told, and from knowing the layout of the car park, is that they only looked one way, before pulling out into our car.

But that is the whole issue as has been pointed out by an earlier poster. The reason the other driver would only have looked one way was that it was one way only. By reversing your wife was effectively driving the wrong way

Good luck but I think you may well be found at fault

bishops_2

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

But that is the whole issue as has been pointed out by an earlier poster. The reason the other driver would only have looked one way was that it was one way only. By reversing your wife was effectively driving the wrong way

Good luck but I think you may well be found at fault

Hi,

thanks for the post.

I think that we have to concede (and in fact am sure we have several posts ago) that my wife was in the wrong by reversing in a car park, albeit at around 2mph, for a distance of 6 foot.

However, despite the fact that this part of the car park does operate a one-way system, I would have thought that the other driver would have had an obligation to look both ways before pulling out.

I can't see how 100% of the blame can be attributed to my wife. My faith in the system might well be proved wrong though!

Quentin

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

The reason the other driver would only have looked one way was that it was one way only.

Hard luck on any pedestrians then (or was it a one way system for them too?)

dgl1001

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

But that is the whole issue as has been pointed out by an earlier poster. The reason the other driver would only have looked one way was that it was one way only. By reversing your wife was effectively driving the wrong way

Good luck but I think you may well be found at fault

It doesn't matter matter which way the OP wife was driving, a driver pulling out into a lane of moving traffic has an obligation to look both ways; ragardless of the flow of traffic. The driver of the other car was at fault. What would have happend if it was a child running down the wrong way; would the child be at fault or the drivers for failing to look out of their window?

Quentin

dgl1001 wrote: »

The driver of the other car was at fault.

Not from what we have been told (the other car was stationary when hit, and there is a witness).

As already posted just let the insurers deal with the liability issue.