Old man trashed my car

the182guy

mollycat wrote: »

Excellent Troll Attempt! :rotfl::rotfl:

I'm inclined to agree as OP doesn't appear to be taking any notice of the helpful posts, he seems more interested in d**k measuring with the other rugby player.

Tony69

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwGFalTRHDA

gordikin

Paul_stanyon wrote: »

Hi there,

I'm looking for some advice.

I've just moved into a new flat and a few days ago (not entirely sure when) a lovely big scrape appeared on my front bumper. After some investigation it was apparent that this had been caused by a purple car (evidence: Massive streaks of purple paint within the damage). There is a Purple fiesta that parks next to me most days which belongs to an old man who visits the cafe next door. I thought I'd have a look at his car for signs of a scrape and lo and behold there it is, a massive scuff on his bumper, perfectly matching the one on mine. On confronting the man, he became immediately defensive and borderline abusive, saying the damage was weeks old and i was a f*** young Sh*** and he'd "See me in court".

Speaking to my insurance company they cant commit to anything as I didnt see the incident and its "My word against his".

WHAT SHOULD I DO??????

Thanks in anticipation

Paul - St Annes

You should realise you cannot prove your case! How would you driving into his car accidently result in different damage?

shuaibf

Inactive wrote: »

Is it the only " Purple Fiesta " in the country?

Of course not.

well it doesn't matter if its not the only one since their is the specific one parked next to his most of the days during the week soo kinda obvious is it not

cyclonebri1

shuaibf wrote: »

well it doesn't matter if its not the only one since their is the specific one parked next to his most of the days during the week soo kinda obvious is it not

Unfortunately "obvious" will not cut the mustard, it has to be admitted or proven, and as all insurance companies state, "do not admit liability"(thats our job).;)

Inactive

shuaibf wrote: »

well it doesn't matter if its not the only one since their is the specific one parked next to his most of the days during the week soo kinda obvious is it not

Not really, anyway this is just a troll thread, so don't take it too seriously.;)

cyclonebri1

Inactive wrote: »

Not really, anyway this is just a troll thread, so don't take it too seriously.;)

Wonder if it's the other way round and his purple throbber:eek: has just creased the old guy's Audi? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

real1314

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Unfortunately "obvious" will not cut the mustard, it has to be admitted or proven, and as all insurance companies state, "do not admit liability"(thats our job).;)

Ignoring the fact that it might be a troll job, when it comes to civil cases the burden of proof is on balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, establishing that it was this car should prove straightforward to that degree of proof, and given the events, the question of fault would also have reasonable prospect of success too.

It might also be the case that whomever was lying would crumple once the plod got involved.

cyclonebri1

real1314 wrote: »

Ignoring the fact that it might be a troll job, when it comes to civil cases the burden of proof is on balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, establishing that it was this car should prove straightforward to that degree of proof, and given the events, the question of fault would also have reasonable prospect of success too.

It might also be the case that whomever was lying would crumple once the plod got involved.

But, the events aren't "given". We have only one side of events,

The facts are that no one witnessed the event.

Both sides tell different stories

And the Op has simply found a car that matches the paint colour.

Yes, we could probably say on balance one of them did it and one is lying, can you be certain based on one side of the story which way it is.

If you could accept that the 1st post on each of these similar topics was true, then you could take your approach, but sorry, call me a sceptic but...............:(

anewman

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

But, the events aren't "given". We have only one side of events,

I find myself reminded of the time someone who regularly visited one of my neighbours was out in the street arguing with his girlfriend/wife or whatever next to my car, to which my attention was brought as my car alarm was going off. Shortly after I discovered the car had been kicked (which is no doubt what triggered the alarm). The police said well if I hadn't seen him kick it then who's to say *he* kicked it sort of thing. Unless you're mentally !!!!!! then you know for certain that he did kick it as it was fine before, and it took some force to trigger the alarm (it never false alarmed). He got in his car screeching his tyres as he drove off like a to$$er leaving her, and I seriously doubt she kicked it.

The evidence is clearly in the cars themselves and the truth could no doubt be determined by some CSI stylie investigation, but I doubt such an investigation is worth the likely cost.

If I saw a purple car regularly parked next to my car, then one day my car had scrapes down it with purple paint flakes on it, and I saw the purple car again with matching damage - then I'd be certain that car had caused the damage. The chance another purple car just happened to come along and cause the damage is largely outside the balance of probability when that car regularly parks there and has corresponding damage.