Claim for accident I was completely unaware of. Where do I stand?

huckster

RNUK wrote: »

BAA1, I don't understand what you are driving at?

I think the point that they are making is that a child of a certain age may not be liable for their actions. Not sure about whether this applies to a 9 year old. But being that you were with them at the time, I think any liability for them would be down to you as a supervising guardian.

I know I would not be happy in this position. If the pictures do not prove anything then I am not sure that you would lose in a civil court on the basis of balance of probability. The car park was a busy place and the third party has jumped to a conclusion, just because your car was parked there at the time they noticed the damage. If the picture of the marks on your car is not conclusive, I doubt the third party would be successful.

VfM4meplse

OP, I have every sympathy with you and feel nothing but disgust for dishonest claimants. Take a look at post 6 here.

huckster

The other possibility which I have just thought about is this. What if they had opened their door and damaged their own car. Then cheekily they are blaming it on the car parked next to it, so they can claim without paying an excess. I would not be surprised if there were people out there who would do this.

RNUK

This is why I went down the route of saying that I couldn't say categorically the damage wasn’t caused by my passenger as he told me he didn't remember doing it. If he'd have said definitely not then my statement would have been different. Then again asking your 9 year old child if he hit another car with his door would compute in his mind that he could potentially be in trouble and you will always get a negative response. I agree that at his age, liability, if any, would be down to me.
The TP think they have enough to win in court, my own insurer has told me this, I fail to see how photos of 2 cars is conclusive proof (Give me pictures of a car and an hour in Photoshop and I'll give you a write-off. Not saying this is what happened, just demonstrating how unreliable digital imagery can be), but maybe in the civil court system it is.

magpiecottage

Quentin wrote: »

Discussing what would happen in court is irrelevant to this issue. Neither insurer will pay for a court case over £230!

No - but neither will the OP's insurer be keen on a paying a £500 FOS fee.

RNUK

VfM4meplse wrote: »

OP, I have every sympathy with you and feel nothing but disgust for dishonest claimants. Take a look at post 6 here.

That is absolutely shocking!

InsideInsurance

RNUK wrote: »

I fail to see how photos of 2 cars is conclusive proof

The point is that it doesnt have to be conclusive just on the balance of probability it be more likely to have happened than not.

daveyjp

The third party are also not the brightest button in the sewing basket by bringing this action, especially if they didn't actually witness the event.

They will now have to declare this "accident" for the next five years and I suspect the extra they pay in premiums will be more than £230.

System

RNUK wrote: »

BAA1, I don't understand what you are driving at?

I was attempting to check if your son had a better memory of the events which would have effected the strength of the case one way or the other.

If he had remembered being careful opening his door, then that may have been sufficient to get your insurer to change their mind. Conversely, if he remembered hitting another car, then that would have no doubt changed your approach to the events.

Unfortunately, without a clear memory of what may or may not have happened, it comes down to the photos. Is the photo of the white marks on the edge of the door clearly your car - i.e. does that photo show your car registration and the marks on the edge of the door and does it also include the other car parked next to yours all in the same shot ?
(I assume the other car was white)

If the photo does show all the above, it would seem to present a strong case. However, if it does not show the scene with your registration and parked next to the other car in the one shot, then as you say, the photo(s) could have been a set-up.

RNUK

The photos supplied are of both cars side-by-side (Damage not visible due to distance to get the 2 number plates in). A close up of what I can only make out to be his door handle with a blue scrape down it (My car is blue) and a close up of what appears to be my car door showing the white marks (His car being white).

As a side note there is no sign of a chip on his door handle which he is claiming for and the damage would be rubbed out by normal people with a bit of t-cut in about 2 minutes