Asda Van hit my car!

somethingcorporate

spadoosh wrote: »

No not at all, evidence needs to be gained from all sides. As longs as youve got your own photos (sure ive read you do!?)

Tell the OH to pipe down!!

Also tell them that theres no law that states they cant unless they had to enter your land and you didnt give permission. Dunno what the OH is talking about tbh??!?!

I agree, seems a bit of a weird reaction from your OH!

If they want to gather evidence you need to comply, otherwise they may just say you are being obstructive and stop playing ball.

They have only taken pictures, not like they have taken your car to do some evidence destruction!

CharlieBilly

Have they admitted the accident, there is a big difference admitting they were on the road and having an accident especially as the driver has not stopped

catieeb06 wrote: »

Sadly it was dark when the incident occured so I had to wait to take some photo's when it was light which was outside of work.

I have heard back from Asda, they've admitted there was a driver on the road the incident occurred and we're just waiting for their insurance company to contact my insurance company.

spadoosh

catieeb06 wrote: »

He's a complete eejit at times. Likes to think he's "protecting" me when in actual fact he just gets under my feet half the time.

My boss said I had nothing to worry about, and yes, I took some photos when it was light enough to this morning.

Forgotten how much i love the word 'eejit' thanx.

Good luck, hope it all gets sorted asap for you.

BottomRung

spadoosh wrote: »

Funniest post ever!!!:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


Im certain they meant a big HGV if it hit the OP's car would have taken most of the bodywork of the drivers side of the car!

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Sorry to laugh but that is very funny.

Glad I cheered someone up this festive season, guess I read it literally as they would take the HGV drivers side if it happened with a big lorry. Didn't consider the alternative way it could be read.

catieeb06

They've not admitted anything. Just that the tracking system confirms they were on the road and that the driver admits trying to get through some tight spaces but was unaware if he'd done damage.

I've got 2 independent witnesses though so surely they can't argue with that?

Azari

catieeb06 wrote: »

They've not admitted anything. Just that the tracking system confirms they were on the road and that the driver admits trying to get through some tight spaces but was unaware if he'd done damage.

I've got 2 independent witnesses though so surely they can't argue with that?

There will be plenty of forensic evidence on the van.

catieeb06

Apparently the van is spotless, is it worth me going down to store and taking a photo of the van in question for my own evidence?

texranger

catieeb06 wrote: »

Apparently the van is spotless, is it worth me going down to store and taking a photo of the van in question for my own evidence?

if the van has caused the damage you say then i very much doubt it will be spotless.

spadoosh

BottomRung wrote: »

Glad I cheered someone up this festive season, guess I read it literally as they would take the HGV drivers side if it happened with a big lorry. Didn't consider the alternative way it could be read.

Too easily done on a forum.;)

Azari

catieeb06 wrote: »

Apparently the van is spotless, is it worth me going down to store and taking a photo of the van in question for my own evidence?

Then it doesn't sound as if it's the van that hit yours.

You may have a problem if you have no witnesses who saw the registration and they are saying the van involved is undamaged.

Either it's not the same van, the damage to your car was done by an Asda van but not the one they are saying was on that route or the damage was nothing to do with the Asda van (i.e it was done before) and it was just a coincidence that it happened by).

It's going to be very hard to persuade anyone that a van that scrapped and dented your car is completely undamaged.