Motor accident

Quentin

Tetley_the_Cat wrote: »

This is all being handled wrongly. All you need to do legally is give him your name and address. He should pass this on to his insurers. His insurers will then write to you holding you responsible.......

No.

When you say all this in an "authoritative" manner you don't help the OP!

The third party has asked for the insurance details, and is entitled to them!

And when saying the (innocent) third party "should" pass this to his insurers you assume that the third party has insurance cover in place to deal with this for him! (He may not have, or may not have the inclination to make a claim!)

c0rneL

I see this situation as follows:

there ware 2 mistakes made in that day:1- accident; 2- not taking high quality pictures.

You will have to live with those mistakes, hope you learn from them(as we all do). I had a very similar experience (forgetting to take pictures) and I have learned how important it is.

Anyway, the other driver is right and can be innocent and well indented. He observed that the car is damaged unaware of any other collisions he must genuinely think that is from you. (even if that damage was caused 2 days after your accident while parked in tesco by a hit and run driver -- he cannot tell that that was the case)

if you would have any pictures, you will go and compare the picture to the car now and if the damage shows as being subsequent, I am sure that the other driver will see and not held you representable; but at the moment in his mind you are responsible and you cannot prove otherwise.

My advice is, do call the driver, offer to pay for damages privately(it cannot be a lot) , ask for a statement and take the picture of the vehicle before the repairs and after.

if you let him chase you, he will get upset and angry you will be stressed and angry, in the end you will still have to pay but after a lot of hassle and a lot of problems will be caused. (expensive calls, letters, sollicitors, etc) and your insurance premium will raise, etc

mistakes=> responsibility+learn = better off
mistakes => denial = worse off - Lern

Martyn_H

What I can't understand is why the other driver agreed at the time of the accident that there was no damage done. Surely this weakens his case and makes it look like he's 'on the make?'

Quentin

Martyn_H wrote: »

What I can't understand is why the other driver agreed at the time of the accident that there was no damage done. Surely this weakens his case and makes it look like he's 'on the make?'

No it doesn't "weaken his case".

As previously posted, you cannot properly determine that no damage has ocurred at the scene of the crash.

Insurers/courts take little notice of this type of verbal comments made immediately after the stress of the incident.

Martyn_H

Quentin wrote: »

No it doesn't "weaken his case".

As previously posted, you cannot properly determine that no damage has ocurred at the scene of the crash.

Insurers/courts take little notice of this type of verbal comments made immediately after the stress of the incident.

I hear what you say. I accept that you can't determine any hidden damage, but it still seems to me that the damage as he described it should have been apparent. If the car was dirty then I'd say that's his problem :think: