Reversed into! Other driver now claiming rear end shunt advice please.

AlexMac

If you're still reading this following your original post, Moorriscar-

morrisoscar wrote: »

My brother was stationary in traffic when the driver in front reversed into him..... They have now comeback to him saying the other driver is claiming that he drove into the back of her and she has two witnesses. The phone number she gave goes to answer phone and she has not returned his call. As you can imagine he is totally at a loss as to what to do next.

Advice please!

I'd be interested in the outcome...?

Exactly the same happened to me, (kimikaze parent, late for school-run, screeching to halt, then reversing into my 3-week-old BMW!). Although I think my (otherwise excellent) insurers' staff believed me on a personal level, they refused to let me test the other driver's willingness to perjure themselves in court. They - AVIVA - said they'd not support prosection costs via my legal protection cover, as without camera or witnesses it would not be provable. And for all I knew, they'd 'invent' witnesses and shaft me (as your idiot plans to do to you) So don't hold your breath- move on.

The irony was, their cost to repair was £ 269; only £19 (yes, less than £20) over their £250 excess and I bet that (unlike me) they didn't have decades of protected no-claim. So I was OK at renewal time- I just hope they weren't as even a minor bump can send premiums sky high. Best wishes

smudger1946

Told you so!!!!!!!!!!

arcon5

AlexMac wrote: »

If you're still reading this following your original post, Moorriscar-

I'd be interested in the outcome...?

Exactly the same happened to me, (kimikaze parent, late for school-run, screeching to halt, then reversing into my 3-week-old BMW!). Although I think my (otherwise excellent) insurers' staff believed me on a personal level, they refused to let me test the other driver's willingness to perjure themselves in court. They - AVIVA - said they'd not support prosection costs via my legal protection cover, as without camera or witnesses it would not be provable. And for all I knew, they'd 'invent' witnesses and shaft me (as your idiot plans to do to you) So don't hold your breath- move on.

The irony was, their cost to repair was £ 269; only £19 (yes, less than £20) over their £250 excess and I bet that (unlike me) they didn't have decades of protected no-claim. So I was OK at renewal time- I just hope they weren't as even a minor bump can send premiums sky high. Best wishes

But if they deemed you at fault because of their unwillingness to pursue the other drivers lying way then wouldn't it be your insurer paying their excess?

AlexMac

Sorry arcon5- just seen yr Q " But if they deemed you at fault because of their unwillingness to pursue the other drivers lying way then wouldn't it be your insurer paying their excess?"
No- my insurer called it 50-50 split liability- i.e. they didn't believe me, but they didn't believe the other driver either; in practice I therefore got half my excess back and one or other insurer paid for a ridiculously expensive £450 fix on the minor dent in my otherwise unblemished painted bumper.

Quentin

If it ended up 50/50, then your insurer would pay half the third parties total costs including their uninsured losses (excess etc), and claim half of their outlay on your car back off the third party.

You would need to pay your excess in full and reclaim half (along with half of any other uninsured losses) off the third party.

anotherbaldrick

If I am stopped behind someone and I see their reversing light come on they get a long blast on the horn before they can move..

Guest101

morrisoscar wrote: »

My brother has now been told the CCTV footage has been reviewed, it shows the car that reversed into him stopping and reversing. It doesn’t show the impact as the rear of the car goes out of shot.:mad:

It does at least show the car did reverse, he asked if he could have a copy of the footage and was told no,only the police can request it. I’ve told him to talk to his insurance company on Monday.

That's just not true. Make a freedom of information act request and they will have to oblige.

ohreally

Guest101 wrote: »

That's just not true. Make a freedom of information act request and they will have to oblige.

A subject access request perhaps.

shaun_from_Africa

Guest101 wrote: »

That's just not true. Make a freedom of information act request and they will have to oblige.

Under a SAR, companies only have to provide CCTV recordings that show the person making the request and as the recording doen't show the impact, it won't be showing the car or the OP.

Because of this, they are totally correct in that they can't give out the CCTV images of another person unless that person agrees or if requested by a court order or similar legal application.

Guest101

Hmm I was under the impression it showed part of the OP's car, perhaps i've misread