Accused of accident that never happened

rtho782

So, I've been notified by my insurance company that someone says I went into the back of them.

Despite me arguing that as this is a claim against me I should be able to know who my accuser is, they won't confirm details of the supposed incident in writing or let me have any of my accusers details for me to persue him for fraud.

It seems whoever it is identified my reg and make/model, as well as my name, and this is considered evidence enough that I am guilty, and it is now down to me to have engineers come and inspect my car and prove I wasn't involved. So much for innocent until proven guilty! I now have to prove a negative, which is impossible.

I can guess how they got my name (because I have to park in the service yard at the back of my flats, I have a note in the rear window with my name and number so people can call me to move the car if needed).

To be honest as I won't pay an excess for a third party claim, never drive the car anyway (have a motorbike, was going to SORN the car at the end of the month), and have no NCD to lose, I see no reason why they would think I would lie about this - I have nothing to lose!

Whoever the !!!!!!! is that is doing this (I'm not allowed to know it seems) meanwhile stands to gain thousands in whipcash etc.

I'm currently leaning towards refusing to provide any info to them until they detail the accusation to me.

Thoughts?

rs65

I think they are correct about not releasing the personal details.

Can you prove where you were when the alleged accident occurred?

Let them send an engineer to look at your car.

Itsgottabedone

Yikes! I think your Insurers should at least be telling you date/time of the alleged incident, which might make it easier for you to prove that you weren't driving the car at the time/in the area (at work? on holiday?). If others are covered to drive your car you might have to prove that they, too, were not involved.

And the engineer who they want to send to inspect the vehicle will presumably be able to confirm lack of damage.

You should co-operate with the Insurance company if only to assist them to refute a claim they would have to meet.

InsideInsurance

They are correct in not telling you who the TP is but absolutely should say where and when so that you can say where you were at the time.

It is not necessarily "fraud" it can be a very honest mistake. The classic is someone comes back to their parked car and its damaged and on the windscreen is a note from someone else saying they witnessed the accident and the vehicle registration was XXNN XXX but the number plate is badly written, smudged etc and so the car owners insurer has to try and guess what it reads and do DVLA and MID checks and approaching each possible owner to try and find the guilty party.

In your case it could be that the reg of the guilty car was written down wrong and the true TP didnt know their insurers. So the PH gives the wrong reg, the insurer does an MID check and brings back your insurers and so they write to them with the allegation etc

forgotmyname

The problem is you must declare this claim to your motorbike insurers also.

If it does go through. SO best not to say it wasnt me and ignore it. Keep chasing it up.

Imagine having a claim on your bike insurance then they say. Sorry your not insured you failed to declare a claim on another policy.

Sort it. Dont ignore it.

rtho782

forgotmyname wrote: »

The problem is you must declare this claim to your motorbike insurers also.

If it does go through. SO best not to say it wasnt me and ignore it. Keep chasing it up.

Imagine having a claim on your bike insurance then they say. Sorry your not insured you failed to declare a claim on another policy.

Sort it. Dont ignore it.

Nope, as I'm with Aviva and they don't want to know about car claims. This is why I went with them as I have prior car claims, and I was very specific when taking out the policy on the phone that I did have car claims if they wanted to know, and they said they did not

As he says we exchanged details at the scene, surely he is happy for me to know who he is?

If he were to take me to court, he would obviously have to name himself as the claimant.

If he has a claim against me he should have to identify himself, I may not wish my insurers to deal with the claim, how can he identify himself to my agents but not to me?!

rtho782

Also, how can an engineer report ever work out in my favour?

Possible outcomes:

1. Car is immaculate. He can just say I've had it repaired.
2. Car is scratched or god forbid not in perfect condition and has a crack. Obviously it happened in the "accident".

There just isn't a way to prove a negative.

Quentin

You do need to comply - the engineer will spot recent work etc.

You cannot realistically refuse to comply with your insurer, you agreed when taking out the policy to allow them to deal with claims against you, and if you continue to deny them your compliance they will close the matter as they think fit!

BertTheRaccoon

Your motor insurers have a legal obligation to meet any unsatisfied CCJ against you in the event the other party was to take proceedings against you over this "incident". So your insurers have a say in how things play out.

I would recommend you co-operate fully with your insurer to give them maximum support in order to kick this claim into touch. You may still get your day in court to fend off the scummer trying it on, but you'll have the full support of your insurer behind you, who will use a specialist counter-fraud solicitor firm and barrister for the day in court.

vaio

Quentin wrote: »

You do need to comply - the engineer will spot recent work etc.

You cannot realistically refuse to comply with your insurer, you agreed when taking out the policy to allow them to deal with claims against you, and if you continue to deny them your compliance they will close the matter as they think fit!

yep, but in this case as the OP will suffer a loss (potentially or actual if he decides to retain the car) if the insurance company don't defend (or at least consider defending and discuss it with the OP) then I'd say he's not being trested fairly and should complain & refer to the FOS if they don't have a rethink.

I also don't believe that the OP isn't entitled to know the details of the incident.

rs65

Vaio, the insurers will want to defend this but need the OPs help.