Recovering costs in small claims court.

crunchie1

My mother's car was run into in a car park. She had begun to back out of her space, when the car next to her pulled out of its space very fast, and turned into her. My mother realised it was coming towards her and stopped the car before the other one hit her. So she was stationary at the time of impact.

The other driver got out and apologised profusely, saying 'you must have been in my blind spot' ! She exchanged insurance details and they took photos.

My mother's insurance company said they could not prove who was at fault, despite my mother having two passengers who saw what happened. They said that statements from people you know don't count. They were acquaintances my mother was giving a lift to, and not family, or close friends. The insurance company said the claim would be split 50:50 unless the other driver accepted liability.

Mum got a quote for the repair for £310. She texted the other driver asking if she would prefer to just pay for the damage, and not involve insurance. The other driver was quite young and we thought it might be much cheaper that way, as the damage to her car was similar. She got quite a terse reply saying 'don't contact me again, the insurers are dealing with it.,

Yesterday the insurers called to say the other driver was not using insurance, but paying her own damage. They suggested mum did the same rather than lose her no-claims, and excess.

Is it worth my mother trying to recover the costs through the Small Claims online service ? If she asked for £300 it would only cost £25. But if they won't accept mum's witnesses either it could be very difficult to prove. My mother is 79 years old but has a clean licence and about 6 years no-claims. She is upset at having to pay for an accident which was not her fault, and which the other driver admitted responsibility for.

ianders

Unfortunately in this circumstance, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Without independent witnesses, most car park accidents will go 50/50.

InsideInsurance

The courts will always accept witnesses but the judge will decide if their evidence is honest or biased by their relationship to the other parties.

The issue will revolve around if the court believes your mother had been stationary for a reasonable period of time and therefore the TP hit a stationary vehicle or if both parties were pulling out at the same time and a collision happened where one or the other may have stopped a fraction of a second before the actual impact.

If they do believe both vehicles were moving then without doubt your mother would be found at least 50% to blame because she was reversing at the time of the incident and thus had a greater duty of care.

Always with a court there is an element of throw the dice and take your chances which is one of the key reasons why insurers prefer to settle things out of court.

You may find if you issue that the TP pays up immediately. Alternatively you may find that they suddenly decide they have had a stiff neck since the incident and counter claim a whiplash injury which means that the case isnt assigned to the small track (aka small claims court) but to fast track where solicitor/ barrister fees start to become payable.

crunchie1

Thank you both for your very helpful replies. It may be best to leave well alone. Both cars were reversing from adjacent spaces. My mother had only pulled out less than a metre when she realised the other car was turning towards her, and she stopped. Probably she was only stationary for a second though. She should have noticed the other car was likely to pull out, but she did not see it was occupied.

Mum's rear seat passenger saw the break lights on the other car before it started to pull out, so we know she began to reverse after mum did. Mum did not start to make a turn - she had barely moved out - the other car reversed out quickly and turned into her.

Unfortunately they only took photos of the damage, not the relative positions of the two cars, as the other drive her re parked immediately. It seems that despite an admission of guilt, and two witnesses, mum would be better paying for her own damage.

spacey2012

Did the car park have any CCTV ?if so make a Subject access request to the cctv holder enclosing £10 payment

template :
Subject access request / demand
On the date ******* at Time ***** the following person was recorded by cctv held by your organisation, the data and recording is required and requested under Freedom of Information Act 2000 a Subject access request is made this day **** 2013.
Payment is enclosed :

crunchie1

Thanks but we checked and there was no CCTV.

It seems on balance we must just get the repair done as cheaply as possible. My mother just does not understand that someone would admit responsibility then walk away.

InsideInsurance

Accidents are a high stress situation, people talk rubbish after them. Secondly people often talk to friends, insurers etc after an accident and they give them an alternative view on who is liable

londonTiger

crunchie1 wrote: »

Thank you both for your very helpful replies. It may be best to leave well alone. Both cars were reversing from adjacent spaces. My mother had only pulled out less than a metre when she realised the other car was turning towards her, and she stopped. Probably she was only stationary for a second though. She should have noticed the other car was likely to pull out, but she did not see it was occupied.

Mum's rear seat passenger saw the break lights on the other car before it started to pull out, so we know she began to reverse after mum did. Mum did not start to make a turn - she had barely moved out - the other car reversed out quickly and turned into her.

Unfortunately they only took photos of the damage, not the relative positions of the two cars, as the other drive her re parked immediately. It seems that despite an admission of guilt, and two witnesses, mum would be better paying for her own damage.

lesson learned, there is a horn, use it. saved me several times from being reversed into by silly drivers whose gender i will not state