Accused of hitting parked car...advise please

WLC

Aretnap wrote: »

Look at it from the other angle - if you dent someone's car and honestly but mistakenly believe you didn't do it, can you refuse to give him your details, leaving him with no recourse? Or even better, if you dishonestly said "nothing to do with me"?

You give your details. He attempts to claim from your insurers. Your insurers tell him to get stuffed when you tell them there was no accident and he can't provide any evidence to show that there was. If he's not happy he can take your insurers to court, where he'll lose if he can't prove (on the balance of probabilities) that you damaged his car. That's how it works. You don't get to decide unilaterally that his claim is false and stop the process yourself.

Ultimately, this is exactly the sort of thing you pay your insurers to deal with, so I'd suggest letting them deal with it.

You are right about looking from the other angle, we did that, and we do believe its possible he may honestly (albeit mistakenly) believe it was my partner who did it.

My trepidation with approaching the insurers is, it's no secret how they work-establish any reason whatsoever to increase your premium. A quick google search reveals lots of people in a similar position who went to their insurers and firmly denied the allegation, only to find they a) go 50/50 as its 1 word against another, or b) take ages to deal with it and temporarily increase premiums/lose NCB because they are in the middle of dealing with a claim.

The point I made before still baffles me a little. I could pop to tesco with old damage to my car, par next to an innocent person and then demand their insurance details, blaming them for the damage. It could even be taken to another by a family friend providing a false witness statement saying they were there, thereby providing the 'evidence' required. Surely that's a loophole waiting to be taken advantage of?! The new 'whiplash' scam. It's just all so frustrating when you know you weren't involved.

Aretnap

WLC wrote: »

My trepidation with approaching the insurers is, it's no secret how they work-establish any reason whatsoever to increase your premium. A quick google search reveals lots of people in a similar position who went to their insurers and firmly denied the allegation, only to find they a) go 50/50 as its 1 word against another, or b) take ages to deal with it and temporarily increase premiums/lose NCB because they are in the middle of dealing with a claim.

It's a free market and if your insurers want to increase your quote at renewal time they can - they don't actually need a reason.

I also don't really see the logic in needlessly paying out several hundred pounds in repair bills, car hire fees etc in order to add perhaps £100 to your renewal quote, when in all probability you'll insure with someone else next year anyway, so they won't even get the £100.

I'm always rather amused by the general attitude I seem to find on the internet that insurers are scamming bar stewards who will take any excuse whatsoever to wriggle out of paying a claim... until someone other than you makes a claim, when they become gullible charities who hand out money to anyone who wants it, no matter how flimsy the claim.

Yes dealing with them can be an infuriatingly slow process and yes, for low value accidents with disputed liability it's sometimes cheaper for them to settle than to argue, but the idea that they hand out money for fun or as part of some dastardly scheme to rip drivers off is fanciful.

In any event, as I pointed out the other guy can get your husband's insurance details and go directly to them if he wants to - they're available online here - so if you think he's likely to do this you're better off approaching them first.

The point I made before still baffles me a little. I could pop to tesco with old damage to my car, par next to an innocent person and then demand their insurance details, blaming them for the damage. It could even be taken to another by a family friend providing a false witness statement saying they were there, thereby providing the 'evidence' required. Surely that's a loophole waiting to be taken advantage of?! The new 'whiplash' scam. It's just all so frustrating when you know you weren't involved.

Yes, if you're willing to give false statements, conspire to fabricate evidence and commit perjury in court if necessary, it's possible to commit fraud against insurance companies. What do you think should be done about it, other than insurers investigating each claim as thoroughly as their resources allow, and the courts sending people who are caught doing it to prison?

adouglasmhor

Aretnap wrote: »

If the other guy makes a claim he's obliged to give his insurance details whether or not he thinks that he was involved in the accident - Road Traffic Act s154. It's not an admission of liability. The other guy can get them for £4 from AskMID anyway, so there's no advantage to not giving them.

Your partner should also inform his own insurer (there's doubtless a clause in his policy requiring him to do this, and they won't be happy if the first they know of the incident is when they get a claim from the other guy), making clear that he strenuously denies having caused the accident.

RTA? It was in a private car park surely. I would inform my insurer and let the other person stew TBH.

WLC

Aretnap wrote: »

Yes, if you're willing to give false statements, conspire to fabricate evidence and commit perjury in court if necessary, it's possible to commit fraud against insurance companies. What do you think should be done about it, other than insurers investigating each claim as thoroughly as their resources allow, and the courts sending people who are caught doing it to prison?

Just to be clear, I'm not saying I would do that, or for anyone to do that. That's not my style to make false statements, or make false claims of people damaging my car in the first place, for that matter. Just wanted to put that out there!

WLC

adouglasmhor wrote: »

RTA? It was in a private car park surely. I would inform my insurer and let the other person stew TBH.

Thanks, and yes it is a private car park

Aretnap

adouglasmhor wrote: »

RTA? It was in a private car park surely.

That depends on the nature of the car park and who uses it - a privately owned work car park isn't automatically a non-public place. One of my old work car parks was a handy short cut which members of the public often used on foot - it might well have been considered a public place. Or if the employer is Tesco, the car park is most definitely a public place.

Aretnap

WLC wrote: »

Just to be clear, I'm not saying I would do that, or for anyone to do that. That's not my style to make false statements, or make false claims of people damaging my car in the first place, for that matter. Just wanted to put that out there!

Of course and I didn't mean to otherwise - substitute "one" for "you" if you prefer.

WLC

Aretnap wrote: »

That depends on the nature of the car park and who uses it - a privately owned work car park isn't automatically a non-public place. One of my old work car parks was a handy short cut which members of the public often used on foot - it might well have been considered a public place. Or if the employer is Tesco, the car park is most definitely a public place.

I believe it is a private car park. It is only for staff of that company, and has a gated entrance where you need your ID card to enter into the machine to get in. But that's all I know on that tbh, other than that, I'd have to ask his employer whether its considered a private car park.

But as I wasn't the one who mentioned the relevance of it being a private car park, I'm not even sure as to its relevance to this situation tbh.

adouglasmhor

Aretnap wrote: »

That depends on the nature of the car park and who uses it - a privately owned work car park isn't automatically a non-public place. One of my old work car parks was a handy short cut which members of the public often used on foot - it might well have been considered a public place. Or if the employer is Tesco, the car park is most definitely a public place.

Public place doesn't automatically mean a highway in terms of the RTA though. It can but it doesn't allways. https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/the-road-user-and-the-law

Aretnap

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Public place doesn't automatically mean a highway in terms of the RTA though. It can but it doesn't allways. https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/the-road-user-and-the-law

It doesn't have to be a highway. The Road Traffic Act is a complex piece of legislation and it's incorrect to think in terms of places where it applies or doesn't apply. Parts of it apply on a "road", which means "a highway or any other road to which the public has access" (eg construction and use requirements), other parts of it apply on a "road or other public place" (eg careless driving), and some parts of it just apply, regardless of where you are (eg the requirement to tell the DVLA when you change address).

The requirement to have insurance applies on a road or other public place, so certainly applies in a car park where public have access. The requirement to give your details on demand when a claim is made applies wherever you are... though if it relates to an accident in a genuinely private place it would presumably not apply, as it only applies to liabilities which are required to be covered by insurance.

What's a public place is a complex question which is a matter of fact and degree rather than simple tick-boxes. From the OP's description her husband's car park is probably not a public place, but if push came to shove I still wouldn't really think it was worth risking committing an offence by refusing to give details which the other guy can very easily find out from somewhere else anyway.