Neighbour hit my parked car, says I can't do anything about it

dori2o

Confusedandneedhelp wrote: »

Why do you say that? There is no law preventing recording, and any evidence can be considered on it's merits.

Based on what i've read before only one of the 2 people party to the conversation need to give authority for the recording, and you're unlikely to refuse yourself permission to record.

As long as the recording is not played publicly or used in any illegal activity, it's fine.

It is however up to the judge to determine if the evidence wouold be admissable, but generally it depends how much the case determines on that evidence.

AdrianC

If he's not going to play ball, just hand it over to your insurer, and let them deal with this raging numpty... EXCEPT bear in mind that they may decide it'll go as an at-fault claim, if he denies all knowledge. Without any actual real-live hard proof, it's your word against his.

It may just be cheaper and easier to take it to your garage, get them to do it, then hand him the bill. If he doesn't back down with the bill in his hand, tell him you'll get his insurer's details from MID and send them direct to them.
http://www.askmid.com/
Free to find out if he's insured, £4 to get his insurer details.

dori2o

DUTR wrote: »

dori2o wrote: »

Was the the nearside of the vehicle towards the nearside footway or towards the centre of the road?

Towards the centre of the road, the offside was over the pavement as was the front of the car, both of which have a dropped curb to allow access to my parents drive as the house/driveway is right in the corner.

They live at the end of a cul-de-sac.

OnanTheBarbarian

The parking position is completely immaterial.

You can be parked on a double yellow and have someone reverse into you, it does not excuse their negligence for failing to look where they are going and hitting a stationary object that is there to be seen.

Crack on.....

pvt

DUTR wrote: »

and who is to stop to actors playing the part of the 1st and 3rd party?

Nothing. But of course if you produce the tape in a court, and he denies that it's him when it is, and the court isn't fooled, then there's the issue of perjury to be considered.

DUTR

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

The parking position is completely immaterial.

You can be parked on a double yellow and have someone reverse into you, it does not excuse their negligence for failing to look where they are going and hitting a stationary object that is there to be seen.

Crack on.....

pvt wrote: »

Nothing. But of course if you produce the tape in a court, and he denies that it's him when it is, and the court isn't fooled, then there's the issue of perjury to be considered.

Dori2o , you don't need to go via insurance or courts, as PVT and OnanTheBarbarian will easily win your case even if the techniques are questionable, there is some misinformation being spouted as fact.
Parking opposing the traffic is and could be material, however before the debate starts, I shall put my bet on 75% the episode being forgotten about, 25% chance of the offending party admitting liability and 50% chance of it ending up split liability.

Confusedandneedhelp

DUTR wrote: »

Indeed there is no law preventing recording in a public place, voice recording does not just commit to telephone conversations, and who is to stop to actors playing the part of the 1st and 3rd party?

Think that's very short sighted.
1: if enough money is involved (maybe not the case in this instance) specialist equiptment and personnel can identify positively the participants.
2: Technically there is no law preventing recording in any place, just that if asked, you must stop doing so on private property.
3: This could be a video recording, since this is the parents neighbour, wouldnt be unreasonable to speak to them in person.
4: This recording would still hold more weight than, he said, she said, they said....

Confusedandneedhelp

bod1467 wrote: »

There's no law to prevent recording. There IS one however that prevents the publication of any such recording without the consent of all parties involved. (RIPA so I believe)..

Im not convinced this is accurate. But i am open to being corrected.

My understanding is, just like photgraphy (which to be fair is what a vdieo is), you own the material and may do what you wish with it.

Logic:
CCTV releases published by the police clearly do not have consent from the suspect
Live news broadcasts clearly do not have consent of every member of the public

pvt

DUTR wrote: »

I shall put my bet on 75% the episode being forgotten about, 25% chance of the offending party admitting liability and 50% chance of it ending up split liability.

That's 150% !!

DUTR

Confusedandneedhelp wrote: »

Think that's very short sighted.
1: if enough money is involved (maybe not the case in this instance) specialist equiptment and personnel can identify positively the participants.
2: Technically there is no law preventing recording in any place, just that if asked, you must stop doing so on private property.
3: This could be a video recording, since this is the parents neighbour, wouldnt be unreasonable to speak to them in person.
4: This recording would still hold more weight than, he said, she said, they said....

Indeed you are entitled to your thoughts and I don't take it as an attack.
I agree with point 1 and 2
To be fair I didn't consider a video /voice recording just voice.
If the offending party is already being unreasonable, then whether any attempts are made to record a conversation can easily now be refuted of not having any knowledge of the incident, I'm not even sure why the OP is attempting to go to greater effort to get the offender to accept liability and not even go through insurance.