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

pvt

DUTR wrote: »

as PVT and OnanTheBarbarian will easily win your case even if the techniques are questionable, there is some misinformation being spouted as fact.

Pointing out to a person who is going to give false evidence that they will be committing perjury can be sobering and effective. Even if the evidence is very flimsy.

For example, it may be easy to get your mate to sign a false witness statement that he saw your accident occur, and it was all the other bloke's fault. But when you ask him to actually perjure himself in a court and be cross examined on the details you've fabricated for him, he may have second thoughts about the odds - even if it's 95% you win and keep your NCD, and only 5% he's found guilty of perjury and gets a criminal record.

kwmlondon

I'm a pragmatists. If you can find £200 +vat without it affecting you too much I would just pay it, give him the invoice and if he doesn't pay move on. When you think about how much time and effort it would take you to take any kind of action, with a small chance of success, versus him having a very good chance of winning just by doing nothing at all.

However, if it riles you so much that you cannot let him get away with it then prepare for a long, tedious battle with little chance of success.

gycraig_2

Is it actually legal to park on a dropped curb for a drive even if it's your own drive ? I thought the basic idea was you couldn't,

facade

Just follow OnanTheBarbarian's advice from 1 to 5.

If you get nowhere point 6 should read

Remember- you know where he lives, and you have the whole of the rest of your life to remember what he owes you.

DUTR

gycraig wrote: »

Is it actually legal to park on a dropped curb for a drive even if it's your own drive ? I thought the basic idea was you couldn't,

From what I recall, it depends on whether there is a vehicle on a drive or not.

PasturesNew

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

6- Bum his dog

I wouldn't video that though .... as discussed earlier about video/legality ... I don't think videoing this would be legal.

OnanTheBarbarian

People, you need to move away from the fascination about whether it is legal to park on the dropped kerb etc.

Even something that gives rise to criminal liability, does not then automatically impose civil liability.

Examples, I park my car on a double yellows and someone drives along and fails to steer around the parked car and crashes into the driver side rear corner. Yes I'm naughty for parking on a double yellow, but my vehicle is there to be seen and the other party is wholly negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout or steer their vehicle in a safe manner.

Another example, I am sitting at traffic lights, pished out of my skull after a 15 pint bender, whilst waiting at the red light, another motorist crashes into the back of me.

Yes I should not have been on the road, but I am not prevented from claiming damages for losses and injuries due to the negligence of the other party.

The neighbour breached his duty of care to take reasonable care to look where he was going.

Imagine this scenario

Q1 - "did you see the parked car when reversing?" - A - Yes - OK you saw the vehicle but hit it anyway. - in other words you are negligent

Q2 -"Did you see the parked car before the impact?" - A - No - So you were not looking where you were going then? - in other words you were negligent.

DUTR

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

People, you need to move away from the fascination about whether it is legal to park on the dropped kerb etc.

Even something that gives rise to criminal liability, does not then automatically impose civil liability.

Examples, I park my car on a double yellows and someone drives along and fails to steer around the parked car and crashes into the driver side rear corner. Yes I'm naughty for parking on a double yellow, but my vehicle is there to be seen and the other party is wholly negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout or steer their vehicle in a safe manner.

Another example, I am sitting at traffic lights, pished out of my skull after a 15 pint bender, whilst waiting at the red light, another motorist crashes into the back of me.

Yes I should not have been on the road, but I am not prevented from claiming damages for losses and injuries due to the negligence of the other party.

The neighbour breached his duty of care to take reasonable care to look where he was going.

Imagine this scenario

Q1 - "did you see the parked car when reversing?" - A - Yes - OK you saw the vehicle but hit it anyway. - in other words you are negligent

Q2 -"Did you see the parked car before the impact?" - A - No - So you were not looking where you were going then? - in other words you were negligent.

Good examples, although I would like to add perhaps that in the case the OP describes, his vehicle was parked in a place causing an obstruction.

I am wondering why there is a reluctance to inform the insurer.

dacouch

DUTR wrote: »

Good examples, although I would like to add perhaps that in the case the OP describes, his vehicle was parked in a place causing an obstruction.

I am wondering why there is a reluctance to inform the insurer.

It's very rare for how you've parked to make you liable, partly liable or to let the other party off. Very rare.

The other party has hit a stationary object

DUTR

dacouch wrote: »

It's very rare for how you've parked to make you liable, partly liable or to let the other party off. Very rare.

The other party has hit a stationary object

I'm glad you typed rare as opposed to never, I know on my road, cars have been booked for being parked with the front facing nearside traffic even in the daytime.

I do feel in the case of what the OP describes, this could end up split liability.