car got scratched by someone who took 30 minutes to paralell park and scratched my

londonTiger

My car was parked outside my house, other party claimed to drive in from Leeds to visit a funeral.

I would have let it go and just do a police notification only. But I ended up in a confrontation with them after asking for their details. They ended up shouting and refusing liability - and couldn't get a word in edgeways. Then my brother called the police.

Police came and swapped details, so now they have my reg and details as well. So they are probably going to do a counter-claim given that they are complete and outright liars and they have my details.

So it has to go to insurance. I want to limit my premium damage on renewal, what are my choices?

I have 2 witnesses, 1 who lives 5 houses down, and another who is a shopkeeper that is on the same road who saw them spend 30 minutes park their car.

But nobody actually saw the impact with their own eyes. I was in the house and heard shouting and screaming so I went outside to investigate. Basically the owner of the car that was parked behind the paralell parker claimed the driver hit them and was having a go at the guys bad driving (he is the witness). Upon investigation I saw the damage on my car (which was parked in front of the spot the paralell parker was trying to park).

I would have gone for notification only, but now do I have to claim? Also if it goes to claim and insurance for whatever reason decides that it;s 50:50 (their word against mine) can I opt for notification only and leave the scratch there?

Thanks.

InsideInsurance

What are they claiming happened given they hit your parked and unattended vehicle?

System

londonTiger wrote: »

I have 2 witnesses, .........

.......But nobody actually saw the impact with their own eyes.

In that case you do not have 2 witnesses.

Quentin

The third party aren't going to make a viable claim against you if your car was stationary and unattended.


As no witnesses/evidence seems available, your damage is realistically down to an unidentified third party!

matttye

You're assuming that the damage was caused by this person but didn't witness it yourself, nor did anybody else witness it.

You have no case.

rs65

londonTiger wrote: »

their word against mine

What exactly is your word going to be in court? You saw nothing - you have no proof at all that they scratched your car.

londonTiger

the only evidence available was that there are 3 long scratch on my car. I went home and grabbed a ruler and measured the height of the scratches. The height [from the road to the scratch] is exactly the same on mine as it is on his.

Anyone reasonably objective would conclude there was a collision because it's impossible for it to be a coincidence. and the other car has very long scratches on the corner of his car, exact same height as in my car and exact same damage. Long scraping scratches. The paint has been removed from the bumper and his car has the paint.

I have video recording of the paint being rubbed off by me showing that it was fresh paint transfer.

Also he has 3 or 4 similar paint rubbing from other accidents. He's being going round trying to paralell park (very badly) and damaging other peoples cars it seems.

Isn't that evidence in itself?

londonTiger

InsideInsurance wrote: »

What are they claiming happened given they hit your parked and unattended vehicle?

actually yes, it's very unlikely that it's going to be 50:50. They have no accusation against me. But they will deny it for sure.

If I go in to the claim route and then isurer says "sorry, insufficient evidice". Can I reduce the claim to notification only without some sort of penalty?

jaydeeuk1

londonTiger wrote: »

Anyone reasonabvly objective would conclude there was a collision because it's impossible for it to be a coincidence.

If you're with a budget insurer, don't expect them to be reasonably objective. Would be cheaper for them to settle rather than investigate.

ampersand

londonTiger wrote: »

...........

Isn't that evidence in itself?

#
No, it is not.
Correct spelling is 'parallel'.

londonTiger

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

If you're with a budget insurer, don't expect them to be reasonably objective. Would be cheaper for them to settle rather than investigate.

What if i push it to the financial ombudsman and the other party is with a budget insurer?