third party denied culpability, where to go from there

londonTiger

Last year a driver hit my stationary car while trying to park behind me.

The driver was inexperienced, his parking attempts got all the neighbours out including several members of the public guiding him onto parallel park. The commotion resulted in my walking out of my house because of the noise of the crowd jeering at driver.

I noticed two scratch lines on my rear offside, which was approximately the same length and height off the floor of the scratch on the third party.

I even recorded video footage of the fresh paint transfer on his car where the pain was flaking off his car showing that this scratch was recent.

So I contacted my insurer, and they have sent the evidence and witness testimony to the third part insurer.

Long story short, his insurer rejected responsibility stating my evidence was doctored because the ruler was at an angle. I measure the height of the scratches off the ground with a ruler (on both cars). The heights were fairly identical but heights were 1cm apart which could be explained by the fact that the third party was performing the parking and the road camber may have transferred the weight of the vehicle and caused his from to rise and the rear to depress.

Note regarding "fabrication": i did place the bottom of the ruler out about 3cm out in order to have the ruler rest freely against the car so I can take a distant shot of the entire ruler including the car reg. But I have done tests and having 3cm out makes very little difference to the reading. In order to make a significant difference in the reading (say 3cm difference) the bottom of the ruler has to be at least 16cm out. 3cm out changes the reading by just 2mm!

So I can't believe the third party insurer insists that I have fabricated evidence by recording the ruler at an angle. A quick Pythagoras calculation would have told them that the slight angle makes no material difference.

Anyway. Just need advice going forward.

If I proceed with my insurer and it goes nowhere, do I still have to make a claim on my insurers legal costs? Is that a claim that I have to disclose going forward on renewal?

Can I pursue this in the small claims court and chase the third party insurer directly through there. Or will the small claims court refuse to take this on and require insurance companies handle this?

The repair costs are going to be small, around £300 or so. So I just want the third party to pay for the repair. Will they play a different tune if I dealt directly with them and just got the repair costs without the expensive accident claims handling, hire car, approve dealer premiums etc?

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

londonTiger wrote: »

Last year a driver hit my stationary car while trying to park behind me.

The driver was inexperienced, his parking attempts got all the neighbours out including several members of the public guiding him onto parallel park. The commotion resulted in my walking out of my house because of the noise of the crowd jeering at driver.

I noticed two scratch lines on my rear offside, which was approximately the same length and height off the floor of the scratch on the third party.

I even recorded video footage of the fresh paint transfer on his car where the pain was flaking off his car showing that this scratch was recent.

So I contacted my insurer, and they have sent the evidence and witness testimony to the third part insurer.

Long story short, his insurer rejected responsibility stating my evidence was doctored because the ruler was at an angle. I measure the height of the scratches off the ground with a ruler (on both cars). The heights were fairly identical but heights were 1cm apart which could be explained by the fact that the third party was performing the parking and the road camber may have transferred the weight of the vehicle and caused his from to rise and the rear to depress.

Note regarding "fabrication": i did place the bottom of the ruler out about 3cm out in order to have the ruler rest freely against the car so I can take a distant shot of the entire ruler including the car reg. But I have done tests and having 3cm out makes very little difference to the reading. In order to make a significant difference in the reading (say 3cm difference) the bottom of the ruler has to be at least 16cm out. 3cm out changes the reading by just 2mm!

So I can't believe the third party insurer insists that I have fabricated evidence by recording the ruler at an angle. A quick Pythagoras calculation would have told them that the slight angle makes no material difference.

Anyway. Just need advice going forward.

If I proceed with my insurer and it goes nowhere, do I still have to make a claim on my insurers legal costs? Is that a claim that I have to disclose going forward on renewal?

Can I pursue this in the small claims court and chase the third party insurer directly through there. Or will the small claims court refuse to take this on and require insurance companies handle this?

The repair costs are going to be small, around £300 or so. So I just want the third party to pay for the repair. Will they play a different tune if I dealt directly with them and just got the repair costs without the expensive accident claims handling, hire car, approve dealer premiums etc?

I would respond robustly and point out that they have defamed you with your insurers by suggesting you were attempting to commit a fraud. They are essentially saying that they are not paying, not because that there is damage, but because you are dishonest. I would insist that they withdraw the accusation, and ask on what other grounds that they are denying the application.

oldagetraveller

Did any of the "neighbours" or the "several members of the public" witness the scrape?
If so they would be/would have been perfect independent witnesses rather than digging out a rule and videoing the damage.

londonTiger

oldagetraveller wrote: »

Did any of the "neighbours" or the "several members of the public" witness the scrape?
If so they would be/would have been perfect independent witnesses rather than digging out a rule and videoing the damage.

1 neighbour witnessed the accident, another sent a statement saying how badly the third party was attempting to park. Third party rejected the witness testimony saying they are not independant.

Quentin

londonTiger wrote: »

1 neighbour witnessed the accident, another sent a statement saying how badly the third party was attempting to park. Third party rejected the witness testimony saying they are not independant.

In your other thread on this topic (why start a new one) you told us neither of your 2 "witnesses" saw the collision:

londonTiger wrote: »

......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........

So how come this change of story?


This was all discussed ad nauseam:


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5034891

rs65

londonTiger wrote: »

The heights were fairly identical

I don't think that phrase will stand up in court.

macman

In a case like this, it's your word against his (since none of the 'witnesses' can confirm he actually hit your car), and as far as the insurers are concerned, the cost of litigating would far outweigh the cost of each party bearing their own client's losses.

londonTiger

Quentin wrote: »

In your other thread on this topic (why start a new one) you told us:



So how come this change of story?


This was all discussed ad nauseam:


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5034891

Different witness altogether.

londonTiger

macman wrote: »

In a case like this, it's your word against his (since none of the 'witnesses' can confirm he actually hit your car), and as far as the insurers are concerned, the cost of litigating would far outweigh the cost of each party bearing their own client's losses.

Can I take this to the small claims court?

If I lose can the defendant counter sue for legal costs?

londonTiger

rs65 wrote: »

I don't think that phrase will stand up in court.

correction: it's EXACTLY the same. There are 2 lines on my car, 2 lines on his.

e.g. 55cm and 60cm off floor on my car. 55cm and 60cm off floor on his car. He has my paint on his car. the paint was videotaped flaking off as I rubbed it on his car - so completely fresh.

rs65

londonTiger wrote: »

which was approximately the same length and height off the floor of the scratch on the third party.


The heights were fairly identical but heights were 1cm apart

londonTiger wrote: »

correction: it's EXACTLY the same.

I would think very carefully about going to court. You need to be believable and so far I think you would lose.