3rd party lied about damage in contested fault claim

AdrianC

Pithaggy wrote: »

Massively excessive speed

Exactly how "massively excessive" are we talking?

Quentin

Pithaggy wrote: »

It's a BIG shame I had just disconnected my dash cam !

OK, a general point then.

Given that the third party has been excessive with his claim, my insurer is only going to investigate not paying for the existing damage on the third party car, with no other penalties.

Will it count against the third party in future and shouldn't the industry NOT encourage such claims?

There is unlikely to be any penalty imposed unless the police get involved and a court case ensues.


On a brighter note for your passenger (if they are going to pay your excess) if it is concluded as 50/50 and you claim for your repairs then the other side will reimburse you 50% of all your uninsured losses including the excess

ratrace

AdrianC wrote: »

Exactly how "massively excessive" are we talking?

33 in a 30 zone lol:rotfl:

matttye

Is your argument that the person was not in your passenger's sight at the time the door was opened?

If not, speed may be an irrelevant factor because the passenger shouldn't have opened the door if they were aware of a passing car.

DUTR

I guess this happened at New St Station?
The insurers have a financial business decision to make and it is less timely and more cost effective to re-mburse the 3rd party. Speed in it self is not a reason for accidents.

Pithaggy

OK, some clarity here.

I was parked, my passenger opened the door and was hit by the speeding third party. He is a non-driver and normally checks carefully before getting out. He has done it for the 30 years I have known him.

I say hit, because the speed was way too fast. The third party stopped many, many meters down the road and made a point of reversing before I could take photos of where the car stopped.

I'm not so sure about the damage cost being irrelevant to alter quotes.

I've been unlucky in the fact that I've had many claims over the last 31 years (car blowing up, hit by concrete slabs off the back of a truck - that didn't stop etc.) that were not my fault (this one is my first 3rd party 'fault' one) and the next premium seems always a bit too steep, despite paying to protect the no claims bonus.

When the car blew up, it was provably properly serviced and maintained and I hadn’t had a claim for 5 years and yet the quote went to £3k, and that was 20 years ago.

AdrianC

Pithaggy wrote: »

I was parked, my passenger opened the door and was hit by the speeding third party. He is a non-driver and normally checks carefully before getting out. He has done it for the 30 years I have known him.

Such a nice word, "normally"...

I say hit, because the speed was way too fast. The third party stopped many, many meters down the road and made a point of reversing before I could take photos of where the car stopped.

Prove it. Because right now, it's he-said-she-said. And, unless you can PROVE that there is no way that other car could have been within a visible distance for more than a couple of seconds - and even if you're suggesting they were doing even 50mph (I'm presuming 30 limit), then 100m is about 4.5 seconds - then it is STILL your passenger's fault, because they were negligent. If they really were doing a very high speed, then the damage would be worse to both cars. The mirror would not have been "dangling", it would have been ripped off completely. Your door would likely have been ripped from the passenger's hands and bent double or removed completely.

robbies_gal

is this the same post as the birmingham station one?

Pithaggy

AdrianC - thereby hangs my argument.

The third party is a proved liar and on a 'he-said-she-said' basis, English law will usually side with the 'honest' person.

As to damage, any Physics student will tell you that chaos of impact is unpredictable. A partial (glancing) blow from a speeding car, may not do as much damage as 'full on' collision from a slow moving car. It's all about transference of energy.

As to sight lines, my car was parked near a corner.

I will have to concede defeat. Not because it's my passengers fault, but because insurers will always take the easy route. As evidenced by the statement from the third party. I can't give details because it's so bizarre that it would immediately identify the claim. Let’s just say that anyone with half a brain cell should have spotted the inconsistencies.

And no, this has nothing to do with Birmingham station.

AdrianC

Pithaggy wrote: »

As to sight lines, my car was parked near a corner.

OK, so some of the fault is yours as well as your passenger's, for expecting them to get out where visibility was limited.