3rd party lied about damage in contested fault claim

Pithaggy

BTW, who said anything about the wing mirror still being connected to the car. I said 'bouncing around' - I said the claim was very odd

Pithaggy

Maybe according to the insurer, but not to natural justice.

As I said, I concede defeat.

But what about my other point of there being no consequences when 'being creative' with yout RTC statement.

Pithaggy

It's perfectly OK to open your door if you have checked and there is no car visible.

I'm a reasonable guy, I would not have pushed this if I thought it was my passengers fault. Anyway, let's move on or we will get into the proverbial 'he said-she said' argument, and God forbid we do that

What about the no consequence for lying ?

AdrianC

Pithaggy wrote: »

It's perfectly OK to open your door if you have checked and there is no car visible.

Such a nice word, "if".

Clearly, they hadn't checked, because there WAS a car coming which they didn't see.

Or did they see it, know it was coming at a "massively excessive speed", so open it anyway?

Pithaggy

So is 'WAS'

There were only 3 people involved. I have said what I think, being there and you have said what you think, NOT being there ('NOT' is also a good word). Lets move on, or shall we continue the oh so rewarding 'he said-she said' debate?

What about the no consequence for lying ?

Mercdriver

Unless it was an electric vehicle, surely you and he would have heard the car coming if it had been coming at excess speed.

Pithaggy

Darth_Vader - I'm perfectly open to reasoned debates, not a slanging match and I am also in favour of ’agreeing to disagree' when two parties cannot find a point of harmony.

The lie is about the damaged claimed and it's a clear lie as I previously mentioned. Even my insurer has admitted that.

Mercdriver - Have you ever done any photo hunting? What the wind can do to sound is quite remarkable. And that's outdoors, without the sound proofing of a car.

Besides, I'm sure all drivers have done a double take when a car 'suddenly appears out of nowhere'

AdrianC

Pithaggy wrote: »

The lie is about the damaged claimed and it's a clear lie as I previously mentioned. Even my insurer has admitted that.

Then your insurer needs to query the value of the repair with their insurer, or with them if they are claiming directly.

That is totally separate from fault.

Besides, I'm sure all drivers have done a double take when a car 'suddenly appears out of nowhere'

Oh, absolutely. And, if they're really honest with themselves, it's almost always because they failed to actually LOOK properly. They had a quick glance and assumed the rest.

Astronaughtwannabe

Much of this willie waving misses the point. It can be negligence to open a door and cause damage/injury and equally it can be negligent to drive unnecessarily close to a parked car and cause damage/injury.

What can be shown to be negligence is a whole other ball game.

OP, I wouldn't necessarily put much store by what the insurer said when they agreed they thought the third party was lying.

How can you show the TPs damage was exaggerated? That's the real point.

If it's demonstrable then that may open up other avenues.

Pithaggy

Darth and Adrian - what about the concept of 'agreeing to disagree' or has it become a question of ‘winning’.

I didn’t mention the damage to my car at all, please don't extrapolate from what is not there. My damage only proves the single point of contact, not the general mayhem discussed by the third party. As I KEEP saying, the third party damage claim is laughable.

There were 3 people there, I was one of them. I dispute fault but will concede liability. The 3rd party damage claim will prove to be incorrect.

Why do you insist on pushing? For me to comment further on that question is superfluous and probably breaks the rules on personal attacks. I shall leave your actions for other readers to form their own conclusions from the evidence and by the same token mine.

I shall say no more on ‘fault’.

What about the no consequence for lying in an RTC statement?