Car park incident

DanielSan

Retrogamer wrote: »

Did you read the OP.
Op started to reverse out, noticed the other car reversing and stopped. The other car reversing didn't stop and hit the OP.

If the OP had been driving out forwards, the same thing would have happened because the other car reversing wasn't looking where they were driving.

Other car is 100% in the wrong from OP's description but proving it might be difficult.

Exactly what happened and still can't see how she needed to reverse that far back to begin with. Hard to prove but I asked security guard at tescos and he did say he would check cctv and get back to me so fingers crossed.

liltzero

That Audi has rear parking sensors so god knows why they bumped into you. But yeah, this is a 50/50 without any witnesses/CCTV

iammumtoone

DanielSan wrote: »

can't see how she needed to reverse that far back to begin with.

Yes you can clearly see from your photo that she did not need to go that far back, that might work in your favour as it is also clear she went into you.

I would fight for no liability.

What did the third party say, did they deny liability?

DanielSan

iammumtoone wrote: »

Yes you can clearly see from your photo that she did not need to go that far back, that might work in your favour as it is also clear she went into you.

I would fight for no liability.

What did the third party say, did they deny liability?

Yeah I've got photos of the damage clearly to back of her car and side of mine. I can't see how the damage could be possible in any way other than me being established in the lane and her reversing into me

Retrogamer

I would push for 100% her at fault with the pictures and damage. After all, your car cannot drive sideways so it should be hopefully straightforward to convince them she drove into you, rather than you drove into each other.

If they complain about this, explain that you were stopped and had you been driving forward, the third party would have still drove into the side of you.

DanielSan

Retrogamer wrote: »

I would push for 100% her at fault with the pictures and damage. After all, your car cannot drive sideways so it should be hopefully straightforward to convince them she drove into you, rather than you drove into each other.

If they complain about this, explain that you were stopped and had you been driving forward, the third party would have still drove into the side of you.

I guess without cctv she could claim I reversed back at last moment as she was reversing back.

Retrogamer

DanielSan wrote: »

I guess without cctv she could claim I reversed back at last moment as she was reversing back.

That's still weak on her part. If she was looking out the rear window, she would have seen you reversing out at the last minute and by how far your car is out, would have had time to stop before hitting it in the side.

It's not as probable.

AndyMc.....

liltzero wrote: »

That Audi has rear parking sensors so god knows why they bumped into you. But yeah, this is a 50/50 without any witnesses/CCTV

Maybe they aren't connected, you know like some tacky tw@ put different bumpers on to make their car look like an SE or something better. Some tools do that sort of thing.

Just saying. :whistle:

rich13348

liltzero wrote: »

That Audi has rear parking sensors so god knows why they bumped into you. But yeah, this is a 50/50 without any witnesses/CCTV

Where do you see parking sensors on the bumper. I can see them but the picture is not high res enough to get a decent picture when zoomed in.

lovinituk

Similar thing happened to a mate of mine and the insurance wanted to go 50/50. He stood his ground and submitted photos, diagrams and a long detailed explanation of why it was the other persons fault and they went with total blame on the other party in the end.

50/50 is the easy way out for the insurance companies. You have to be tough with yours.