Insurance liability problem

Harry450

Yes sorry, only realised after posting that my iPad had used an old login.

AndyMc.....

harry_et wrote: »

Gosh, there are some very aggressive people on this forum. I have accepted liability and never denied it. My main question was about how I stood as he was uninsured. This is my first accident in 38 years of driving so I genuinely had no idea what, if any, his responsibility was. Also I am curious about why the actual car owner would peruse thus after such a long time. Thought you had to report things straight away but have now found out that is not the case.
My worry is that they have had another accident and want to load the further damage on to me. I do have tons of photos from all angles so if they are making a fraudulent claim that will become evident. To be honest, the damage was very minor as it was caused by my spare tyre touching the drivers door. My own garage estimated the repair costs at less than my excess at £300

They have six years to raise a claim against you. Not that it matters but it appears you hit an insured unattended vehicle.

facade

Possibly the car is on some sort of lease, where at handback they would have to pay thousands to have a minute dent sorted, so they want it fixing before it goes back.

unholyangel

Harry450 wrote: »

No I didn't see him drive in, noticed a man running into the shop but didn't make the connection at the time as his whole manoeuvre must have taken less than 5 seconds.

I think what people are trying to point out is if you didn't see him enter & park, you have no way of knowing exactly how long he was behind you.

I sympathise OP but personally, I would have called the police to attend if the other party in an incident had refused to exchange details or admitted they were driving without insurance.

Harry450

Thanks for your comments. Well he wasn't there when I walked back to my car and got in hence my estimate of 5 seconds. If he had been there my exit would have been completely blocked so I would have had to go and find him anyway. I always use my mirrors as I also drive a 7.5 ton lorry and you have to use mirrors as it's not possible to just have a quick look over your shoulder.
Yes I think I should have called the police in hindsight but I tend to think of people being honest so when he said it was his fault and he didn't want any fuss as he wasn't insured to drive that car I suppose I felt sorry for him. You live and learn.
It's a 7 year old Little Audi so I don't think it would be a lease car.

Car_54

[QUOTE=Harry450;72506521We_live_in_a_very_hilly_place,_as_in_mountainous_so_visibility_can_be_an_issue_due_to_slopes_but_if_you_live_in_a_flat_area_that_may_not_be_something_you_need_ever_consider.[/QUOTE]

But you don't live in a flat area, so you should consider it, but didn't?

Aylesbury_Duck

I still don't understand how the car behind was less visible as a result of being on a slope? It might be if the OP's car was on a plateau and the third party was parked on a steep slope behind, but if both cars are parked on approximately the same gradient, the view of the third party's car out of the back of OP's car would be the same as if they were parked on level ground.

neilmcl

Harry450 wrote: »

No I didn't see him drive in, noticed a man running into the shop but didn't make the connection at the time as his whole manoeuvre must have taken less than 5 seconds.

And someone stepping behind your car could take a fraction of that. You keep saying you accept liability but keep trying to make lame excuses to mitigate it, please stop it. You have no excuse.

neilmcl

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

I still don't understand how the car behind was less visible as a result of being on a slope? It might be if the OP's car was on a plateau and the third party was parked on a steep slope behind, but if both cars are parked on approximately the same gradient, the view of the third party's car out of the back of OP's car would be the same as if they were parked on level ground.

Just more of the excuse for his clear lack of observation.

Harry450

neilmcl wrote: »

Just more of the excuse for his clear lack of observation.

Although in this case it's a her and not a him. See whose making assumptions now