Insurance saying at fault over claim but not involved in accident.

JustAnotherSaver

I was in 2 minds as to whether to seek help here on this topic because i know there's a large cynical section and this will really get their juices flowing. But then i thought why should i not ask for help just because of those people, especially when of the forums i'm on this is probably the best spot for this type of question so on with it...


Before i get in to the details of the claim as i'm not sure if it's necessary, the basics are a third party has claimed they were hit & the driver sped off.

This accusation is false. No damage to car. Car finally got inspected and the inspector has highlighted a small scratch & determined that this must've been from the accident. The 'accident' was late Oct, insurance got in touch early Nov & were continuously offered & asked to come and inspect in person to which they finally decided to do 27th December. Plenty of time for any damage to occur to the car - the only thing is that this scratch was actually on the car when it was bought earlier in the year (only thing is no photo evidence with EXIF data to show this).

So that's the issue here - they're saying this scratch shows the insured is at fault even though it was on the car when it was bought.


Can you appeal these things? If so then what's the process?

shaun_from_Africa

Where did you buy the car from?
If it was a private purchase, it might be worth contacting the seller and asking if they have any photographs of the vehicle taken shortly before bought it. (Unlikely I know but you may be lucky).

Do you know exactly when are where the alleged accident took place? and if so, is there any way that you could prove that your car wasn't near the area at the time? (cctv for a work car park for example).


If you can't get either of the above, your only option might be to employ your own inspector to examine your vehicle and the other one involved and see what their report states.

angrycrow

A proper inspection should involve colour photographs of the area of damage on your car against a metre rule to show the height of the damage. These can then be compared to the damage on the third party car to see if the areas match. Demand that your insurers provide the images from both engineers reports.

Has the other driver reported the matter to the police, I would if a driver hit means drove off.

Is it possible that you could have scraped another car without realising. Were you in the area at the time of the accident. Not suggesting you are lying but some people have been known to continue denying involvement even after CCTV evidence has been produced.

JustAnotherSaver

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Where did you buy the car from?
If it was a private purchase, it might be worth contacting the seller and asking if they have any photographs of the vehicle taken shortly before bought it. (Unlikely I know but you may be lucky).

Do you know exactly when are where the alleged accident took place? and if so, is there any way that you could prove that your car wasn't near the area at the time? (cctv for a work car park for example).


If you can't get either of the above, your only option might be to employ your own inspector to examine your vehicle and the other one involved and see what their report states.

The car was a private purchase.

I've suggested they contact the previous owner - i'll need to find out if they've done this or not.

As yet pretty much everything has been over the phone. I've suggested that they stop this and communicate via email as much as possible (so there is written evidence down that they can refer to at any point). Obviously i'm not saying don't talk over the phone - they'll have to. My point is to get details in writing - dates, times, locations.

I know the date this apparently took place. They were with me in the morning because we had to go to the bank and sort out their application which they had to do over the phone but chances are the time the 'accident' took place will be later as we went in to the bank quite early.



One thing i forgot to add in the original post - they supposedly have a witness.
I don't know if this witness is independent or whether it's their cousins best mates sister or what.




The next question is whether the plates have been cloned. Which drifting off topic here a bit...
* My uncle lives about 15-20 mile up the motorway. When he called through one day a couple years ago he asked if i'd been around where he lives that week. I said no & asked why. He said because he saw my car there. He said he thought my plate was ###### and i said yeah that's right & he said he'd certainly seen that plate on the same colour, make & model car as mine.

Now the cynics of the forum would say he could be pulling my leg but really, he wasn't.

* On the topic of cloned plates still, i worked with a guy where the police came to work to speak to him. Story short they asked if he'd been in such & such an area on such & such a date & time. His car had been caught on camera involved in a robbery apparently. He said he couldn't possibly have been there, nor his car.

It was easy for him to prove that though ........ because of his clock card at work, his time sheets as a driver and signatures on paperwork with dates and times. Without all that though it would've been much harder for him.



I know in employment law they just need reasonable suspicion to do you (apparently).
If you're on a murder case they need to prove beyond doubt that you did it, right?

So how does this insurance lark go?

To say - i saw a scratch on a 14 year old car so you must've been involved in this specific accident 2 months ago even though you've had 8 weeks to pick up any number of scratches, dents etc ......... it's a bit wrong isn't it?

JustAnotherSaver

angrycrow wrote: »

Is it possible that you could have scraped another car without realising. Were you in the area at the time of the accident. Not suggesting you are lying but some people have been known to continue denying involvement even after CCTV evidence has been produced.

I will try and find this information out.

They said they most certainly were not involved in an accident & to me that means they weren't. I know to outsiders & to insurance that means diddly squat but if they were involved then they would've told me as they've nothing to lose by telling me. They've had a bump before and 1 proper accident - fessed up to the whole lot (the proper accident one they didn't really have a choice). If they've done it they have always accepted the fact. This time they are adamant they weren't involved in one.

Again, i appreciate what you're saying & that that means very little, nothing at all even, but there you go.


I think they really need full info in writing, just my opinion though.

And i'll find out if photos were taken with measurements in place too. That's a good point & not something i thought of.

debtdebt

The terms and conditions of your insurance allow them to deal with claims against you as they wish. If they aren't satisfied with your explanation, they will just settle on a without prejudice basis.

JustAnotherSaver

The small scratch on the wheel arch there is what the inspector has determined as showing this car must surely have been involved in the accident.

I wonder whether the damage is on the other guys front/middle/rear. If front (so turning in hitting front wing to front wing) then surely you would think the middle/back corner of the car is going to pick up damage also ... which it hasn't. But anyway we need to find out what they're saying.

Warwick_Hunt

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

I was in 2 minds as to whether to seek help here on this topic because i know there's a large cynical section and this will really get their juices flowing. But then i thought why should i not ask for help just because of those people, especially when of the forums i'm on this is probably the best spot for this type of question so on with it...


Before i get in to the details of the claim as i'm not sure if it's necessary, the basics are a third party has claimed they were hit & the driver sped off.

This accusation is false. No damage to car. Car finally got inspected and the inspector has highlighted a small scratch & determined that this must've been from the accident. The 'accident' was late Oct, insurance got in touch early Nov & were continuously offered & asked to come and inspect in person to which they finally decided to do 27th December. Plenty of time for any damage to occur to the car - the only thing is that this scratch was actually on the car when it was bought earlier in the year (only thing is no photo evidence with EXIF data to show this).

So that's the issue here - they're saying this scratch shows the insured is at fault even though it was on the car when it was bought.


Can you appeal these things? If so then what's the process?

So which bit is false, no damage or the driver sped off?

JustAnotherSaver

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

So which bit is false, no damage or the driver sped off?

*sigh*

I don't know if you're trying to be funny here but i'm getting the strong impression you are. If i'm wrong then apologies but like i say, it doesn't seem like i am.

You could argue a car is damaged right from the showroom. Take it to a good detailer and they'll show you that that paint job isn't perfect.

Likewise a 14 year old car isn't going to be perfect either. It's going to have scratches and bumps etc.

Yeah yeah i'm sure you can find an older car without a blemish on it but generally speaking cars of this age will have their marks.

The point i was making was that there's no damage on this car from this supposed accident. I thought it was obvious? As i wouldn't try and claim a 14 year old car doesn't have a single scuff or scratch or dent or whatever on it. My car is only 2 years older at 16 and the front end is totally peppered with stone chips. I best hope nobody accuses me of reversing in to them



So to answer your question as to which bit is false - the accusation put to my brother that he was the one who did it. That bit is false.


So the 3 guys before you posted helpful responses. Which part of yours was helpful?

Mercdriver

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

*sigh*

I don't know if you're trying to be funny here but i'm getting the strong impression you are. If i'm wrong then apologies but like i say, it doesn't seem like i am.

You could argue a car is damaged right from the showroom. Take it to a good detailer and they'll show you that that paint job isn't perfect.

Likewise a 14 year old car isn't going to be perfect either. It's going to have scratches and bumps etc.

Yeah yeah i'm sure you can find an older car without a blemish on it but generally speaking cars of this age will have their marks.

The point i was making was that there's no damage on this car from this supposed accident. I thought it was obvious? As i wouldn't try and claim a 14 year old car doesn't have a single scuff or scratch or dent or whatever on it. My car is only 2 years older at 16 and the front end is totally peppered with stone chips. I best hope nobody accuses me of reversing in to them



So to answer your question as to which bit is false - the accusation put to my brother that he was the one who did it. That bit is false.


So the 3 guys before you posted helpful responses. Which part of yours was helpful?

But you didn't say it was your brother earlier. Why would you say it was you and then in a later post say it was your brother. inconsistent much?

If no one agrees it could go to court, but it would be on a balance of probabilities as it is a civil case.

Oh and it would take more than a van with number plates to get someone 'fitted up' for murder.

Are you actually for real?

angrycrow

Only my opinion but that damage does not look consistent with a coming together of two moving vehicles. Either an object has scrapped the car whilst it was parked or somebody pulled into he space next to it whilst it was parked and nudged it.

Whilst plate cloning does happen it is extremely rare. In 20 years of dealing with exactly these types of allegations I have seen about 4 cases of genuine plate cloning but hundred of cases where one letter or number has been taken down wrong which can still result in a match on make model and colour.