Car reversed in to me, driver claiming I drove in to them :S

Herzlos

Might still be worth getting a reference number.


Do you have photos of the damage? Let the insurance company handle it - hopefully the photos show it as being fairly clear cut - they were reversing out of a bay, you were on the 'road' and the damage is on your side. You'd have had to be doing a handbrake turn to have been the car that was moving.

sevenhills

AndyMc..... wrote: »

It’s a damage only RTC, the RTA has been complied with so no need to waste police time.

If a person is making false statements, like with the 'crash for cash' fraud cases.

Car_54

sevenhills wrote: »

If a person is making false statements, like with the 'crash for cash' fraud cases.

It is a civil dispute, in which the police have no place.


Each side has a different version of events, otherwise there would be no dispute. One version, by definition, must be untrue. This is all perfectly normal.


If the OP accuses the TP of fraud, the TP may reciprocate. Who should the police believe, and why? This is what the civil courts are for.

Mgman1965

Very similar thing happened to my OH.


Driving down the road in a supermarket car park, car reversed out of a space in the side of her (damage to wife's OSR door and quarter panel and damage to other cars rear bumper and tailgate). Driver, a young girl, admitted liability and exchanged details.


Reported to my insurance company and thought all good and sorted.


Some time later letter from my insurance company saying she claims my wife drove into the back of her !!!!!! !!!!!


Spoke to my company saying unless my OH has found a way to drive her car sideways as damage to our car is on the OS rear door that was not possible.
They asked to email them pictures of front, back and both sides of our car showing damage to side to show her company.


They (her insurance) admitted liability shortly after !!!!


When I said to my insurance about her admitting liability at the scene and then fibbing after, they said she'd probably been advised to later by OH / family member as a fault accident her being young would hammer her premiums for a few years.

Stoke

sevenhills wrote: »

If a person is making false statements, like with the 'crash for cash' fraud cases.

Yeah.... how come that never actually materialises in reality?

How you interpret things is different to how I do.... the most recent accident I had, January of this year was settled 50/50, however the other driver was incensed on the side of the road and stood steadfast about how "No, YOU'VE driven in to me, this is YOUR mess to clean up"..... turns out neither insurance company agreed and it was settled 50/50.

Whenever there is a crash, it's never nice to admit you're at fault. Most drivers will look for a reason as to why it wasn't their fault? Heck, my ex fiancee (not to sound cruel) was a perpetual victim when it came to car accidents. She had 3 in the time we were together... one where a lad run her up the rear end, and two that were blatantly her fault. Despite the fact they were both her fault, she insisted they were at fault for spurious reasons "they were driving too fast and not paying attention". Nobody cares what your opinion.... what matters is who is to blame by the letter of the law.

Hence why this doesn't go down as crash for cash, unless there's video evidence proving there was a crash for cash style 'manoeuvre'.

sevenhills

Car_54 wrote: »

If the OP accuses the TP of fraud, the TP may reciprocate. Who should the police believe, and why? This is what the civil courts are for.

Claraxoxo wrote: »

I have a witness that confirms that I was not at fault, as the driver reversed in to me very fast and that they were driving badly before all this.

The Fraud Act 2006 specifically defines fraud as a crime. This act defines fraud as being committed when a person “makes a false representation,”

Mojisola

Mgman1965 wrote: »

When I said to my insurance about her admitting liability at the scene and then fibbing after, they said she'd probably been advised to later by OH / family member as a fault accident her being young would hammer her premiums for a few years.

Same thing happened in an accident outside our house - the young driver pulled out onto a main road which caused another driver to swerve and collide with another car.

The driver at fault initially admitted her mistake until her Dad turned up and got her to change her story, blaming the driver who had to swerve (or T-bone her car) because 'he had been speeding'.

This was despite having a bus-load of witnesses who had all seen her make the dangerous manoeuvre.

facade

sevenhills wrote: »

The Fraud Act 2006 specifically defines fraud as a crime. This act defines fraud as being committed when a person “makes a false representation,”

There must be a Statutory Exception for Politicians then :rotfl:

Car_54

sevenhills wrote: »

The Fraud Act 2006 specifically defines fraud as a crime. This act defines fraud as being committed when a person “makes a false representation,”

No-one is disputing that. The point is that the matter is already the subject of a civil dispute.



In the case in question, A says that B is making a false statement. There is no evidence to support that allegation.


B may well counter-accuse A, again with no supporting evidence. What do you expect the police to do?


Almost every case in the civil courts hinges upon two conflicting accounts, where one must be untrue. The court has to decide who to believe. Are you suggesting that the police should take action against the losing party in every case?

AndyMc.....

sevenhills wrote: »

The Fraud Act 2006 specifically defines fraud as a crime. This act defines fraud as being committed when a person “makes a false representation,”

There's no evidence it's a crash for cash and therefore no evidence of a fraud.