false car insurance claim made against me

DUTR

lumixldn wrote: »

If the old lady is a stranger, and if the old lady knock my window said it was me.... I will talk to understand what she is talking about and then deny it.

You don't know who put the note on the car.
For all you know another car park user may have witnessed something and left a note on the other car.

lumixldn

DUTR wrote: »

You don't know who put the note on the car.
For all you know another car park user may have witnessed something and left a note on the other car.

I also know another car park some driver will put their windscreen note to other car whe they driven off. Then doesn't lead to a "logical" conclusion on whoever return the call is the one to blame. I will see how a competent underwriter interpret that logic.

DUTR

lumixldn wrote: »

I also know another car park some driver will put their windscreen note to other car whe they driven off. Then doesn't lead to a "logical" conclusion on whoever return the call is the one to blame. I will see how a competent underwriter interpret that logic.

Well yes the readers here are probably incompetent incident investigators, however that said many questions and concerns have been raised about the accusation and as the old saying goes there is no smoke without fire.

lumixldn

DUTR wrote: »

Well yes the readers here are probably incompetent incident investigators, however that said many questions and concerns have been raised about the accusation and as the old saying goes there is no smoke without fire.

I don't see many questions and concerns have been raised , most of the post above is just around the same question from reader DUTR. I smoke a sense of grasping at straws.

DUTR

lumixldn wrote: »

I don't see many questions and concerns have been raised , most of the post above is just around the same question from reader DUTR. I smoke a sense of grasping at straws.

You think you don't see any questions or concerns, let me spell it out for you, one day you visited a car park, spaces were limited and the use of a space challenging, unfortunately you may have clipped a stationary vehicle causing some damage, as you were not sure at the time, you kept some record of the incident . Unfortunately for you the owner of the of the vehicle had concerns that some fresh damage to his vehicle was caused by your vehicle in that car park.

Subsequently he left a note on your windscreen and you responded, a conversation had then taken place and you concluded there was no case to answer.

The other party felt strongly enough about the matter to contact the police and or his insurer who have since contacted you.


You then created a thread here to gather independent opinion which whilst not binding considers all what you have posted .


Whilst it is difficult for you to accept that you may have indeed caused some damage, you are still in denial about it and as such the other person is trying to scam you and/or your insurance company.


It is a strong accusation for the other car user to levy, and as the scam could only be attempted once by him and on that policy/vehicle and not that lucrative then it is reasonable for the said person to have a genuine complaint.

lumixldn

DUTR wrote: »

You think you don't see any questions or concerns, let me spell it out for you, one day you visited a car park, spaces were limited and the use of a space challenging, unfortunately you may have clipped a stationary vehicle causing some damage, as you were not sure at the time, you kept some record of the incident . Unfortunately for you the owner of the of the vehicle had concerns that some fresh damage to his vehicle was caused by your vehicle in that car park.

I can see your imaginary scene unfortunately does not sound logical. My car has a dashcam video, which is on all the time during the day to record what have happened. I did not kept some random record. I kept that footage on that day only after I was aware of someone left a note on my windscreen.

The other party's vehicle might have been damaged by someone. I don't think they can speculate my vehicle and make a claim against me purely based on some old scratch on my car and based on me returning his call. I will consider this, if not a scam, an insurance fraud.

I am indeed, concerns of other car users, should they don't process a dashcam, or even they process a dashcam but not aware of such claim against them. How would they defend this kind of false/mistaken claim behaviors by the other party, and what kind of right they have to protect themselves, especially if the underwriter is clumsy not examining the evidence properly. This is the original intend of the post.

It is a strong accusation for the other car user to levy, and as the scam could only be attempted once by him and on that policy/vehicle and not that lucrative then it is reasonable for the said person to have a genuine complaint.

I don't think so, from time to time I read article about opportunistic insurance fraud etc. The other user might have a bad day as his car is damaged. He/she is free to look around the car park and speculate which vechile did that. But only if the other party recall the CCTV image to see what happened, or they have a dashcam to record such incident, or have other independent witness that see some vehicle cause the damage, then report to police is the genuine insurance claim. It doesn't mean that he can just look around an get a convenient target to try his/her luck. I consider this is not a genuine complaint but an insurance fraud.

DUTR

lumixldn wrote: »

I can see your imaginary scene unfortunately does not sound logical.


To you it's not logical but it is a probability.

My car has a dashcam video, which is on all the time during the day to record what have happened.


Lots of folk have some kind of dashcam, it doesn't mean the owner is always innocent. In fact this time it may harm your defence.

I did not kept some random record. I kept that footage on that day only after I was aware someone left a note on my windscreen.

Well the incident is only going to be a few seconds at most of footage.

The other party's vehicle might have been damaged by someone.

And it may have been damaged by you.

I don't think they can speculate my vehicle purely based on some old scratch on my car and based on me returning his call.


They can speculate on what evidence they believe and have.

I will consider this, if not a scam, an insurance fraud.


Fraud by whom , you or the other party?



I am indeed, concerns of other car users, should they don't process a dashcam, or even they process a dashcam but not aware of such claim against them. How would they defend this kind of false claim behaviors by the other party,


We don't know that the other party has a camera with parking recording, something has prompted them to inform you of their intent.

and what kind of right they have to protect themselves,


Perhaps a dashcam

especially if the underwriter is clumsy not examining the evidence properly.


They could examine the evidence you have submitted and uphold the complaint.

This is the original intend of the post.



I don't think so, from time to time I read article about opportunistic insurance fraud etc. The other user might have a bad day as his car for damage,


and also you could have had a bad day that day parking, and or taken the opportunity to imagine that if you didn't report it then it could just all go away.

but doesn't mean that he can just look around an get a car to blame.

Well he had lots of cars in the car park to choose from, somehow he chose yours.

lumixldn

DUTR wrote: »

Well he had lots of cars in the car park to choose from, somehow he chose yours.

Yes there are a lot of cars, based on the logic he can not choose all right? He can only choose just 1/2 from it, I am probably unlucky. As you said, it is probability.

Yes, now I realized how important to have dashcam to protect myself.

DUTR

lumixldn wrote: »

Yes there are a lot of cars, based on the logic he can not choose all right? He can only choose just 1/2 from it, I am probably unlucky.

Yes you may have been on that day time and place.

lumixldn

DUTR wrote: »

Yes you may have been on that day time and place.

Along with a lot of other cars in the car park, well I maybe the one that leave late..