false car insurance claim made against me

DUTR

DoaM wrote: »

As I'm reading things:

3rd party car was there first, with no other car adjacent.

OP's car was there adjacent when 3rd party returned to leave - 3rd party notices damage to their car.

3rd party assumes OP's car caused the damage, without considering that it might have been another car (been and gone) before the OP arrived.

(This presumes that the 3rd party doesn't also have dashcam footage showing their car rocking whilst the OP's car was parking adjacent).

It depends how soon after the 3rd party arrived, it may have been minutes and not hours.



a few minutes later and some polish


Trouble is (and I'm not accusing the OP) is the preaching and trying to divert from the facts, it's a possibility he is victim of a scam but it's not fact, the 3rd party may feel he is being scammed too.

almillar

where did you get the 4hrs from?

From OP's description in post #117

I was then away and returned to my car after 4 hours

there is something that the other party has lead them to believe that the OP has damaged their car

Indeed, I'd love to know what his evidence is, since OP's got a dashcam showing them NOT crashing (not water tight, of course).

DUTR

almillar wrote: »

From OP's description in post #117





Indeed, I'd love to know what his evidence is, since OP's got a dashcam showing them NOT crashing (not water tight, of course).

Ah, the 4hrs is when the OP returned to their vehicle, not the 3rd party returning to their vehicle, that is the time span I am referring to (they could have gone for a few minutes) .

lumixldn

Trouble is (and I'm not accusing the OP) is the preaching and trying to divert from the facts, it's a possibility he is victim of a scam but it's not fact, the 3rd party may feel he is being scammed too.

I am not sure what you refer to your imaginary facts? I am the one who open the discussion might be just one side of story, but doesn't mean what you think it is is the fact either. Without knowing exactly what it is I am not sure what it mean by divert from the facts.

DoaM

DUTR wrote: »

It depends how soon after the 3rd party arrived, it may have been minutes and not hours.



a few minutes later and some polish


Trouble is (and I'm not accusing the OP) is the preaching and trying to divert from the facts, it's a possibility he is victim of a scam but it's not fact, the 3rd party may feel he is being scammed too.

I don't understand how that post is a reply to my previous post ... I don't see the context of those images versus what I said.

DUTR

lumixldn wrote: »

I am not sure what you refer to your imaginary facts? I am the one who open the discussion might be just one side of story, but doesn't mean what you think it is is the fact either. Without knowing exactly what it is I am not sure what it mean by divert from the facts.

read the post that you are replying to again, and perhaps reply without changing the words used

Let me give you an example, I'm behind a car the rear bumper of that car is damaged, the driver of that car suddenly brakes and I'm too close to stop without collision, now the owner of that car can claim for a new bumper, I asked him why he suddenly braked and he said an animal ran out in front of him (there was no animal to be seen on my dash cam) , so.... am I being scammed or does the 3rd party have a claim?

DUTR

DoaM wrote: »

I don't understand how that post is a reply to my previous post ... I don't see the context of those images versus what I said.

Sorry, I was hurrying to get the pics, anyways within a few minutes damage can be reduced, the OP had said there were no marks on his car, however he did not here from the insurers for more than a few days.

lumixldn

Just update on the issue, I have keep chasing the my insurer to review the issue these two days (as i uploaded them the full video footage 2 weeks ago) . Finally I got contact from them today saying after they reviewed the dashcam video they believe it will not be me who would have contacted to the alleged claimed car and hence they have denied the third party claim.

As the video clearly shows me showly maneuver the car to park, the third party car has reasonable distant to my car without any apparent damage by the time I complete my parking. My insurer also notice from my footage that it is a very busy day in the car park, they said it could be any car which trans-passing after my parking that would cause the damage of the third party car.

It is only until today I can confirm with my insurer which car was actually making the claim (they won't tell me the info before that), and what the claim damage is (allegedly very badly damaged front which is claiming for £1800+) etc.

The evidence the other party has is just a photo of my car bumper with some minor scratch which the third party said it is paint transfer (in fact it is just my paint wear out long time ago and showing bumper plastic color). To be fair, a lot of cars in the car park would have this sort of scratch, I think it is because the fact that I parked next to the third party car and I leave late makes me become an easy target.

My insurer also acknowledged that any third-parties are entitled to make such claim even with the poor evidence as it is, there is nothing they can stop them from doing that. Therefore having a dashcam video on my side would be the most useful tool to proof myself. However, should I not have a dashcam or if i am not aware such issue and the claim comes a few weeks later after my dashcam footage got erased, it would have taken me much longer time/effort to solve this issue.

So going forward, just some advice to the reader here, if your car has some old scratches or wears and tears, better to keep a photograph to record what it is right now to avoid any potential troubles in the futures. Also, best to install a dashcam (front and back) with longer storage.

Thanks all for reading this.

DoaM

DUTR wrote: »

Sorry, I was hurrying to get the pics, anyways within a few minutes damage can be reduced, the OP had said there were no marks on his car, however he did not here from the insurers for more than a few days.

I made no comment whatsoever about whether or not there was corresponding damage to the OP's car. (For the purpose of this thread let's assume the OP is telling the truth). I espoused a scenario where the OP could be blamed for the actions of another, unidentified, party. I did this because some people couldn't see how the OP could be blameless.

Car_54

DUTR wrote: »

Let me give you an example, I'm behind a car the rear bumper of that car is damaged, the driver of that car suddenly brakes and I'm too close to stop without collision, now the owner of that car can claim for a new bumper, I asked him why he suddenly braked and he said an animal ran out in front of him (there was no animal to be seen on my dash cam) , so.... am I being scammed or does the 3rd party have a claim?

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make, but - scam or not - you're at fault for driving too close.