Car reversed into my bicycle and driver wants me to pay for scratches to window and rear bumper

ArneL

Retired_Mortgage_Adviser wrote: »

OP, sorry for the all caps but PLEASE DO NOT SETTLE! There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of the driver getting any money out of you in court. Just tell him clearly that you are not liable and that he is free to pursue a small claim if he wishes to do so.

Thank you, and not to worry - I am very determined not to pay a single penny after having spoken to a number of people with legal expertise.

Ms_Chocaholic

Does he live near you? I wonder whether it's worth looking at these scratches he says are on his vehicle in the daylight, just to put your mind further at ease. There might be nothing there.

reeac

Not sure if I've got the episode correct but it sounds as if the motorist had stopped by a dropped kerb and then reversed presumably into the associated drive. The collision occurred during this reversing. You would have been approaching from behind so your lights should have been visible in his mirrors and the collision could have occurred on the dropped kerb area or on the footpath. All sounds like lack of observation on the part of the motorist. Modern car styling tends to lead to poor rearward visibility which makes careful observation when reversing essential.

esuhl

ArneL wrote: »

Thank you, and not to worry - I am very determined not to pay a single penny after having spoken to a number of people with legal expertise.

:T

Third-party insurance covers the driver for any damage you might have caused. So, I suspect any legal action against you would be thrown out as it would be considered "frivolous".

If he contacts you again, tell him you will only deal directly with his insurer. That'll get him off your back.

Car_54

esuhl wrote: »

:T

Third-party insurance covers the driver for any damage you might have caused. So, I suspect any legal action against you would be thrown out as it would be considered "frivolous".

If he contacts you again, tell him you will only deal directly with his insurer. That'll get him off your back.

I think you mean comprehensive insurance. We don't know whether the driver has that, or indeed whether he was insured at all.

Whatever, he is perfectly entitled to take action against the OP, and the OP can't refuse to deal with him. However, the consensus here (which I share) seems to be that the response should be along the lines of "F*** off".

esuhl

[quote=[Deleted User];76538829]I think you mean comprehensive insurance. We don't know whether the driver has that, or indeed whether he was insured at all.[/QUOTE]

No -- third-party insurance would cover the driver for damage when another party is liable.

It's a legal requirement to have some form of third-party insurance to drive a car. If the driver is insured, he's covered. A court claim for the damage would be frivolous.

If the driver isn't insured, then any legal action exposes him to being prosecuted for having no insurance, and possibly for not reporting the accident. I suspect the driver might well prefer to keep quiet and take it on the chin.

And this all assumes that the cyclist was found to be liable anyway, which sounds unlikely given the circumstances.

ArneL

An update: the driver has come back quoting a ludicrous amount of £500, asking me to pay £400. I have given a lengthy reply detailing why I will not do so and repeating what I said in my report to the police (and my original post here). He's come back with his version of the story which is that I was cycling on the pavement to his left, not the road (not true) so he did not see me when reversing. If I had been on the road, he claims, I would have seen that his reverse lights were on (they didn't turn on until I was already behind the car).

He's also said that he video evidence of me admitting to the offence and is willing to take it to court. I do not remember him filming me and I honestly don't remember exactly what I said as I was in shock. I was definitely not cycling on the pavement (although it is a very narrow road and so when cars come the other direction I sometimes move onto the pavement to make room, which I remember telling him), but am now worried that he may have been filming me while I was potentially saying something that could lend credence to his version of the story.

Does this change my position / give him a better chance of winning in court? He did admit that he was reversing in his message so can't claim that I cycled into him.

Aylesbury_Duck

Tell him to take you to court if that's what he wants to do but that you'll no longer engage with him. Then block his number.

wongataa

I bet he is still trying to bluff you into paying him.

shaun_from_Africa

esuhl wrote: »

No -- third-party insurance would cover the driver for damage when another party is liable.

It's a legal requirement to have some form of third-party insurance to drive a car. If the driver is insured, he's covered. A court claim for the damage would be frivolous.

The policy covering the vehicle would not cover that vehicle for damage if it was a third party policy.
Third party only covers the policyholder for damage to other vehicles or injury to people other than the driver of the covered vehicle.

If a vehicle's third party cover would pay out when another party was liable, what would be the point in a comprehensive policy?