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

Alfrescodave

have you actually seen this video evidence? Probably another part of his bluff to get you to pay up.

Ask to see the video

TBagpuss

Even if you had been on the pavement, he had an obligation to check that it was safe to reverse.

Jumblebumble

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

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.

I don't often agree with you Mr or Ms Duck but on this occasion I believe your advice is spot on.

ArneL

I have done as suggested - told him my position, gave him my work address for any court correspondence as the one on my licence was (thankfully) out of date*, and blocked his number. He's since tried calling multiple times from an unknown number. Of course I can't prove it's him but I know it is so have already requested a new number.

Let's see him try to take this to court.

*I have already notified DVLA of my address change and have received my new licence and returned the old one so can't get into trouble for this anymore.

facade

ArneL wrote: »

gave him my work address for any court correspondence


###snip###



Let's see him try to take this to court.

Make sure that you get any paperwork from Court if this happens, open it immediately, and post on here or elsewhere for advise.



You will have 14 days to reply to any claim he registers, if you don't, the Court will likely award it to him, as you did not object.

ArneL

He's now proceeded to stalk me - repeated calls from different numbers and, worse, I have just seen someone who very much looks like it could be him (hard to tell as it's dark outside) walk down my road very slowly, looking through all the windows. As soon as he saw me he stopped in his tracks and made a phone call.

It's becoming genuinely scary and I've filed a crime report with the police. If this continues I may need to move as I can't have someone like that as a neighbour.

shaun_from_Africa

If you see someone acting suspiciously anywhere near to your property again, take a photograph of them, give the police another call and give them the photo.

reeac

ArneL wrote: »

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.

So by his admission the collision ocurred on the pavement. That puts him in the wrong immediately. He also admits that he didn't see you because you were on the pavement ....bad news for any pedestrian then. Has he put this all in writing?

ArneL

Sorry, I should have been more specific: he claims that I was on the pavement prior to coming onto the road on which he was about to reverse. If I had been cycling down the main road (I was) before turning onto the road where it happened, he claims, he would have seen me approach, but because I was coming off the pavement (I wasn't) he had no way of knowing I would be behind him.

Hope that makes it clearer?

facade

He is using a negative presumption to prove a positive one, which won't work in Law, but may work in a small claims court, unless you deny it, and they believe you.


"I didn't see him, therefore he must have been there" proves nothing, as "He didn't bother looking properly" is an equally likely hypothesis for you to offer.


Rather like the "He came out of nowhere, so he was definitely speeding" argument, when the driver didn't see them because they didn't look properly, and can't comment on the speed of something that they did not see.


It is perfectly possible that the driver thinks he was looking properly, but there is an area of the road that he doesn't realise that he could not see.
A reverse camera, for instance points down, although it appears to show a much larger distance behind than it actually does.