Claim that I hit parked car months ago

Mercdriver

AdrianC wrote: »

Let me help you...
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/proof

Doesn't have to be criminal level of beyond a reasonable doubt. It could form part of a defence on the basis of probability, so I wouldn't be so dismissive of this. Added bank statements of transactions elsewhere would make it fairly cast iron. Either on their own, might leave some questions, but the two together? I'd say pretty certain.

Aretnap

brineybay wrote: »

I would have thought the burden of proof was on the third party to prove that it definitely was me.

It's a civil claim so the standard of proof is only "balance of probabilities", not "beyond reasonable doubt". In other words the third party does have to provide evidence that it was you - but only enough to show that it is more likely than not to have been you. If you were parked nearby and your car had closely matching scuff-marks that *might* be enough to persuade a court that it was *probably* you - certainly in the absence of evidence to the contrary I can see why your insurer might be minded to pay out a few hundred quid rather than risk the costs of a court case.

Mercdriver

Aretnap wrote: »

It's a civil claim so the standard of proof is only "balance of probabilities", not "beyond reasonable doubt". In other words the third party does have to provide evidence that it was you - but only enough to show that it is more likely than not to have been you. If you were parked nearby and your car had closely matching scuff-marks that *might* be enough to persuade a court that it was *probably* you - certainly in the absence of evidence to the contrary I can see why your insurer might be minded to pay out a few hundred quid rather than risk the costs of a court case.

That cuts both ways. If the OP can demonstrate that he was more likely than not somewhere else then it is very likely to doom the attempt.

m0bov

Car_54 wrote: »

What possible difference would that make?

A lot if the "incident" happened in the road! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Car_54

m0bov wrote: »

A lot if the "incident" happened in the road! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

The alleged incident certainly happened on a road.
The car was photographed in the OP's driveway.
The photographer might have been on the OP's property, or in the street outside. Or he may even have employed a drone.
Can you please explain the relevance of his location?