Being taken to court over mistaken identity

Mr_D

Apologies for the extremely long post, but I'm absolutely fuming about this, and it's causing me a great deal of stress and anxiety so any advice would be appreciated.

Back in October 2019, I received a notification from my insurers, Admiral, that my vehicle had been involved in a "possible incident" on a specified date a few weeks earlier. After a few calls I started piecing together the information - which was like getting blood out of a stone, and four months on I'm still missing a lot of details and have even less in writing - and it emerged that it took place somewhere in Wales whereas I live in south-east England, and at 1.00 PM when I was in work and my car in the car park. A name was also mentioned but I presumed that was the claimant which later emerged not to be the case.

I sent photos but received no acknowledgement and didn't know which area I was meant to be photographing, then Admiral sent a third-party assessor who took more photos and confirmed that the existing and almost entirely superficial damage to my car was not consistent with the alleged area of impact on the car of the driver who caused the accident, which is the right wing mirror or possibly the general right-front of the car. To date he is still the only person who has told me anything about what happened, though I will speak to them about that and other things tomorrow. Though it was mentioned in the first call I was never asked for proof that I was in work that day, but have been now, and I've already arranged it with my manager. I think there was only one contact after that, initiated by me, and I let it go because it seemed such an unambigious case of mistaken identity that I assumed they would start looking elsewhere.

So when I received an email on Friday saying that they were pursuing legal action, I was in total disbelief. Since then I've got the location in writing (150 miles away) and received clarification on the involvement of the person named previously, obviously a total stranger to me, they were apparently driving the vehicle that caused the collision so must have exchanged details with the claimant at the scene. I've searched online and have found a few posts describing similar incidents including on this forum, normally they complain about the temporary reduction in no-claims bonus pushing their premium up just before they renewed (this happened to me too but is a trivial concern by comparison) and all seem to be updated subsequently with the news that the insurers acknowledged it as a wrongly-copied licence plate and proceeded to find the real culprit. I'm amazed this hasn't happened and feel like I'm living in some kind of dream world for it to have got this far.

I see three possibilities here. Though unlikely, there may have been some kind of miscommunication and they haven't got the message that I live hundreds of miles away, was in work, my car doesn't have signs of damage matching the incident, I don't know the person driving the vehicle and I certainly don't have them named on my insurance, and they have no reason to pursue me rather than the genuine culprit. It seems a very remote chance, but since I'm not aware of any specific reason being given for not dropping the claim it isn't impossible. What would my best course of action be to ensure 100% that they know all the details of the case? Preferably including the imminent signed statement that I was in work. I'll talk to Admiral about it but they it doesn't exactly feel like they've fought my corner so far, though I realise the other insurers may be determined not to drop it under any circumstances.

The second possibility is that the company are unrepentant bullies - the Admiral rep described them as "very aggressive", I'm not sure that covers it - and they're relying on me relenting and accepting the hit to my no-claims bonus because I can't afford the risk, however slight, of paying the damages. Obviously a completely reprehensible policy that targets the most vulnerable. I need to clarify this exactly, but I understand it's around £2,500 (which seems unbelievable for a wing mirror collision) plus interest, no mention was made of legal expenses. If that is it then fortunately I am in a position to afford it should the worst happen, so I intend to fight it to the end despite my extreme reluctance and the option of "only" losing my NCB (full prior to the incident, so it's still probably a four-figure loss while it builds up) and my pride, because I'm determined they shouldn't be able to get away with it. 

I know it's a long shot but is there anything I can do or anyone I can report it to to encourage a reversal of the decision? It feels like they are literally going after me because it's more convenient than having to do any further investigations, it can't be intended personally but it's definitely having personal consequences. I'm allowing the claimant the tiny possibility that their insurers are keeping them in the dark, but otherwise I assume they're complicit too. Could it be a rogue employee stringing along an unscrupulous claimant?

The third option, and most troubling, is that they won't back down either and they plan to blindside me with another trick, or know something I don't about the circumstances of the trial, and somehow end up winning. Unless I'm being immensly stupid, and I don't think I am, it seems inconceivable that they could have any hope of convincing a judge that I lent this person my car, but I'm sure they must have the same policy as Admiral that they have to anticipate a 51% chance of victory before proceeding to trial, and having played it so dirty to this point that I wouldn't put anything past them. 

I know that's a lot to read and may not be the best place for it (not really a car person so don't know where would be), but I would appreciate any advice anyone could give, particularly in relation to my questions about scenarios one and and two. If it's three I think I just have to show up and hope for the best.

[Deleted User]

Try not to worry too much about it and just provide any information they ask for. You have solid evidence that it wasn't you, the insurance company has examined your car and you can get proof that you were in work that day. Obviously the other party has nothing at all since you were not there.

Most likely they will back down before it gets to court, and won't get very far if it does go all the way. They are probably just hoping that you did it and are going to admit it when threatened with court, but as long as you don't I'd be surprised if they waste their money following through.

Mr_D

Thanks very much for taking the time to read that and reply mojo, it's the most reassuring thing I've heard so far though I'm sure Admiral are just preparing me for the worst. So basically my scenario 2 ending with them dropping it, which seemed highly plausible to me but this world is new to me and I don't know how their minds work (or want to). I suppose it's very naive of me to be shocked that they would knowingly persist in going after an innocent party because it's the quickest route to the money, and nobody involved would bat an eyelid?

Just to clarify one point, they're not alleging that I drove the vehicle - the name they have is a woman, so that route is closed to them - only that I'm the policyholder, so it's even more far-fetched than my being there but they don't have to prove that I was.

AdrianC

"I live 150 miles away" is not in itself sufficient - cars are, by nature, mobile.
"I was at work at the time" is not in itself sufficient - somebody else is alleged to have been driving your car.

The problem with "knowingly persist in going after an innocent party" is that they don't actually know that. You say it wasn't. But who's to say that you're telling the truth and the other party lying, or vice-versa? People have been known to lie to evade responsibility for road incidents, y'know...

Ultimately, it comes down - as with any civil litigation - to balance of probability. If you can show that the likelihood is that it was not your car (because the damage doesn't tie up, primarily, but also because you can show that the likelihood is that this mystery female driver would not have had access to it), then that should be sufficient. Remember, the same balance of proof applies to the claimant - they have to show that there is sufficient evidence that it was you and not a different car bearing the same plates (or with a different plate, but mistakenly recorded as yours).

Have you had any other suggestion that your reg has been cloned?

Herzlos

Do you believe it to be actually fraudulent or just a mistake?

Personally I'd let it go to court, they'll need to provide evidence up front, you provide yours, and your insurer should provide the legal assistance. Once it gets to court, they are unlikely to find you responsible and you'll potentially get your costs reimbursed.

Beyond that, just reply to any requests and stop worry about it.

DoaM

You'll have evidence that YOU were at work (150 miles away) at the time of the incident. Do you have evidence that your CAR was also there? Will your manager certify that fact too?

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

OP do you have legal cover on your insurance?

If no, then your insurer may take the easy option on this and pay out! This may alarm you, but the insurer is only after covering its loss. You need to speak to a specific motoring solicitor for advice.

markin

Its probably too late now to get any cctv that your CAR was at work with you.

Mr_D

Thanks very much for all these replies, I was sure it would sink to the bottom given the monstrous opening post, self-editing has never been one of my strengths as I will continue to prove. I think it's all now on course to a resolution to my satisfaction, and acknowledge it would've been better to post after I spoke to Admiral today (or to not post at all), but it served its purpose to temporarily reassure me and I appreciate the contributions.

I'll start with a couple of corrections, and an apology for my previous factual errors, I'm definitely 100% clear about these two points now though. I'm not liable for any expenses whatsoever even if it goes to court and loses, so whether I back down or go to court and lose only my no-claims bonus will be affected, and that will only be a two-year deduction as has already been provisionally applied. So, as a driver of a fairly modest car, the financial stakes are negligible - and I acknowledge they were low in the grand scheme to begin with and I may have appeared to be over-dramatising - so that's a major relief to me regarding my trepidation about a worst-case scenario at trial, but more importantly it reconextualises the motive behind the claimant's insurer's actions.

AdrianC said:

"I live 150 miles away" is not in itself sufficient - cars are, by nature, mobile.
"I was at work at the time" is not in itself sufficient - somebody else is alleged to have been driving your car.

Which is what made me so nervous about the prospect of court, difficult for them to incontestably prove but difficult for us to incontestably disprove. We have CCTV at various points in the car parks, but it's deleted after a couple of days, and, as a member of the department that administers it, I'm well aware that unless I happened to park in exactly the right spot the license plate would be illegible if at all visible (same for the car) and I'd be a blob, not that I matter given the nature of the allegations.

It did suddenly occur to me that I drive daily through a tunnel with cameras either side, and a positive plate match would pretty much remove all doubt because I'm a night owl/late starter and I got the reported time of the incident wrong (it was 12.00 not 1.00 - very approximate though, and Admiral said it's not explicitly clear if it's midday or midnight), so aside from speed restrictions my car isn't physically capable of being driven fast enough to reach where it happened. However, as I expected the Admiral rep cast severe doubts on the likelihood of the footage still existing, and, more surprisingly to me, of the camera being able to discern my plate. One of the threads I've read, perhaps here or perhaps elsewhere, definitely involved CCTV evidence so I'm sure it's possible.

This tunnel does happen to be the longest non-esturial(?) tunnel in the UK and second most expensive by distance, so perhaps he is underestimating the level of technology and retention capacity, if anyone thinks it is worth enquiring I'd really appreciate knowing - not ultra-keen on specifying my location but I'm sure anyone who knows their tunnels well enough to answer the question can work it out.

DoaM said:

You'll have evidence that YOU were at work (150 miles away) at the time of the incident. Do you have evidence that your CAR was also there? Will your manager certify that fact too?

As above I cannot prove it, no. My manager's statement will only state that public transport is very limited on my route to work so I always drive, which is when I made the tunel realisation. I know you're not suggesting it, but I don't think any declaration of specifically recalling seeing my car nearly five months ago could be taken at all seriously, my absence from the office by 12.00 would be very conspicuous and memorable but not encountering my car would not.

AdrianC said:

The problem with "knowingly persist in going after an innocent party" is that they don't actually know that. You say it wasn't. But who's to say that you're telling the truth and the other party lying, or vice-versa? People have been known to lie to evade responsibility for road incidents, y'know...

Of course, yes, they don't know this for sure. But despite the theoretical possibility that I let a woman 150 miles away drive my car with only my word to say otherwise, I don't think for one second they believe that over the obvious Occam's Razor explanation that the licence plate was copied down incorrectly, and have no doubt (but obviously do not know) that they're doing this to chase the easy money. That the broadly similar stories I've seen encountered from my (admittedly quite cursory) online search seem to end abruptly in the other insurers agreeing with the mistaken identity diagnosis suggests I can't be completely alone in my conclusions.

Now we've established that an innocent party has nothing but their time and effort to gain from the certainty of a false confession it does seem much less deliberately targeted at people who can't afford to take the risk of losing, which has certainly adjusted my opinion of their actions, but I still think it's acting in bad faith. Mine may very well be the minority opinion though and it's enlightening to hear an opposing perspective. Probably just comes down to whose motives you're more cynical about.

Concerning the matter of cloning versus mistaken identity, Admiral are regarding it as the latter, again and as always on balance of probabilities, and I'm inclined to agree. I did ask whether they knew if there was photographic evidence of the plate or just written, as a sufficiently unambiguous photo would leave plate cloning or my guilt as the only possibilities and rightly lend more credence to their version of events, but they couldn't say. Once again, yes, the 100% proof for my innocence is lacking, and once again I feel they're pursuing this low-effort line of investigation because it isn't impossible and they're relying on me buying the easy option, rather than because they believe it. I may enquire about CCTV in the car park where it took place, accepting the possibility that does show a match and damages my case.

As Herzlos suggests I will just wait it out, I still suspect they'll drop it at some point in the run-up and I'm now far more relaxed about going into the court case if it does happen. Thanks again for all the contributions.

Mr_D

Some further reflections as I try to reason whether such an instinctively outlandish possibility could still be pursued because the other leads are difficult or impossible to follow and not just because it's easier - so the 0.1% or whatever chance that it really is the same vehicle, despite the distance factor, is the only one they've got. 

I presume insurance companies can only search for a vehicle's insurer by plate and need to contact them to get the policyholder, so without a postal address it could be a needle in a haystack search? There's a middle name for the alleged driver but they're all quite common(ly occurring) names, plus it could of course all be made up. And in cases where the perpetrator can't be traced, which I understand still get paid out (assuming fully comp) but with loss of NCB, can the claimant hold out indefinitely while the other party is sought or do they at some point have to take it or lose it? At which point the subsequent outcome becomes irrelevant to the claimant (unless NCB can be reinstated). 

I still think it's an underhand tactic as it preys on people's visceral reaction to the threat of court action, but for the innocent with nothing to hide that can be overcome with reassurance as it has for me, and I realise it's very far down the list of morally dubious things that take place on a daily basis.

esmerobbo

Have you got any driver cover? If not the claim should be against the drivers insurance if it covers them to drive or them personally if it doesn't.