Car accident not my fault

Clive_Woody

AdrianC said:

JodyGray said:

AdrianC. No that's not true, we have a regustration and witnesses.

Yes, you do.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's actually that car.

Some years ago, a few of us watched out of an office window as a white Renault van pulled up by the motorcycle parking outside. The sliding door opened, two guys leapt out, picked a bike up, put it in, and left sharply. We all took the same reg down. The reg we all wrote down belonged to a blue Kia hatch.

Not all cloners are that blatant. Some actually use the reg from a similar car.

And... hold the front page, but some people lie. Perhaps it really WAS him. But he's swearing blind it can't possibly have been, because here's somebody who says that he was elsewhere at the time, with that car.

The jnsurance company have already said the car is insured by them which was on the original post. So it's down to his policy then?

Yes. The two ends of the claim will be handled separately internally.

More likely he will claim that the OPs car went into the back of him, rather than admit he reversed into them.

This is where dashcam or video footage from the garage could save them their XS.

Mercdriver

Clive_Woody said:

AdrianC said:

JodyGray said:

AdrianC. No that's not true, we have a regustration and witnesses.

Yes, you do.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's actually that car.

Some years ago, a few of us watched out of an office window as a white Renault van pulled up by the motorcycle parking outside. The sliding door opened, two guys leapt out, picked a bike up, put it in, and left sharply. We all took the same reg down. The reg we all wrote down belonged to a blue Kia hatch.

Not all cloners are that blatant. Some actually use the reg from a similar car.

And... hold the front page, but some people lie. Perhaps it really WAS him. But he's swearing blind it can't possibly have been, because here's somebody who says that he was elsewhere at the time, with that car.

The jnsurance company have already said the car is insured by them which was on the original post. So it's down to his policy then?

Yes. The two ends of the claim will be handled separately internally.

More likely he will claim that the OPs car went into the back of him, rather than admit he reversed into them.

This is where dashcam or video footage from the garage could save them their XS.

And hence why reporting it to the police to assist in getting CCTV before deletion might be a wise move

Clive_Woody

Mercdriver said:

Clive_Woody said:

AdrianC said:

JodyGray said:

AdrianC. No that's not true, we have a regustration and witnesses.

Yes, you do.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's actually that car.

Some years ago, a few of us watched out of an office window as a white Renault van pulled up by the motorcycle parking outside. The sliding door opened, two guys leapt out, picked a bike up, put it in, and left sharply. We all took the same reg down. The reg we all wrote down belonged to a blue Kia hatch.

Not all cloners are that blatant. Some actually use the reg from a similar car.

And... hold the front page, but some people lie. Perhaps it really WAS him. But he's swearing blind it can't possibly have been, because here's somebody who says that he was elsewhere at the time, with that car.

The jnsurance company have already said the car is insured by them which was on the original post. So it's down to his policy then?

Yes. The two ends of the claim will be handled separately internally.

More likely he will claim that the OPs car went into the back of him, rather than admit he reversed into them.

This is where dashcam or video footage from the garage could save them their XS.

And hence why reporting it to the police to assist in getting CCTV before deletion might be a wise move

Definitely or the OP could end up with a fault claim going against them.

Mercdriver

And credibility is reportedly given to the one that reports it first.

JodyGray

All very well but you all seem to forget that there were 2 witnesses, appreciate that the registration is no guarantee but this guy is known to the insurer (1st post!!), all comments are missing the point, why is it ok to pay for someone elses fault? Say we have the ccv footage, a police report and 1000 witnesses it makes no difference does it? Obviously not, the system is in place and it's simply tough cheese clearly. I stand by my 'riduculous' statement as it is, we were just unlucky ....

Jumblebumble

JodyGray said:

Ok seems the credit hire is a snake pit.. I disagree with you however, so you're saying in the same situation you would be happy to pay £250 for someone reversing into your car by not looking then drove off. You believe it is fair and reasonable to go through the hassle of the aftermath and pay money for something which wasn't your fault. I must be out of touch as this seems beyond ridiculous to me.

Yes I would pay without complaint because that is exactly what happened to me. Since this is what my contract with my insurers specified I did not complain as I knew it would be a waste of time. 
It is an unfair world

chrisw

When you take out your insurance you're perfectly free to pay a higher premium to reduce or remove the excess.

As said, if the other driver admits fault, you will get the excess back. If they don't, your insurance company will have to foot the bill, of which you agreed to pay £250 when you took the policy out.

AdrianC

JodyGray said:

All very well but you all seem to forget that there were 2 witnesses

Which is lovely, an' all, but all that means is that you all got the same plate. Which, if it's hooky, isn't actually useful.

appreciate that the registration is no guarantee but this guy is known to the insurer (1st post!!)

No, the keeper of the actual car that plate belongs to is... If it's a different car, on hooky plates, then...? And maybe the keeper wasn't actually driving? Perhaps he thinks his car is at the garage being serviced?

all comments are missing the point, why is it ok to pay for someone elses fault? Say we have the ccv footage, a police report and 1000 witnesses it makes no difference does it? Obviously not, the system is in place and it's simply tough cheese clearly. I stand by my 'riduculous' statement as it is, we were just unlucky ....

No, it's you that's missing the point.

You have no way of proving who was driving. You only have a registration number, which may or may not be on the right car.

Like I said - what if your car had been cloned...? Would you like your insurer to take the other party's note of the reg at face value, and pay out?

Ditzy_Mitzy

JodyGray said:

All very well but you all seem to forget that there were 2 witnesses, appreciate that the registration is no guarantee but this guy is known to the insurer (1st post!!), all comments are missing the point, why is it ok to pay for someone elses fault? Say we have the ccv footage, a police report and 1000 witnesses it makes no difference does it? Obviously not, the system is in place and it's simply tough cheese clearly. I stand by my 'riduculous' statement as it is, we were just unlucky ....

It's irritating but, ultimately, it was you who decided to purchase an insurance policy with a £250 excess on it.  The excess would have been brought to your attention prior to establishing the policy and that's really the end of it, unfortunately.  You could have, if you so wished, looked for an alternative policy with a lesser, or nil, excess.  It might have been more expensive, but that's life in the insurance industry.  Any policyholder is gambling, so to speak, on features, cost and likelihood of claim.  In this case the gamble, a £250 excess in exchange for, we assume, a cheaper premium, didn't pay off.  
The excess has nothing to do with fault in this case, morality or your own sense of injustice - the best you can do is pay it and hope that the insurer is able to claim all costs from the other side.  

MEM62

JodyGray said:

All very well but you all seem to forget that there were 2 witnesses, appreciate that the registration is no guarantee but this guy is known to the insurer (1st post!!), all comments are missing the point, why is it ok to pay for someone elses fault? Say we have the ccv footage, a police report and 1000 witnesses it makes no difference does it? Obviously not, the system is in place and it's simply tough cheese clearly. I stand by my 'riduculous' statement as it is, we were just unlucky ....

You are hanging onto a point of view that, as has already been explained to you, is flawed.  
The excess is paid whilst the claim is being investigated and processed.  There is a process here, the underwriters are not going to just instantly accept your version of the events.  (In the same way, if you were accused of causing an accident you would not be deemed guilty until the evidence had been looked at)  If and when your version of the events is accepted by the insurance company the £250 will be refunded and you would not have have paid anything for something that is not your fault.  You can be patient and let things run their course, which will happen anyway, or you can spend the time in between winding yourself up about it.  The outcome will be the same but you have the opportunity to save yourself some stress.