Delete delete delete

Ballistic87

Delete delete delete

cool-dog

2 miles away at around that time. 2 miles so about 5 minute or so drive, not a defence.
Had you been 200 miles, then yes

Ballistic87

cool-dog said:

2 miles away at around that time. 2 miles so about 5 minute or so drive, not a defence.
Had you been 200 miles, then yes

 It was at AnAsda so I obviously  must have went  shopping. It’s 2 years ago no way to really prove this

angrycrow

There is absolutely no reason for them not to let you see the footage. Tell them if they do not send you a copy of the footage you will complain and then escalate to the financial ombudsman service. 

It could turn out to be an almost identical car with a slightly different registration which has been mistaken for your reg. 

AdrianC

Ballistic87 said:

My car car is pretty uniques with certain bits of kit on it, so I would have been able to tell if it was mine. 

And those "unique bits of kit" have been declared as modifications to the insurer, right?

So simply ask them to check for the presence or absence in the cctv.

Assuming sufficient accuracy and synchronisation from two different clocks to say you were just two miles away is not realistic.

Nobbie1967

Maybe you could make a Subject Access Request (SAR) for this footage as they claim it is of you.

Sandtree

The accusation is being made against you, not your insurers, and in theory the CCTV contains images of you and therefore you are also entitled to see it on the grounds of data protection. The one concern that can happen with CCTV is that it captures other people in the video and their data privacy rights also have to be respected.

You need to ask why they will not share it with you, and make sure you are speaking to the technical team dealing with the third party not the first line staff that answer the standard claims telephone number. Assuming its a DP issue with others in the shot then ask them to provide a single frame where your vehicle is clearly visible and they can easily obscure faces and registration plates of other vehicles in that one frame.

We have to assume you have informed your insurers of the modifications and so ask them to check the images for themselves for these mods or invite them to send an inspector to look at your car and compare to the photo.

Herzlos

It would be worth sending the evidence that you were elsewhere at the time (although it may not help) and photos of the car for them to compare with. Of course if the incident happened between your home and Asda and you'd have been travelling in that direction at the time, then it may go against you.

You definitely didn't cut in front of the bus on the way to/from Asda?

Are there many similar looking cars near you that it could have been?

Ballistic87

Recieved this email today. 

Have viewed the dashcam/cctv as per our discussion yesterday, 

 

This is clearly your vehicle seen in the video. There is a nice clear close up of your vehicle reg and it matches make, model and colour of your vehicle from the time of the incident. 

 

The video is from the bus directly and it shows it pulling down a road which has two lanes, one for oncoming traffic. The bus slows up in heavy traffic and your vehicle is shown trying to overtake the slow moving bus but going down the side of road with oncoming traffic. Your vehicle pulls up to where the bus is and tries to cut the bus off due to their being no space and this is where the impact happens. The bus lets your vehicle in because the driver wants to exchange details and this is where we get the clear view of your vehicle registration. Your vehicle stops at a bus stop and the driver gets out and your vehicle drives away from the scene. 

 

Now due to DPA rules I do not think you will ever get a chance to view this footage although I have put in a request for you and in my opinion it would be a waste of time and money to fight this because you would have to prove your vehicle was not the one that caused the accident when it clearly was. If as you say your vehicle plates were cloned you would have to take that down the criminal route and then proceed with the civil route after and that is going to be next to impossible to do. 

 

AdrianC

Ballistic87 said:

Recieved this email today. 

Have viewed the dashcam/cctv as per our discussion yesterday, 

This is clearly your vehicle seen in the video. There is a nice clear close up of your vehicle reg and it matches make, model and colour of your vehicle from the time of the incident. 

The video is from the bus directly and it shows it pulling down a road which has two lanes, one for oncoming traffic. The bus slows up in heavy traffic and your vehicle is shown trying to overtake the slow moving bus but going down the side of road with oncoming traffic. Your vehicle pulls up to where the bus is and tries to cut the bus off due to their being no space and this is where the impact happens. The bus lets your vehicle in because the driver wants to exchange details and this is where we get the clear view of your vehicle registration. Your vehicle stops at a bus stop and the driver gets out and your vehicle drives away from the scene. 

Now due to DPA rules I do not think you will ever get a chance to view this footage although I have put in a request for you and in my opinion it would be a waste of time and money to fight this because you would have to prove your vehicle was not the one that caused the accident when it clearly was. If as you say your vehicle plates were cloned you would have to take that down the criminal route and then proceed with the civil route after and that is going to be next to impossible to do.  

And as for these "unique bits of kit" fitted to your car?

Sandtree

Go for option 2 then... send them the photo of your car with the modifications.... maybe pre-empt the discussion on undisclosed modifications if you haven't declared them.

There is no need for you to go down a criminal route for a cloned vehicle, for one the hurdle for civil and criminal law is different so its perfectly possible for a case in criminal law to fail because its not "beyond reasonable doubt" but a civil case to succeed because "on the balance of probabilities" it did.