Insurance saying at fault over claim but not involved in accident.
Options
Comments
-
Are YOU actually for real? Or do you just need glasses?Mercdriver wrote: »But you didn't say it was your brother earlier. Why would you say it was you and then in a later post say it was your brother. inconsistent much?
If no one agrees it could go to court, but it would be on a balance of probabilities as it is a civil case.
Oh and it would take more than a van with number plates to get someone 'fitted up' for murder.
Are you actually for real?
Where did i say it was me? Show me & we can continue otherwise we'll end this waste of time right now & get back to the helpful people & their helpful posts.
Opening post ... "the driver sped off". Note how i said the driver and not me.
My second post .... "i've suggested they contact the previous owner".
Now if YOU want to go ahead & read too much in to that then fine but don't blame me when you get it wrong.
If you wonder why i didn't initially come and say it was my brother - because i am sick to death of the cynical morons on this board, always suspecting the worst of absolutely everyone. It's ridiculous.
Maybe, just maybe, there are people out there who when they say XYZ .... they're actually telling the truth!!! Believe it or not.
I'll feed the trolls too - asking on behalf of someone (yeah that must mean it's a fake story eh?), and we all love to go delving deep on peoples previous threads here on MSE so i'll give those people a hand - it's only a few threads ago i mentioned he was declaring his car SORN ........ ooooooh conspiracy theory, it must be getting taken off the road because it's damaged. He did it officer, he must have done it, the MSE detectives say so!
Or maybe just maybe he doesn't want to drive this car in the winter so is instead driving his £200 rot box and will be putting the other car back on the road when the weather turns good.
But nah, that isn't juicy enough is it.
Right, on to the helpful people...0 -
JustAnotherSaver wrote: »*sigh*
I don't know if you're trying to be funny here but i'm getting the strong impression you are. If i'm wrong then apologies but like i say, it doesn't seem like i am.
You could argue a car is damaged right from the showroom. Take it to a good detailer and they'll show you that that paint job isn't perfect.
Likewise a 14 year old car isn't going to be perfect either. It's going to have scratches and bumps etc.
Yeah yeah i'm sure you can find an older car without a blemish on it but generally speaking cars of this age will have their marks.
The point i was making was that there's no damage on this car from this supposed accident. I thought it was obvious? As i wouldn't try and claim a 14 year old car doesn't have a single scuff or scratch or dent or whatever on it. My car is only 2 years older at 16 and the front end is totally peppered with stone chips. I best hope nobody accuses me of reversing in to them
So to answer your question as to which bit is false - the accusation put to my brother that he was the one who did it. That bit is false.
So the 3 guys before you posted helpful responses. Which part of yours was helpful?
I still can’t work out whether he was there but didn’t cause the damage or he wasn’t there full stop.0 -
Only my opinion but that damage does not look consistent with a coming together of two moving vehicles. Either an object has scrapped the car whilst it was parked or somebody pulled into he space next to it whilst it was parked and nudged it.
Whilst plate cloning does happen it is extremely rare. In 20 years of dealing with exactly these types of allegations I have seen about 4 cases of genuine plate cloning but hundred of cases where one letter or number has been taken down wrong which can still result in a match on make model and colour.
Possibly, who knows. Maybe he cut the other person up & they're that twisted they're making a false claim? Maybe it's someone who knows him and they don't get on, i don't actually know at this moment in time.
I'm in agreement though with you - that scratch doesn't look like the coming together of 2 cars.
Last May i had a pickup trying to wildly overtake & it pulled in to me as it was doing so & then sped off.
Bit of a difference. There's no small precise scratch on mine - it's scuffed in various sections of the rear side panel and rear door, not just in 1 spot really precisely.0 -
Well i don't know whether you're being funny still or not or what so i'll treat it as a genuine question ....Warwick_Hunt wrote: »I still can’t work out whether he was there but didn’t cause the damage or he wasn’t there full stop.
He says he wasn't there full stop. He wasn't there and his car wasn't there. If there's damage to this other persons car then he never caused it, his car never caused it on account of him not even being there or his car.0 -
Ok so no accident took place... Please can you clarify what you mean by the driver sped off?0
-
Presumably the other party claims the OP's brother (or at least his car) collided with them before failing to stop and driving off.
Two things spring to mind:
Where was the brother at the time of the alleged collision?
Where was his car?
If there is some proof the brother and car were not present this should be given to your insurance, witnesses CCTV etc.0 -
JustAnotherSaver wrote: »
Just to point out your aftermarket wheels are illegal as the tyres are protruding from the wheel arches....0 -
-
OP, your brother has allegedly hit another vehicle, with his vehicle, and either failed to stop, or not knowing he'd done it and not stopping. If he wasn't there, his best 'defence' is to show that he couldn't have been there because he was here, there or wherever. From the insurers point of view, they should be checking the claimants validity. However, I'm sure it would seem odd to the insurers that the other driver is claiming that a car which happens to be based in the same part of the world, hit their car and drove off and here's the reg no and presumably description of vehicle, and it not be true. If your brother lived in London and the incident was in Sheffield, then it would be different.
If he has proof the scratch predated the incident then that will help him too. Unfortunately, he is now in the position of having to prove his innocence, but the insurers aren't the police so any 'beyond reasonable doubt' is irrelevant. It's up to him to put something together to satisfy the insurers it wasn't him, or accept the claim on his policy and grin and bear it.0 -
Well i don't have aftermarket wheels but regardless, my standard wheels (or tyres) protrude from the arch when the wheels are turned slightly to the passenger side like in this photo also.Just to point out your aftermarket wheels are illegal as the tyres are protruding from the wheel arches....0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.8K Spending & Discounts
- 235.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.2K Life & Family
- 248.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards