[Closed] Car collision. Who is at fault?

What significance is the van?

Anyway, slightly confusing set up, but 50/50 I'd imagine. As it seems you reversed into her, and she drove into you.

Did you get the space?

based on recent experience if the damage to both vehicles is low level as you say, you'd both be better off paying for it privately .If you go through your insurance it will, as you say likely be 50-50 and you'll both get a massive hike in your premiums .not worth it especially if you have an excess on your policy .

Was she moving at the time of collision?

Significance of the van is that the lady presumably wanted to get out before it reached her and presumably 'nipped' out of her space into a space which she thought was there but was not actually there as I was reversing....

I'm inclined to suggest that we each take care of our respective damage.

However, I also do not want my car keyed as I park in a street close by.....

I honestly do not know if she was moving or not....

I honestly do not know if she was moving or not....

Not 100% sure whether you were actually trying to park, or just getting out of the way of the oncoming van? Also the women left a parking spot and immediately re-parked on the other side of the road?!

I would say it would go 50/50 as far as a claim goes, but I would also suggest that you were more at fault for reversing without checking to see if it was safe to do so. She couldn't be expected to anticipate a car in front of her suddenly reversing.

Is there a danger that she will claim? I would have a proper chat with her soon and see if that is likely or whether you can both just get the damage fixed yourselves.

But if she is adamant that she was stationary, then she probably won't agree to this.

OP, were you moving or had you just engaged reverse ?

If you not sure if she was moving or not, if you wasn't that will be important as she has hit you whilst you was stopped.

Edit - just re read you were moving so I'd say 50/50.

When she had calmed down how about seeing if she will just get hers fixed and you sort yours out ?

OP said [i]as I was reversing[/i].

Are you suggesting she needs more than just a new number plate?

plus what looks like cracks coming from the numberplate screw-hole (which had no reflective cap and is rusty..) on the front bumper.

Are these cracks on the number plate itself or the bumper underneath the plate?

If all she needs is a number plate, I'd just buy her it and call the matter closed.

I was looking behind me when I started to reverse and there was an empty space behind me. I then glanced forward to ensure I had left sufficient gap in front of the driveway as the reversing sensors sounded then CRUMP.

So yes I was not looking directly behind me at the exact point before impact.

It may or may not be that the other party was moving into the (once) empty space as I was was also doing so.

as the reversing sensors sounded then CRUMP.

Ah. Unless you were reversing very fast, the sounding of the sensors usually give you some time to stop against a stationary object. Sounds like she was moving. You can't prove this though.

I was looking behind me when I started to reverse and there was an empty space behind me. I then glanced forward to ensure I had left sufficient gap in front of the driveway as the reversing sensors sounded then CRUMP.

Surely if you were looking behind you as you were reversing you would have seen the car?

I would suggest as you weren't looking in the direction of travel at the point of impact an insurer would put the blame on you.

[quote=benz ]into a space which she thought was there but was not actually there

I'm intrigued by how she can fit her car into a non existent space 😆

IMHO it sounds like your fault - though I'm not sure there's enough information to be 100% sure. Let's try an analogy here - you're driving forwards into a space, but whilst you're moving you shut your eyes and whilst your eyes are shut you hit something which has moved into the space in front of you.

When I looked behind me, before starting to reverse, there was no car behind me - only a decent sized space.

After starting to reverse, and during the point that I glanced forward to ensure I had left space in front of the driveway, the parking sensors sounded a brief moment before CRUMP.

She was either moving, or had stopped hard up against your rear bumper. Either would be an unreasonable thing to do when your reverse lights were showing.

I'm a bit puzzled how you can have reversed into her without seeing. Where were you looking? Seems unlikely she drove into you, which does suggest it's your fault. But I'm having trouble picturing what actually happened here.

50/50 or, more likely, your fault as you were reversing. I can see how she'd be annoyed if it went to 50/50.
Hope it ends as well as possible for you both.

Bit of disagreement here.

How long did you look forward to ensure no blockage of driveway. You say "glance" so I guess 1s or less?
It sounds to me like she was looking at the van as she pulled out (therefore not where she was going)

I would suggest as you weren't looking in the direction of travel

Should also have second checked that where she wanted to move into was empty, also a test fail I believe??

Obviously not being there, cant be sure what happened.

I'm a bit puzzled how you can have reversed into her without seeing. Where were you looking? Seems unlikely she drove into you, which does suggest it's your fault. But I'm having trouble picturing what actually happened here.

As stated above, for a brief moment I did not look behind me to check that I had left sufficient space in front of a driveway. This was when the parking sensors sounded. Up to that point there was nothing behind me.

Is it worth noting that it was dark and that the other vehicle in question had no lights on.

Is it worth noting that it was dark and that the other vehicle in question had no lights on.

Oh that certainly makes a difference. Though it still sounds rather like you were reversing without looking where you were going.

I was using mirrors to check behind me apart from a forward glance, (yes, whilst I was still moving slowly backwards rather than being 100% stationary)to ensure space left in front of driveway.

Her fault she clearly drove into the back of you ignored your reversing lights and failed to alert you to her presence with her horn. Your fault you failed to observe her presence and reversed without checking .
The clearest 50/50 imaginable , sort it out yourselves.

So there was no car behind you. You then glanced forward for a second and then reversed into a car that was now behind you.
The other driver was either incredibly quick at driving into the space behind you or it took you a bit longer to check than a 'glance' so should have been looking behind again before reversing.

So there was no car behind you. You then glanced forward for a second and then reversed into a car that was now behind you.
The other driver was either incredibly quick at driving into the space behind you or it took you a bit longer to check than a 'glance' so should have been looking behind again before reversing.

Probably a fair comment.

I'll get my car checked over, she will do the same then we will compare notes.

I've never had to involve the car insurance companies in my ~ 35 years of driving so this is a new thing for me....

If you describe it to an insurance company in the same way you have here, then you are at fault.

You were moving but not looking where you were going, you didn’t see the car and reversed into it.

Hard to see it as anything else but your fault from your description really.

I've never had to involve the car insurance companies in my ~ 35 years of driving

Ok, let's say the insurance companies get involved....

What would be the expected impact on future insurance premiums?

Quick check on the DVLA website shows the other vehicle as currently having no valid road-tax....expired at end of August.

Quick check on the DVLA website shows the other vehicle as currently having no valid road-tax....expired at end of August.

I doubt the insurance companies will care that much about who's paid their VED when allocating fault.

I'd imagine that's the reason for a lot of people getting complacent and cutting corners (i.e. not driving as they were taught/tested on). Obviously a lot of the time incidents are more serious than a minor parking bump! Good reason for compulsory regular retests IMO!

🙄

[s]Surely the other party isn't actually insured at this point.[/s]

Sorry - insurance may be independent of tax status.

it sounds as though she did nick the space whilst knowing you were about to reverse into it. Was she actually parked straight (no pun) or was she still in the process of manouvering at the time of crunch?

Benz, sounds like your fault. Regardless of the third party jumping into the space you are still required to look where you're reversing, had you done so then you would have spotted the other car and stopped.
Expect a claim from your insurance and your future premiums to reflect this for the next 3 - 5 years.

The other parties vehicle was not fully into the space behind me....evidenced by the fact that it was sitting at an angle with the rear half of it into the roadway and she had to reverse it to the other side of the road back into the space she had initially come out of.

The other parties vehicle was not fully into the space behind me

If the first you were aware of the vehicle behind you was when you reversed into then the insurers will say you did not display proper observation. If she was aware of you reversing quickly enough to stop that only strenthens the argument that she was showing better care. Insurer almost always blames the person reversing.

It was fully in the space you were trying to occupy, that's the only thing which is really relevant.

Regarding the VED thing - do you think that if you reversed into a parked car without valid VED that they would have to pay for the damage to your car?

Surely the other party isn't actually insured at this point.

Benz, from what you've said it's pretty much 50/50 but I'd suggest you think very carefully on how you word your description if it goes down the insurance route. The part about her not actually being in the space/parked is very important.

Why? VED & insurance are not linked in any way

You are right. Corrected above.

you could always use the threat of contacting the police about the VED status as a bargaining tool?