[Closed] Woman reversed into my car, now claiming I hit her - advice please?!

It's possible you may have to accept 50/50 if you can't prove otherwise.

I'd look really hard into getting CCTV/etc - she'll be in the **** if you can prove she's lied... As you say, other than that, how else can you prove anything unless the damage on your car can be shown to be caused by her reversing rather than you hitting her (can't really see how that's possible but I'm not a crash investigator...)

FWIW, if someone ever does hit your car and drive off, get their reg and witnesses before chasing after them.

Fight it to no end, it's cheaper for them to just settle then it is to contest so have no interest.

I had a similar thing but wouldn't give in, eventually they got an independent ex-police assessor to handle the case and her lies eventually caught up with her and a year later I won.

I'm not an expert, but in this case I think you may be OK. It's going to be pretty hard for her to come up with a story which ties in with the damage.

My partner was in the car at the time, but even though she is a police officer she cannot be used as a witness.

I was going to suggest a couple of things that you should have done but hindsight is great and obviously you don't want to hear it.

I would get your statement to your insurance company and insist they contest it. The damage certainly looks it was caused by reversing so this is the line your insurance company should take.

BTW - What is the damage to her car.

Also, it sounds like she knew exactly what she was doing i.e. leaving the scene knowing that her car would be difficult to trace and that you wouldn't get any witnesses!

it's cheaper for them to just settle then it is to contest so have no interest.

She won't be in trouble if it turns out she was lying or at least the boke who tried something similar with me wasn't. I do believe it should be an offence to knowingly lie in this way.

By the sounds of the damage to your car you'll be ok tho. it what saved me when a bloke tried to do a u turn out of a layby across 2 lanes of uphill traffic over the 2 solid white lines and into the downhill lane. how he was claiming i hit him when it was the rear door, wing etc of mine that were damaged lord knows.

i just watched channel 4 news and there are an increase in scams,where people purposefully,get hit by someone,so they can claim the insurance.they will brake suddenly e.t.c,without warning,and the other person won't have a chance not to hit them.just thought i would let you know,as this sounds very much like one of those scams!!!

You could always report her to the police for leaving the scene of an accident and then add that report to your claim.

It sounds nothing like one of those scams 😕

...often without working brakelights too, so you really have little chance of stopping when they emergency stop in front.

how do you hit the side of a car, not the front, by hitting something.
as i see it, its pretty hard to!

i would argue that, and also include leaving the scene of an accident.

the more information you can gather the better, and the truth will out!

Does your insurance include legal services to contest this on your behalf?

Beware as well in similar events deciding where blame lies, that's for the Ins companies to work out. As a mate who is a broker advised me once, never admit liability even if its clear, as doing so is against the terms of most contracts and could theoretically create problems down the line.

so she reckons you hit her, and damaged her car. she then drove off without speaking to you, while you dilligently followed along after to give her your details so she could claim for the accident you caused to her car?

sounds likely to me...

are you sure you didn't nip over into her car and reverse it into yours while she wasn't looking? i mean, it [i]could[/i] happen...

Similar thing happened to my wife. Didn't even bother involving our insurance company. Approached the other parties insurance company direct and insisted they get an engineer to assess the damage to our car Eventually they paid out much to the annoyance of the abusive scum that reversed into her. We did have a witness though and because things got a bit heated the police attended also

Does your car move sideways? You'd be hard pushed to hit a stationary car with the part of your car shown.

as above - unless your car was spinning I can't see how that damage would be caused any other way than you being hit.

often without working brakelights too, so you really have little chance of stopping when they emergency stop in front.

apart from your duty as described in the Highway Code to drive so that you can stop before colliding with other road users ? (posed as a question as I've not driven for years)

Certainly contest it. Not only is the other party at fault but it could affect your No Claims Discount (assuming you have one).

I had similar and the insurance company weren't bothered in contesting it. In fact I don't even know what the outcome was because they just kept ignoring me and I ended up going elsewhere when my renewal came up (first year of insurance so no no claims to worry about). My car wasn't worth getting repaired

I reversed out a parking space where I used to live and was stationary, about to move forward, car comes into the car park at speed and hits my driver side door. Insurance company put down initially it was my fault because I was the one 'reversing', and were happy to settle up, I contested it but I don't actually know the outcome.

[IMG] [/IMG]
my car

[IMG] [/IMG]
£600 pounds worth of damage apparently

Death by crushing (or stoning, stoning's good) - it took me four bloody years to sort out the myopic **** that pulled out in front of me, but stick with it, you'll get there in the end.

I have to ask, why you are dealing with this yourself?
Not having a go at you, but thats why you pay insurance companies to deal with all this sort of crap.
Just tell your insurance co that was not your fault and you are not willing, quite rightly, to accept a 50/50 settlement! Unless your car can move sideway!

I had this a few years back, in my Mrs old Mini, we were stopped in stationery traffic. We had a lady who reversed into our little car out of a parking space!

Another Lady 4x4 driver 😉

Said it was our fault as her reverse sensors did not warn her, we called the police who turned up after she had left!

It would have got nasty as she went through the book at us, she claimed for whiplash, said we were speeding, drunk, had a kid driving! on the wrong side of the road, the list was endless...

If it was not for a witness, a driver behind us, she would have got away with it.

Her insurance eventually paid up in full in the end, a mini victory 😉

Good luck stumpy btw

indeed, you do have a duty to stop, and this should include your reaction time, not just braking distance. that reaction time would be greatly increased in the absence of brake lights.

i can't deny SFB that you are indeed correct. you should be able to stop.

a tiny minority of people actually leave that amount of room in reality, and you can bet they're assuming that the brake lights in front are working

apart from your duty as described in the Highway Code to drive so that you can stop before colliding with other road users ?

In future, I will do as you mention clubber. That was my first instinct, but I think I just wanted to confront her about it. Probably would have worked in my favour had she driven off.

aracer, that is a good thought. I did report the incident to the police & have an incident number. I might call them up & see how I stand with that.

Shakey, there appeared to be no damage to her car. It was a Ford Maverick 4x4 & she hit me with the very corner of the bumper. It was low speed, but she then kept moving into me.
She didn't leave the scene entirely, but at that time I couldn't tell what she was going to do. She carried on down the turning she had intended to drive down (one of the parking lanes) (approx 30m). I followed her, she then got to the end, initially looked as if she was going to turn right towards the exit but then parked in one of the bays directly opposite the end of the road. Once I realised she had parked up, I should have got my other half to get her details while I chased after some witnesses!

MF - the damage is gonna be pretty costly. It's gonna be a new wing & door (the leading edge of the door is kinked inwards), plus the wing has been pushed up against the bonnet edge and warped the bonnet. Not sure if that will just pop back though or not. If you look the top edge of the wing in the image, it should line up with the top edge of the door, but doesn't - it's been sent upwards & inwards.

I don't think it was one of those scams. Her brake lights worked, her indicators works & her reversing light worked.
That is what is really annoying. She initially claimed I was trying to undertake her. But I was stationary & sounded my horn as her reversing light came on. She couldn't explain how if I was undertaking her how I would have seen her reversing light & why I wouldn't have just kept going to avoid her.

Olly, that is what I am relying on.....the fact that the damage to my car would be very hard to produce had I been the one that was moving.

theotherjonV, I think I have legal cover & will see what happens once her statement has been properly reviewed.

sockpuppet....indeed. It's just a question of proving that though, as well. For all i know....she could have claimed that she approached me for my details.

bauchlebastart - the repair company has my car already. I think I will ring the insurance company to see if I should stop the work being started incase I need to get an independent assessor in.

Excellent suggestions & help everyone. I feel a bit better about things now. I just don't understand why people can't own up to their actions.

The exact same thing happened to me. I had the hand on the horn as this woman in a big merc, (me in my polo,) kept reversing into me. Luckily the noise caught the attention of a couple who came over and said they would be my witnesses. The driver got out and said she didn't hear my horn 'cos her music was turned up too loud. She then starts to say I ran into her. The witness and myself disputed this and an argument started. She said you're only saying that 'cos I'm foreign (her English was poor). Luckily due to the witnesses I got the damage sorted. She too would have driven off if the male witness hadn't have put himself in front of her car.
Sorry this is not much help to you, but witnesses are crucial.

Haven't read the whole thread so apologies if someone's posted this but - if it was the cinema, then some people will ave paid by credit/debit card, so the cinema has enough details for the cops to find them if they want to. possibly one or two of them may be witnesses you're after?

so the cinema has enough details for the cops to find them if they want to. possibly one or two of them may be witnesses you're after?

I use to work in this area of law and the problem is Insurance Companies want to get the claims off their books as quickly as possible. So matters where it is not clear cut (often because someone is not being truthfull) they just jump straight to a 50/50 split liability settlement.

The problem is most insurances companies have what is known as a subrogated right which effectively allows them to conduct the claim how they feel best rather than what there policyholder wants. All boils down to costs!

With respect to accident damage proving one parties fault over anothers, rarely does it prove things enough but bear in mind that you only have to prove liability on the balance of probabilities! and from what you have said it would appear that your version is more probable given the photo of the damage so I would stress this to your insurance company.

Stumpy, get the wife to go to car park Security in uniform if possible. She will have more pull as they will be reluctatnt to give what could be evidence to the public, I had my 1 day old A4 wing crumpled by a learner driver trying to park and had to pull in a favour from a PC friend to get a copy of the tape. As soon as I had the evidence the other party's story soon changed.

KS

Stumpy,

It seems to me from the picture you posted that you have a "dent". If you had been moving at the time of the collision, then surely you would also have some "scraping" marks on your car. I'd try and get your insurance company to accept that; it then destroys the other driver's arguement.

Neil

But it does make it difficult to know they are stopping if the brake lights aren't working. How, please tell, would you know they were braking, especially if at night on an unlit road..

if you are unable to identify stationary lit objects in front in the dark then it would be better for you to take a taxi :o)

2 options - that may be took late to try

The answer was in your original post "...Hit her..." - if she's claiming it and it isn't true make it so! Not PC but i'm sure it crossed your mind 🙂

Hit yourself and claim ABH - this could snow ball and she could hit herself for a counter claim, you would have to resort to GBH and before you know it you could both be seriously (self) injured or dead - still worth a try though

AlieN....I have e-mailed the insurance people earlier & that was one of the arguements I put forward. There are absolutely no scrapes on my car of the type you would expect had I moved past another car & hit it.

I have just spoken to the Police & I can't do the woman for leaving the scene as we did actually exchange details, even though the action of her driving off & not stopping meant I failed to get witnesses.

I have also spoken to the insurance company regarding delaying the repair of my car in case it needs to be assessed at a later date. They have said they have enough photographic evidence that they do not require the car to remain un-repaired.
I hope this is the case. I did say to the guy I spoke to that they had better not turn round in a fortnight & say that because I had the car repaired they cannot tell who hit who.

If anyone sees a red Ford Maverick, reg P227 PDX in the P'boro area please give it a very wide berth!!

Barnes - stop being such a bloody smartarse. It's amusing no-one. We get your point now contribute or sod off!

Good luck to the OP 🙂

Women should not be on the road.

Surely when they find out that it involved a female of the species reversing it will be thrown out.

Women are no good at reversing unless theres a c**k behind them. Fact. 😉

agree with molgrips & thanks for the good luck

laugh lots at neilsonwheels comment....
only problem with that is in this case, perhaps there was (if you speak to some of my friends)! 😀

Women are no good at reversing unless theres a c**k behind them.

Yeah, but even then they come into sudden collision with me 😉

I have also spoken to the insurance company regarding delaying the repair of my car in case it needs to be assessed at a later date. They have said they have enough photographic evidence that they do not require the car to remain un-repaired.
I hope this is the case. I did say to the guy I spoke to that they had better not turn round in a fortnight & say that because I had the car repaired they cannot tell who hit who.

get it in writing if possible

This is annoying of course your wife can be a witness she was there she saw what happened she is a witness .The issue will be weather or not she is belived . the other party will attack her saying she is not impartial but so what , most would say her evidence is supported by the circumstances and her job adds to her credability.

You should object to any insurance settlement on any basis other than 100% rcovery and in any event sue for your uninsured losses which will protect your no claims.You can take the case easily yourself in the small cliams court but you may have legal expenses insurance either on your car or house policy.

f you are unable to identify stationary lit objects

But as you say, you don't drive and your ignorance is showing.

I really, really dislike no-claims bonuses. This sort of incident is exactly why you have insurance in the first place, and it's rotten of the insurer to introduce this incentive for you not to claim from them if at all possible.

Car insurance is a bloody joke, wife was cut up by a woman undertaking her, scuff damage to our front wing and her rear. Insurance company bent over and offered to pay. I complained said "no way, not our fault don't pay" insurance (Quinn) said tough we're paying. £500 claim. no claims screwed.
Also got hit from behind while on my bike, plenty of witnesses, driver took off. Registered owner refused to 'fess up who was driving so I couldn't claim for repairs. (fortunatley my house/bike insurance paid up but I've no doubt my premiums will be rising soon)

takes the piss.

Sorry to be of no help at all OP just having a rant.

If it was stationary and the brake lights were fully functioning they wouldn't be lit anyway ... But as you say, you don't drive and your ignorance is showing

in the dark its tail lights would be on, in daylight it would be clearly visible. One doesn't have to be able to drive to know these things.

in the dark its tail lights would be on,

I am glad you do not drive.

erm.....she's not yet my wife!!
Don't give her anymore ammo to that effect!! 🙂

I think the line on witnesses is that they have to be 'independent' although I was hoping that she might have had a bit more sway than she does!
I hope she will be asking her colleagues to make sure that Red Ford Mavericks in the region have no problems with tyres/lights/speeding/swerving that migh suggest drink/driving etc.

sfb, it is not always easy to judge distances relying solely on lights from other vehicles (such as you might need to at night). In fact there was a study done (I think in Holland, Sweden or Norway) that found motorcyclists shouldn't ride with their lights on in the daytime as it reduced the ability of other road users to judge how far away they were, compared to them riding with no lights on.
I guess this assumes that the other road users have seen the motorcyclist in the first place which is probably the primary reason for motorcyclists using their lights.

At night, if there are many sets of tail lights overlapping each other, it can be very confusing to the eye. Doubly so if there are motorcycles with single lights. Or even pairs of motorcyles in the mix. Very easy to get confused - then if someone's brake lights aren't working at all it could very quickly get ugly.

as these are the lights that indicate braking and are the ones that are removed/disabled by the people that try to cause crashes

nevertheless you're not supposed to drive into things you can see

I am glad you do not drive

presumably because I'd leave too big a gap in case things in front stopped unexpectedly, hence wasting road, and leaving you 30 metres further from your destination than otherwise ?

FYI pedestrians, cows, shopping trolleys, fallen trees, portaloos (as seen last Saturday) etc also do not have braking lights...

nevertheless you're not supposed to drive into things you can see

FYI pedestrians, cows, shopping trolleys, fallen trees, portaloos (as seen last Saturday) etc also do not have braking lights...

much moreso than doing so in daylight when you have more points of reference in order to ascertain that the vehicle is stopping.

but you know this, and that it's still your responsibility not to hit anything and drive appropriately

sfb....any chance you could start this in a new thread instead of cluttering up my Friday grievance with lots of pedantry?? 😉

Thanks.

but you know this, and that it's still your responsibility not to hit anything and drive appropriately

IF you could prove thqat the person had disabled there brake lights (which wouldn't be hard if you hit it at speed) then they would be held responsable as there car wasn't road worthy.
It is all very well leaving a big enough gap to stop in when the car in front has its lights working but if you were travelling at 70 and they slamad on the brakes whit out the lights giving you the warning you would run into them before you had realised they were stopping.

and they slamad on the brakes whit out the lights giving you the warning you would run into them before you had realised they were stopping.

due to adjusting iPod volume or taking a nap ?

As does the person in front who is deliberately trying to cause accidents

I'm not talking about that - which may anyway be totally apocryphal - I'm saying you have to be alert to all kinds of unexpected eventualities which may not be previously signalled.

It is all very well leaving a big enough gap to stop in when the car in front has its lights working but if you were travelling at 70 and they slamad on the brakes whit out the lights giving you the warning you would run into them before you had realised they were stopping.

Perhaps if we explained that driving with such undue caution would probably lead to failing a driving test in the first place he might understand more?

due to adjusting iPod volume or taking a nap ?

I'm not talking about that

often without working brakelights too, so you really have little chance of stopping when they emergency stop in front.

apart from your duty as described in the Highway Code to drive so that you can stop before colliding with other road users ? (posed as a question as I've not driven for years)[/i]

simonfbarnes - Member

and they slamad on the brakes whit out the lights giving you the warning you would run into them before you had realised they were stopping.

due to adjusting iPod volume or taking a nap ?

Have you not seen how fast a car can stop from 70? oh no i forgot you haven't driven for years have you.

Forget about your insurance company handling the claim, go to someone like Helphire, I've used them twice now and they have twice sucessfully found in my favour. One had no witnesses either, was going to be pushed all the way to court and the third party declined to take it that far (it was her fault).

The only dwonside is that they use Vauxhalls as hire cars while yours is being fixed, so expect to have to drive a Vectra for a few weeks 😯

[b]Wahoo......pedants unite........[/b]

yawn..........

ziggy.....I will look into that. Thanks for the heads up.

A Vectra would be great. I am currently putting up with a bog standard base spec Nissan Micra as a courtesy car.

I once drove into the side of a car that shot out backwards from an end-on parking space with no warning. It was a parking meter attendant dashing around his round. My GF was in the car, and was suitable as a witness (In Scotland, I think anyone over the age of 8, known or unknown to either party is considered a competent witness). What didn't help was that the other driver changed his version of events 8 times over the course of a year, but eventually it was his insurers that said "We've had enough!", and settled fully in my favour.

Good luck.

But you were originally...

yes, but I moved on to the general case of unexpected obstacles

... and while I'm prepared to believe that people may try to cause crashes in slow, urban situations, trying it at 70mph seems more like attempted suicide

FFS. You need to drive at a speed that allows you to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. As for telling that a car without brake lights is slowing down of stopping - easy - its getting closer to you.

yes, but I moved on to the general case of unexpected obstacles

As for telling that a car without brake lights is slowing down of stopping - easy - its getting closer to you.

and while I'm prepared to believe that people may try to cause crashes in slow, urban situations, trying it at 70mph seems more like attempted suicide

you obviously didnt seethe programme on about this the other night then. On motorway the 'trick' is to disable your brake lights and then cut in front of your victim and slam your brakes on (also on motorway slip roads) - they showed cctv footage of some lunatic that that chose a royal mail hgv, cut right in front of him and slammed on his brakes. In theoury he would have said he was just driving along when nasty mr hgv ploughed into the back of him, without witnesses it would have been hard to disprove. Also another favourite place is at a roundabout car in front starts to pull away and brakes suddenly (with no brake lights) person behind is usually seeing whats coming round the roundabout rather than looking at non working brake lights.

person behind is usually seeing whats coming round the roundabout rather than looking at non working brake lights.

M_F - hw are there less points of reference? One car, it's getting closer, you might want to brake now.

quickly learnt to watch the car in front, not the car coming from the right and assume the car in front will pull away

Though what if the car in front has already pulled away, and then stopped once completely on the roundabout?

I had similar years ago. Muppet drove into my parked car, my father saw it out of the kitchen window. He tried to drive off before my dad caught him. Admitted it there and then and swapped details. Next communication from my insurers was "hard luck - your word against his - he claims to have been fifty miles away at that time"!!

Had to push really hard to get my insurers to fight it because they had to engage a barrister. I guess this is more expensive than paying half of the claim? Same in your case I guess? It took 18 months before getting to court.

Ended up having to give evidence on oath as the judge wasn't happy that one of us was clearly lying. Turns out the other guy couldn't even read and was a hopeless liar. His witness was the fat slob that was in the passenger seat at the time of the prang. The clerks at the court suggested that they were fairly regular visitors for a variety of offences. Basically scum that see a trip to court as a good day out...

Yours sounds like arrogance on behalf of the other party tho. Just can't understand why people are so embarrassed to admitting fault - its not the end of the world is it?

I'm dealing with a non-liability claim at the moment... A month in and so far my insurance company have generally not been particularly helpful other than readily supplied a cheque for the cost of writing my car off. I'm not accepting it till the other policy holder accepts liability given that the driver of their white transit van drove into my stationery car during fairly slow moving rush hour traffic. Problem is, apparently our insurance people can't get hold of the other contact details of the other policy holder despite the fact I got the policy details (and before some smartarse asks why I didn't get phone numbers, d.o.b., etc, I was on the fast lane of a motorway, and as I moved over to the hard shoulder, the other driver tore off before I had a chance to get the plate etc).

Thing is, the insurance company have made no effort to keep me updated. I tried calling this evening to find what was happening, got through to someone who said they'd find out something, put me on hold and then a few minutes later the muzak went straight to a VM stating that the offices were now closed!!! (This is a very well known insurance company with a lot of annoying adverts involving a nodding dog).

It just beggars belief that insurance companies can be so staggeringly ignorant when it comes to helping their customers.

stumpy01 there are a number of issues with using companies like helphire. Have a search for information before you do anything. Some people have been left with very very large bills after using them. Look on honestjohn.co.uk or the telegraph motoring pages. credit hire companies I think they are known as.

I personally think 50/50 is your best outcome. True with hindsight one should gather independent witnesses then its also hit and run.

Another person in your car can not be treated as a independent witness. A witness needs to be independent of the driver- i.e. 'bias'.

All the best though. I think its documented on here my hatred of careless drivers in carparks and what Ive done and will do in the future 🙄

sorry to nick the post but the side effects got me going. to quote "after all, when following cars we should all be driving as if they might actually be fallen trees or something."
Yes .
The lights issue is not relevant. If you can't stop you have got it wrong. Cars do stop dead without brake lights. If your driving can't deal with that then you need some training

had the same thing happen, just me and him, he was chief legal officer for the local police force. I showed the pics to insurance company and asked them to get a statement from him saying how this damage could have been caused fron the situation as he described it. I pushed my insurers to contest it all the way and they did and we won. Go for it.

Alternatively get one of your mates to elbow her then hit her smartly with a set of upper cuts and claim that it was self defence as she was about to hit you. Works for some apparently...

Similar thing happened to me in the works car park once - bloody woman licence holder (well, they're not [i]really[/i] drivers are they!) reversing whilst looking forwards. She admitted responsibility on the scene, then changed her mind when her other half got involved. I calmly pointed out that she had reversed into my rear driver-side door whilst I was stationary, and that my car (a standard Cavalier at the time) was not equipped with wheels fitted at 90 degrees to normal, making it highly unlikely that I'd driven into her in the way that she was now claiming.
My car repairs were paid for by her insurers.

Well, as a bit of an update I have found the original hi-res pics I took off my camera when i first got back from the cinema.
The one's I sent off to the insurance company were smaller ones that I took off my phone & were taken a few days after. IDIOT.

On the originals you can clearly see the mark where her car has hit mine and pushed the body panels in. There is absolutely NO scrapes/scratches or any other damage to suggest that my car moved against hers - it definitely looks like an impact followed by a direct push, as I outlined in my statement. I tried e-mailing them to the insce company last night but they bounced back as they were too big, so I will re-send them using a bit higher jpeg compression.
Will probably post one of the pics up here too, if I get round to uploading them to Photobucket.

Stumpy, same thing happened to my mum... long time ago now mind and we ended up in the small claims court. The judge took one look at the pictures that were very similar to yours and found in our favour.

I was hit by a lady when I was stationary - she was looking for the name of the road and not where she was going.... She admitted responsiblity at the time but her insurance company wanted 50/50 so I told mine I wouldn't accept that. They then rang her up and asked he if she was willing to go to court to say it wasn't completely her fault. Her company then paid up 100%. Annoyingly my insurance still went up because of it at the next renewal.