Van drove into me - then puts a claim in against me

[jesus]

So on these photos, the van = red, me = blue + Audi = green.

There are 2 lanes for bearing left on the slip road thing. We were all in the left lane on the dual carriageway, and all wanted to use the slip road pictured which has the 2 lanes. Van was tailgating me up the road for a couple of minutes but thought nothing of it (it happens all the time). Less than 30mph.

The Audi used the left hand lane on the slip road, and I used the right. Just like the cars in the first photo are doing. That's how everyone does it.

As I turned onto the slip road I used the right hand lane. The van carried on up the dual carrieageway, or so I thought. What actually happened is he overtook me, then cut in front at the last second getting wedged between my car and the traffic island thing with the bollard on (pictured).

I've drawn some brief diagrams of our paths, the Audi on the left, me on the right and then the van in red. Also shown the point of impact.

The driver didn't stop, so I had to give chase up the road and pull in front of him so he couldn't set off again. When he finally put his window down, I only got his name and phone number and he didn't speak such good English. He was blaming me saying that I drove into him by changing lanes - remember that he was behind me (tailgating) so how could he end up in front of me, or even by my side and I drive into him? He wouldn't give me any more details, even though I gave him the name of my insurer and reg. number etc. and he just reversed back from my car and drove off.

I got home and the next day gave it a good clean, and tried my best to polish off the damage. There are still some deep scratches that remain but it tidied it up a heck of a lot.

Of course he didn't answer his phone (or whatever number he gave me) and due to me being able to get the scratches out and tidy it up, I decided to take it on the chin to save me having to claim off my own insurance (he wouldn't give me the name of his).

Fast forward 2 weeks and I get a letter in the post saying I've had a claim against me. Obviously I'm pissed off so get straight on the blower, give the lady a few details and send her the photos and a detailed writeup (moreso than the above!). She said that she'll make a note that I'm disputing the claim and awaits my paperwork and statement.

Now, I'm wondering what's going to happen. I'm not claiming for any damage or anything at all, and I'm not even sure what he's claiming for as there was no apparent damage on his van. Will I get shafted come renewal date, even if nothing comes of it? Or if the worst happens and I get accused of being in the wrong, can I contest it or take it further?

 

[Ex-User (19928)]

It's probably not going to work in your favour having not pursued the fact he didn't give you details (you should have reported this to the police IMO), but given the description vs pictures I'm sure the truth will come out. He's playing a dangerous game if what you're saying is 100% correct though.

 

[jesus]

Thanks for reading and the response - I've just realised how long the post actually is!

I did go to the police station straight away but they basically told me there's nothing they can (nothing they will) do and just to claim off my insurance. They said all I'll need are his name and phone number for that so pretty useless. I can't imagine him going to the lengths I've gone to to show an accurate description of what happened, but then again he must have something in mind in order to put a claim in.

 

[MarcB]

Thats bad that its happened, Would not surprise me if the driver was not insured at all and when taking the van back to his mate his mate has claimed.

No matter what even if I'm at fault the first thing i do is "Pictures" as a picture can tell 1000 words.

Hope all gets sorted out for you but possibly @Neil@greenlight could shed dome light on this.

 

[STEVE.M]

Thanks for reading and the response - I've just realised how long the post actually is!

It shoud not have happened to one of the better mods.

 

[Inequality Street]

Sorry to hear dude. Hope it goes well!

 

[VR46-G@Z]

This is exactly why I'm getting a dashcam for Xmas, if some a*sehole damages my pride and joy by being an idiot they're getting the book thrown at them with hard evidence. The cheek of that guy, sorry to hear it, I hope it works out for you!

 

[ForceIndia]

I guess there's no downside for him. Lose and he's in the same situation he started in (ie at fault with insurance taking the hit). Win and he's laughing. The utter c**t.

 

[The Russian.]

I hit a car last week, was in the centre of car park,

(not the car park, just for example! + it was a one way)

Im the White smudge facing the green, the green wanted the empty space on my left, I checked mirrors and started reversing, the red car pulled out-Bang I hit his front bumper/light.

Who's fault would you say it was?

 

[ForceIndia]

I hit a car last week, was in the centre of car park,

(not the car park, just for example! + it was a one way)

Im the White smudge facing the green, the green wanted the empty space on my left, I checked mirrors and started reversing, the red car pulled out-Bang I hit his front bumper/light.

Who's fault would you say it was?

More your fault. Reversed against flow of traffic, and seemingly without looking behind whilst reversing.

 

[Typhoon]

Hasn't been the Trophy's year really, has it?

 

[bb55am]

Unlucky but loving the diagrams ! Haha

 

[Inequality Street]

I hit a car last week, was in the centre of car park,

(not the car park, just for example! + it was a one way)

Im the White smudge facing the green, the green wanted the empty space on my left, I checked mirrors and started reversing, the red car pulled out-Bang I hit his front bumper/light.

Who's fault would you say it was?

I'd say more yours, however I would be suprised if it didnt go 50/50 as in theory both parties should have looked more

 

[The Russian.]

I'd say more yours, however I would be suprised if it didnt go 50/50 as in theory both parties should have looked more

I was looking arm over the rear seat he shot out and bang.

 

[Inequality Street]

I was looking arm over the rear seat he shot out and bang.

Oh I know I was very cold in my response, I was acting like an insurer (love a bit of role play in the morning!). He could have wheel spun out of the space like a stabbed rat, but I doubt that will be taken into account. Sorry dude

Assume it was a relitivley low speed impact (sub 10?) - all okay?

 

[Chrisgti6]

I hit a car last week, was in the centre of car park,

(not the car park, just for example! + it was a one way)

Im the White smudge facing the green, the green wanted the empty space on my left, I checked mirrors and started reversing, the red car pulled out-Bang I hit his front bumper/light.

Who's fault would you say it was?

I'd say it'll go 50/50. Both should have been looking before undertaking the manoeuvre. Car parks are terrible for this sort of thing. Morons shooting out of spaces without looking. Tesco @ Alfreton is the worst round here.

 

[Sunglasses_Ron]

Thanks for reading and the response - I've just realised how long the post actually is!

I did go to the police station straight away but they basically told me there's nothing they can (nothing they will) do and just to claim off my insurance. They said all I'll need are his name and phone number for that so pretty useless. I can't imagine him going to the lengths I've gone to to show an accurate description of what happened, but then again he must have something in mind in order to put a claim in.

Police won't get involved in damage only collisions mate. It's purely down to insurance companies to sort out.

Unless there's obvious offences and witness or cctv to prove them.

 

[The Russian.]

I'd say it'll go 50/50. Both should have been looking before undertaking the manoeuvre. Car parks are terrible for this sort of thing. Morons shooting out of spaces without looking. Tesco @ Alfreton is the worst round here.

Nope £900 settled it [emoji30][emoji30][emoji30]
My cars an auto so I put in reverse and never touched the throttle.

 

[Neil@greenlight]

Hope all gets sorted out for you but possibly @Neil@greenlight could shed dome light on this.

Without witness's then it will be almost impossible to prove the third party is to blame, especially is they are willing to change there version of the accident circumstances. It will come down to TP's word against the Policyholder and without a Dash Cam or independent witness it will likely end up getting settled 50/50.

If the OP isnt claiming for his damage hopefully the third party wont either meaning it will likely get settled as a "No Claim made" incident providing both parties agree to close the claim.

 

[levaz]

Without witness's then it will be almost impossible to prove the third party is to blame, especially is they are willing to change there version of the accident circumstances. It will come down to TP's word against the Policyholder and without a Dash Cam or independent witness it will likely end up getting settled 50/50.

If the OP isnt claiming for his damage hopefully the third party wont either meaning it will likely get settled as a "No Claim made" incident providing both parties agree to close the claim.

Sorry for the post hijack, but quick question for you Neil.
Is it regular practice for an insurer to dismiss a witness statement?
(I had an incident a couple of years back involving a truck with no brake lights waiting in an unlit street at the bottom of a humpback bridge!)
His insurers refused to accept the witness statement and it was settled against me.

 

[LeeRS]

Are car park dinks covered under insurance? I didn't think they were.

 

[Chrisgti6]

Are car park dinks covered under insurance? I didn't think they were.

Why wouldn't they be?

 

[Paris 182]

Sorry for the post hijack, but quick question for you Neil.
Is it regular practice for an insurer to dismiss a witness statement?
(I had an incident a couple of years back involving a truck with no brake lights waiting in an unlit street at the bottom of a humpback bridge!)
His insurers refused to accept the witness statement and it was settled against me.

I will answer with my personal experience. If your ‘witness’ was in your car as a passenger when the accident happens yes they will NOT take his statement in consideration as his been involved in the accident.

 

[levaz]

and if the witness was in another car that if he hadn't had pulled onto the other side of the road to miss me, would have been sitting in my back seat?
Only for the guy I hit, to get out of his car with the old sore neck routine, realise there was a witness and then start swinging fists?

The whole thing was a couple of years back now, so it's done and dusted, but the situation was so utterly fucked up all the way through.

Basically, the police refused to attend as no one was injured and there was a witness (even though threats were being made against the witness to drive on or have his nose broken) the insurers dismissed the witness's statement, and would only accept a police statement!

 

[Jaff.]

I hit a car last week, was in the centre of car park,

(not the car park, just for example! + it was a one way)

Im the White smudge facing the green, the green wanted the empty space on my left, I checked mirrors and started reversing, the red car pulled out-Bang I hit his front bumper/light.

Who's fault would you say it was?

It's your fault. You were reversing. Had a similar thing in the summer and it's been deemed as my fault.
Doesn't matter what excuse you come up with as long as you were reversing the insurers will blame you

 

[STEVE.M]

Police won't get involved in damage only collisions mate. It's purely down to insurance companies to sort out.

Unless there's obvious offences and witness or cctv to prove them.

Really,under section 170 of the 1988 RTA,failing to stop(leaving the scene of an accident),failing to exchange driver details,failing to report an accident within 24hrs are all defined as serious offences.
Think a few of these apply with this incident.

 

[Sunglasses_Ron]

Really,under section 170 of the 1988 RTA,failing to stop(leaving the scene of an accident),failing to exchange driver details,failing to report an accident within 24hrs are all defined as serious offences.
Think a few of these apply with this incident.

No Steve, they're not defined as serious offences.

And unless there were witnesses/cctv as I've already stated then the old bill won't be following those up I'm afraid.

 

[Leonardo]

I'm sure you are in the right because of your detailed description and photos.
But if he's in the wrong and is determined to make a claim then he/his insurers may warp the truth and claim you did some dangerous manoever or other which caused the accident. Even with photos etc is all very difficult to prove without an independant witness or an admission of guilt from the other driver .
Obviously talk to your insurers and claim that you were in the right using all your photos etc and see where that goes.
Police won't be interested unless there was an injury or some easily provable offence like he was driving up a one way street in the wrong direction, no insurance ,MOT etc

 

[STEVE.M]

No Steve, they're not defined as serious offences.

And unless there were witnesses/cctv as I've already stated then the old bill won't be following those up I'm afraid.

Ha,Ha,can`t imagine anyone rear ending your Beemer & leaving his number plate behind without exchange of details would not be having his collar felt before bed time.

 

[Sunglasses_Ron]

Ha,Ha,can`t imagine anyone rear ending your Beemer & leaving his number plate behind without exchange of details would not be having his collar felt before bed time.

 

[LeeRS]

Why wouldn't they be?

I thought they were classed as private land. Same goes for a petrol garage forecourt.
Maybe just something ive heard mentioned before.

 

[Sunglasses_Ron]

I thought they were classed as private land. Same goes for a petrol garage forecourt.
Maybe just something ive heard mentioned before.

Nope. It's a public place if it has inferred access to the public ie signs and open gates.

If you get caught sleeping in your car in a pub car park while pissed you'll get nicked for being drunk in charge because it's a public place.

 

[Inequality Street]

Nope. It's a public place if it has inferred access to the public ie signs and open gates.

If you get caught sleeping in your car in a pub car park while pissed you'll get nicked for being drunk in charge because it's a public place.

Is a camping feild a public place? (wondering for future reference!)

 

[Sunglasses_Ron]

Is a camping feild a public place? (wondering for future reference!)

No that would be a private place. Because there's no inferred access to the general public. It's private property and not open for just anyone to drive in.

 

[jesus]

Just got in contact with his insurer as I'm sick of waiting now. Basically they said they haven't received my claim form and version of events off my insurer (great) but the van driver isn't even claiming for anything! So they rang him and he said he was happy for it to be closed, and will send a letter to my insurer saying that.

So months of worry for absolutely nothing. I bet I still get shafted at renewal even though a claim wasn't made. :rage: