Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

How do I prove kids were in car?

(186 Posts)
Icantstopeatinglol Tue 27-Aug-13 07:52:04

Hi, I just wanted some advice really. A (stupid) woman drove into the back of mine and dh car a few months back when we were on the way back from an afternoon trip with our 2 dc. She has lied all the way along saying there was no damage to the cars....which has now been sorted as garages have shown there was £2.5k of damage over both cars. She has also stated no dc in car!? To be fair she was very shook up but was only interested in herself as all she went on about was how she'd had such a bad day and this was going to affect her insurance badly! We do have rear tinted windows so she probably couldn't see them anyway though she has stated she noticed a pushchair in her statement. My ds banged his head and was quite upset afterwards and dd was thrown forward so much it woke her up and consequently she has woken up screaming quite alot since (this has never happened before). Anyway, the other insurance company are now saying they have received a 'statement of truth' or whatever from said woman saying no children in car?! What do we do now? Why is it upto us to prove our dc were in the car when this woman has lied all the way along?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

InternationalPower Tue 27-Aug-13 07:56:27

If dc weren't injured, why does it matter to the insurance co? Please don't be one of those hideous people making claims over nothing and forcing all our premiums up. Im sure it was distressing for them at the time but you getting some cash isnt going to change that

TensionWheelsCoolHeels Tue 27-Aug-13 07:59:36

Have they provided a copy of the statement? What does it say? Usually they'll ask her detailed questions to determine how good a look inside the car she had, whether she can describe the interior, where she stood, what conversations took place etc. The fact your rear window was tinted would raise an eyebrow when there is a question over occupancy, so specific detailed questions should clarify whether she can confidently state how many people she saw in the car.

As an aside, if your DD has sustained no physical injury, I wouldn't bother trying to claim for emotional upset in, I assume, a young baby. There is established case law that prevents such claims, and with a baby that wakes up crying, it is impossible to prove that's as a result of the accident.

NickNacks Tue 27-Aug-13 07:59:51

Did you call an ambulance? Or his doctor records when you got him checked out afterwards?

Icantstopeatinglol Tue 27-Aug-13 08:01:12

Actually they were hurt, ds had a sore neck for a few days afterwards after this stupid woman who we think was on her phone but can't prove drove into us. Dd was crying and having nightmares for wks afterwards and we can't be sure if this was partly neck pain but as she's so young it's hard to tell. I just don't understand why they would believe a proven liar over us but I suppose it's to prevent paying out.

DoItTooJulia Tue 27-Aug-13 08:02:02

I don't think that is very fair or nice from InternationaLPower,

If someone is saying our kids weren't in he car but they were I completely see why you would want to put it right. Also, if you are going to get an insurance payout for them so be it, if it pushes p other people's premiums its hardly our fault is it?

Do you have the receipts from the afternoon out? Was it a weekend day or a weekday?

lougle Tue 27-Aug-13 08:03:09

You're surely not trying to claim for a slightly sore neck??

DoItTooJulia Tue 27-Aug-13 08:03:16

The our faults should be your...

TensionWheelsCoolHeels Tue 27-Aug-13 08:04:59

Sorry, should add, the other insurer will likely ask how your DS banged his head if he was securely strapped into a car seat, to try and determine if the claim is genuine, aside from the question over if they were in the car or not. An impact from the rear would tend to throw you forwards, then back, hence the whiplash effect. How is it possible for a small child to hit their head if they were secure in their car seat with an impact from the rear?

Hulababy Tue 27-Aug-13 08:05:15

Are you claiming for new car seats? Is this why they are wanting proof?

Did anyone else attend the accident?

Icantstopeatinglol Tue 27-Aug-13 08:05:18

Thanks doittoojulia, yea we have receipts but can you believe the place we went to only counted me and dh as you don't pay for 5's and under! I'm going to ring them today and see if there's any other way they can prove we were there. In one way I'm thinking is it worth it but in another way I don't want to look like a liar!

Icantstopeatinglol Tue 27-Aug-13 08:07:00

Ds hit his head as he was thrown forwards then back and he hit his head on the car seat.

TensionWheelsCoolHeels Tue 27-Aug-13 08:08:31

But you cannot prove the crying/nightmares are as a result of the accident. Crying/waking in the night is typical behaviour from small babies, and they cannot testify as to what caused the upset. I really cannot believe people justify making claims for this stuff. It's a huge waste of money from many angles, and the money is hardly going to cure your DC is it?

Icantstopeatinglol Tue 27-Aug-13 08:08:48

No hulababy noone attended as we didn't think its necessary as she accepted it was her fault straight away (but didn't apologise!).

bluecheque4595 Tue 27-Aug-13 08:09:36

Why do you have rear tinted windows? ? If you didnt you could have been sure of this woman being on the phone and she could have seen your children in the car, two problems solved immediately.

TensionWheelsCoolHeels Tue 27-Aug-13 08:09:36

Was your DS checked out by a doctor or at A&E?

Icantstopeatinglol Tue 27-Aug-13 08:11:04

Tensionwheels, I hardly think its coincidental that her nightmares started straight after the accident and nearly every time I came to stop at a junction she would shout in her sleep and open her eyes!? I know my dd and this is not like her at all.

Icantstopeatinglol Tue 27-Aug-13 08:12:04

Bluecheque, I have rear tinted windows cos the car had them when I bought them? What has that got to do with anything?

Themarriedwoman Tue 27-Aug-13 08:12:34

The medical reports from the scene would be proof surely?
How old are your children? Weren't they properly strapped in?

Icantstopeatinglol Tue 27-Aug-13 08:12:53

No dc weren't taken to drs but wish I had now.

TensionWheelsCoolHeels Tue 27-Aug-13 08:13:45

So what are you looking to gain then? As I said, unless you can prove your baby suffered from a recognised, properly diagnosed, psychological injury, you will get no offer to compensate her for her 'distress'. I have a particularly low opinion of parents who try and make money out of this kind if thing.

If your children were hurt you should have taken them to the GP or hospital afterwards and you can get a medical report the insurers can use. I think however there's no chance of anybody believeing a minor bump in the car has traumatised your daughter. As children grow they change their sleep patterns and lots of young children will wake in a panic due to dreams.
If you didn't bother seeking medical help then forget it. You'll never convince the insurers harm was done, let alone that the dcs were there. You also run the risk of appearing vexatious.
The car seats though should be replaced whether dc were in them or not. Dh had an accident with the seats in and our insurers paid up without question.

x posted - you've got some nerve then. Why do you think the insurers should pay when you, the parent weren't concerned enough to seek medical advice?

TensionWheelsCoolHeels Tue 27-Aug-13 08:15:49

So your DC were apparently injured in a car accident but you didn't bother to get them checked out by a doctor? You weren't concerned enough to actually get them checked out, but you are concerned enough to try and make money from their 'suffering'?

Themarriedwoman Tue 27-Aug-13 08:16:00

I am sure there is nothing to worry about then is there? Or you would have taken them for medical attention. Why does it matter to the insurance company if they were in the car or not? It was the car that was damaged, not the children.

jojane Tue 27-Aug-13 08:16:10

Surely if it was significant accident to throw you all forward in the car etc you would have had the children checked out, especially if they are too young to tell you of anything is wrong?

ExcuseTypos Tue 27-Aug-13 08:17:04

I can understand why you isn't want to look like a liar. I would just keep saying the dc were in the car. It's her word against yours.

Are you thinking of getting compensation? I agree with others that if the dc weren't taken to a dr straight after the accident, I would forget all about it.

InternationalPower Tue 27-Aug-13 08:17:53

If one small child suffered a head injury and another was traumautised i am quite certain i would have seen a doctor long before i started making insurance claims.

I have been in exactly the same position. We all had sore necks for days. We claimed for all the costs ( written off car and to replace car seats) but wouldn't dream of claiming for minor injuries requiring no treatment

JumpingJackSprat Tue 27-Aug-13 08:18:50

You believe your kids were injured but you didnt bother taking them to the doctor? Not that serious then is it? I cant believe youre making a claim for a few days sore neck and your baby waking up crying. bottom line is if she argues all the way then itll end up in court where you will go against her and be cross examined about the injuries and your kids presence in the car.

Damnautocorrect Tue 27-Aug-13 08:19:49

Sorry I can't add anything helpful, but I hope you get it sorted soon.
But to the pp why not have rear tinted windows? They stop the sun getting in your childrens eyes? It's also someone's choice surely?!

ShadeofViolet Tue 27-Aug-13 08:20:09

I have to agree with Northern.

They didn't need medical attention, even if your DS had a sore neck you didn't think it was bad enough to seek advice, so what are you trying to claim for now?

New car seats I could understand, but you seem to think this is your lucky day and a chance to cash in!

fortyplus Tue 27-Aug-13 08:21:10

If they weren't hurt badly enough for you even to bother getting them checked out by your GP then it would be immoral to try to gain financially from the fact that they were in the car.

I had an accident when a white van man pulled out in front of me and my car was written off. I took my son to the GP the next day as he said his neck was sore and asked the doc to record the fact that it was as a result of a RTA.

That way if my son had suffered problems as a result then I would've had a claim. Thankfully he didn't - and as others have said if I'd tried to gain compensation for such a slight incident then I'd just be helping to push all our insurance premiums even higher.

The lawyers absolutely love it. My mum was in a nasty crash a few years ago and was advised to make a claim for her injuries. She had to give a full account of how people had helped her. In amongst her payout was £200 for her neighbour feeding her cat for 3 days while she was in hospital!! Bloody ridiculous.

badguider Tue 27-Aug-13 08:21:23

Does the op say anywhere she's going to claim compensation?? I can't see it.

For what it's worth I wouldn't. BUT I also would not accept a legal document with incorrect information about the accident and the cars occupants.

Op - speak to your own insurers. This sort of pita wrangling is what you pay them for!

fortyplus Tue 27-Aug-13 08:23:25

* I just don't understand why they would believe a proven liar over us but I suppose it's to prevent paying out.*

Capitola Tue 27-Aug-13 08:23:48

The fact that you didn't take your children to the GP or hospital speaks volumes.

It sounds to me like you are on the make here.

fortyplus Tue 27-Aug-13 08:24:25

badquider the quote is for you wink

FrussoHathor Tue 27-Aug-13 08:26:11

blue dark tints at the back don't meant the driver can't see out clearly. They can. It's from the outside that you can't see in.
icantstop are your dcs nursery age? A nursery receipt that shows they weren't in nursery that day?
Is the place you visited somewhere that would be unusual to go without children - eg a petting zoo, soft play, etc.

Failing that I would highlight the dark tints to the insurance company, and question where she was in order to see the pushchair but not the children.
Did you at any point get the children out or speak to them in situ, highlighting this could also help.

Icantstopeatinglol Tue 27-Aug-13 08:26:28

We asked our solicitors at the time wether we should claim and they weren't very helpful to be honest but I'm not interested in the money it's the fact that she's making us out to be liars so I'm happy to pursue it to prove she's lying but I don't want any money. I just want advice on how to do this as I'm not sure how I can prove it as this woman is a complete liar when the kids were definately in the car.

InternationalPower Tue 27-Aug-13 08:26:38

I agreed with that badguider - but if that's what op is concerned about she simply needs to tell the insurers the other driver's account is wrong, so its on record. She doesn't need to "prove" anything

lougle Tue 27-Aug-13 08:27:05

If the OP wasn't trying to claim compensation for her children, it wouldn't matter whether they were in the car.

It's disgraceful behaviour, imo.

Gracie990 Tue 27-Aug-13 08:28:44

If we had an accident I would have taken the children to hospital.
Did you take photos that day?

I don't think it matters if your not claiming for them or seats. Otherwise make your own statement. If she lied over the accident she lost all credibility.

bluecheque4595 Tue 27-Aug-13 08:29:05

Op sorry dont mean to have a go. I value the best possible view out of all windows when driving so would not drive a car with tinted windows. But thats just me.

Gracie990 Tue 27-Aug-13 08:32:36

Blue I have tinted windows and can see perfectly fine, you can see through them. Mirrors are much more effective when driving anyway.

TensionWheelsCoolHeels Tue 27-Aug-13 08:33:03

You don't have to make fraudulent claims for injury to prove your DC were in the car. My 1st post gave you I go on how to prove she's wrong, no need to add injury claims to the mix. And your DD isn't entitled to a bean as you have no proof she was injured given that neither were taken to a doctor to be examined so no evidence of any physical injury. Your DS having a sore neck for a few days - again, you have no proof as not taken to a doctor to confirm he hurt his neck.

badguider Tue 27-Aug-13 08:34:49

I took that to mean paying out for the accident.

I hadn't thought about the carseats - If the bump was as violent as it sounds then maybe you should be asking your insurer what happens about replacing car seats? (Haven't ever had an accident with carseats/children so don't know).

Anyway, the main point is that this is what your insurance co is for - refer all correspondence to them and don't speak to any godawful "personal injury" people.

ExcuseTypos Tue 27-Aug-13 08:34:54

The OP has said she IS NOT MAKING A CLAIM

She is on the legal board and is asking how to go about proven ghee dc were in the car.

OP just phone your insurers and ask their advice. I would just keep insisting they were there.

Did You buy any lunch or anything when you had your day out? A bank statement might show how much you spent?

MakeGlutenFreeHay Tue 27-Aug-13 08:34:58

I was rear ended recently and being pg went straight to the dr when I got home. Why would you not take your children, especially if one had hit his head? shock

Still, it's done (or not) now, but I certainly wouldn't be trying to claim (which, presumably, if you are trying to prove the children were in the car you are hoping to do). I guess make sure your account, including the fact about the children being there, is recorded in writing and then leave it. No need to do anything else other than write down your side of the story if indeed you are not intending to take it further. (If you are still trying to claim then I have no further comment).

I'm sorry for the shock that you and your dcs had. It's a horrible moment.

SubliminalMassaging Tue 27-Aug-13 08:36:42

I agree with InternationalPower. When I was involved in an accident there was a small child in the other car, and the woman immediately got out and rushed to check on the child, take her out of the car and check her over. The child was upset and crying but not at all injured - she was just a bit (mentally) shaken up because the woman driving the car (her auntie) was shaken and hysterical and slightly injured. The accident was her fault, and I think she just felt terrible because she had someone else's child with her.

I think the fact your children were in the car is irrelevant. If the accident was bad enough to have damaged your children in any way either physically or mentally, then the woman would have known they were there - you'd have been checking on them, getting them out of the car etc, and with a supposed bang to the head you'd have got him to the doctor surely? hmm

There is clearly no problem with your children. The more you claim for (and I know from experience that the ambulance chasers will do everything in their slimy powers to persuade you that you are at least a little bit hurt, suggesting things that might be wrong with you, planting ideas in your head, telling you they will ring bag in a week or so to give you a chance to think about it, maybe change your mind?hmm) the more your premium (and everyone else's) will shoot up. And unless you can prove actual physical injury the amount you get for a minor accident won't even be that much. It's not worth it.

MakeGlutenFreeHay Tue 27-Aug-13 08:37:08

But typos why would it matter whether they were in the car or not if you are not claiming for them? That's what doesn't quite ring true. Otherwise just providing your own statement should be enough - it's not vital to fight tooth and nail to get everyone believing you, just that you have the equivalent to what the other party have in terms of statement, surely?

Themarriedwoman Tue 27-Aug-13 08:40:06

Tensionwheels has given very good advice (twice). The other driver has given HER version of events, she is presumably stating she didn't see any children, which could very well be the truth as the OP has tinted windows in her car. The OP can also give HER version of events, however if she tries to claim the children were injured, she would not be able to prove anything without medical records. I think you should just let it go OP.

Why are so many people having a go at the OP? At no point has she said she was going to claim compensation, just that she wants to set the record straight. I would want to do the same thing.

And it's pretty darn near impossible to buy a car without tinted rear windows these days.

OP, can you not just write a statement of your own? It won't prove anything, but neither does her statement, and you have been shown to have better credibility than her.

Whether the op is claiming or not, I would like to point out that when some moron drives into the side of your car and gives you whiplash it bloody hurts. I had two weeks off work, physio and couldn't look after my son who was 8 months old. It still hurts my back and neck if I lift something heavy. My compensation was well deserved, if the other driver had looked both ways none of it would have happened.

MakeGlutenFreeHay Tue 27-Aug-13 08:45:25

Because trying so hard to prove that the children were there rather than just calmly writing her own version of events to keep on file sort of smacks of more than just wanting to be in the right, annie. That's how it reads to me, anyway.

And personally I'm horrified by not taking injured dcs to the dr after a shunt, especially one that's hit his head and has a sore neck, and another that appears traumatised. So yes, while I feel a lot of sympathy for the op and he family, I do think that was wrong.

Flibbedyjibbet Tue 27-Aug-13 08:45:37

Just trying to think through the DC in car seat thrown forwards and back to hit his head... was he strapped in tightly enough. I would really hate you to go to court and be made to look negligent, you'd feel so terrible.
disclaimer - my hubby tells me off for pulling the straps TOO tight over our 2's shoulders. Poor things, I don't think they could be thrown forwards when I've put them in (they've barely got room to throw up)

Theas18 Tue 27-Aug-13 08:45:42

Op write you own statement. Dispute the truth if you must. Agree re injuries sustained/not sustained and actually seeking help for these before mentioning them during the insurance proscess though..

None has mentioned the biggie to me though- claim /replace car seats! (and get one where your ds can't be "thrown forward" such that he bangs his head in what was really a very minor accident!)

TheYoniWayIsUp Tue 27-Aug-13 08:59:31

People on here can be so sanctimonious! Always looking for a reason to have a pop at someone. The OP has not asked 'AIBU to make a whiplash claim for my uninjured children?' She's on the legal board asking for advice.

OP, I understand your frustration. I'd be hopping mad if someone crashed into me and then lied about it repeatedly. Not sure what you can do though. Did your car have to be towed? Or did anyone else come to your aid who could make a statement?

ExcuseTypos Tue 27-Aug-13 09:12:49

Agrees with you yoni.

I think people just like to pick holes all the time. Very sad really.

Icantstopeatinglol Tue 27-Aug-13 09:15:10

Thanks yoni, no the car was ok to drive. The woman even had the nerve to shove my dh and say 'there's nothing wrong with the cars' £2.5k later.....
I'm more concerned wether I need to replace the dc carseats.

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep Tue 27-Aug-13 09:26:31

Yes, you do need to replace the car seats. The insurance will cover this.

ExcuseTypos Tue 27-Aug-13 09:37:04

Hope you manage to sort it out Ican.

Floggingmolly Tue 27-Aug-13 09:49:40

Your kids were always going to wake up in a car crash, weren't they?? confused. And yet you were so unconcerned you didn't think to have them checked out by a doctor, even though you now want "on record" that one of them hit their head.
If it's compensation you're after hmm, I imagine that fact that you didn't seek medical help would give the lie to your ds's injury being in any way worthy of compensation.

Nerfmother Tue 27-Aug-13 09:49:50

Well equally she needs to prove they weren't. Is this the form that states passengers?
Are you trying to get an accurate record or is it because you have filed a claim on behalf of the dcs? As whiplash can apparently cause problems further on it would seem sensible to have an accurate record filed of who was travelling.

Nerfmother Tue 27-Aug-13 09:51:37

And all the sad faces after the mention of compensation! Being hit in an accident is awful - I am waiting for compensation after a lorry hit me at 70 and pushed the car along the road. I will be using it to pay for cbt to help the stress levels decrease and probably a weekend away after all the anxiety.

MakeGlutenFreeHay Tue 27-Aug-13 09:53:34

I don't think that pointing out that children in a car accident should be seen by a dr is sanctimonious, but if you do, then fair dos, your opinion.

I also hope you sort it out and your dcs are ok, OP. fwiw the woman who hit me also said that there was no damage other than a small dent - the car was subsequently written off by three mechanics (mostly because of exhaust fumes leaking into it and a front dash board that had shifted). Folks get weird ideas when in the wrong.

SoupDragon Tue 27-Aug-13 10:01:52

I'm surprised that you didn't take a child with a head injury and possible whiplash injury to be seen by a doctor.

I don't understand why you need to prove their were children in the car but I would make it clear that you were on a family day out to X place and of course the children were with you and the other driver has been proven to be a liar. Is the place a venue you wouldn't go without children? Do you have photos? I think it's rather irrelevant though.

Yes, you do need to replace the car seats.

FrussoHathor Tue 27-Aug-13 10:06:24

kids were always going to wake up in a car crash, weren't they??
Mine didn't. Had a guy go into the back of my car at about 30 at a dual carrageway roundabout, did some serious damage to my car and wrote off his front end crumpled my dcs didn't wake up.

Still replaced the car seats.

InternationalPower Tue 27-Aug-13 10:06:51

Im sure your experience was awful Nerf and compensation entirely appropriate. The op' is entirely different. No-one even saw a doctor-at the time or later.

The car seats need replacing whether or not there were children in them at the time of the accident and no insurance company would dispute that

theboutiquemummy Tue 27-Aug-13 10:11:01

Can I just say to anyone who thinks children absorbing the impact of a rear shunt car accident is only a sore neck is seriously mis guided children's heads in ratio to their bodies are enormous and the neck ligaments are incredibly fragile any impact is greatly magnified

Just had to say as is the assumption where's there's blame there's a claim n that the OP is out for easy money

I wouldn't respond to her insurance company unless my insurance company directed me to do so if her company contacted you directly I fear they may be trying to circumvent the process n save themselves some money

Call you insurance company you shouldn't have to defend yourself you didn't run up your own arse x

anonnymousey Tue 27-Aug-13 10:15:40

Vicious much! op stick to your guns, insurance companies encourage drivers at fault to lie so that less needs paid out but you simply state the facts and don't be pushed around. She drove into the back of you, she is at fault, end of. fwiw you should have all gotten checked out medically, now you know that if it was ever to happen again, don't take chances. Not sure what all the vitriol on here is about but ignore it and follow the advice of your insurance company (who will not let you claim for uninvestigated medical issues).

duchesse Tue 27-Aug-13 10:39:34

We had a pig of a trouble having the car seats replaced by the insurance company of the guy who just drove straight out in front of us from a side turning. I was travelling with right of way at 30 mph with a queue of traffic behind me (one of those areas where everyone breaks the speed limit...) and was hit from the side at the front of my car (largely because I swerved to avoid the twerp- otherwise I've have run into him head on) It wasn't a risk I was prepared to take in the event we had another crash at a higher speed with already weakened car seats. I was surprised tbh that I had to argue so fiercely for them to replace the car seats- would have thought that would be pretty standard.

JumpingJackSprat Tue 27-Aug-13 12:51:32

Annonymousy you dont have a clue what youre talking about. insurers act on the info they are given they are not allowed to encourage people to lie and it would be found out pretty quickly.

MakeGlutenFreeHay Tue 27-Aug-13 13:21:59

Exactly, theboutiquemummy, which is why a trip to the dr is a must after a shunt. And then consider replacing seats with rear-facing ones....

vj32 Tue 27-Aug-13 13:41:57

My insurers replaced DS's car seat even though we were only in a very very low speed shunt - I was pulling away from a junction, saw a car so put the breaks on but skidded forward.

They only paid out about £100 though as that was the limit on the policy.

Icantstopeatinglol Tue 27-Aug-13 13:42:08

Thanks for all the advice to those who aren't jumping to conclusions with minimal facts. It wasn't a huge bump but enough to need the crash bar replacing and moved the car a whole car length again.
I did go to see a dr and have it on record as 'whiplash' as a few days later I was in alot of pain so was given codeine. I did think about taking the dc to the drs but after a few days they seemed ok and they are ok. I've never been in a bump nor have I ever claimed compensation but this woman drove down a slip road straight into the back of our car (which had been at a standstill for a while) denied damage and is now claiming the kids weren't in the car. Why should we be made out to be liars?! I don't want compensation for the dc as they are fine now but I do want the seats replaced as I'm unsure wether they are safe or not.
I wish I had phones the police in hindsight as she was so shook up we thought she seemed nervous but we were so worried about her driving off my dh just tried to get her details then she drove off like an idiot!

TensionWheelsCoolHeels Tue 27-Aug-13 13:57:05

OP, you need to find out exactly what has been said by the other driver to determine just how certain she can be of what she is saying, and respond to it in your own statement. I'm more concerned right now that you appear to still be using car seats that were in your car when another hit you. You should not be using the car seats you have, and they should form part of your claim through your insurer. Did you report this to your own insurer? You would have been asked, when reporting the claim, how many people were in the car and who was injured. If that was made via the phone, the call should be recorded and that can be referred to as evidence of the information you provided when the claim was reported. If you are still using the car seats you had when your car was hit, that again would undermine any claim you might make in terms of the car seats and/or any injuries your DC might have suffered. I'm not quite sure why your own insurer would not have covered this with you if/when you reported the claim - you need to speak to them about this, and ask them about replacing the car seats. Depending on when this acc happened, any delay in replacing car seats might well prejudice any claim you make, or statement about who was in the car at the time of the acc.

Your own statement should detail what happened in the aftermath, who said what to whom, where everyone was stood, and how clear a view you can say the other driver had of the inside of your car from where you state she stood. You can provide photos of the interior of your car, if she has been asked to describe it, to prove/disprove what she's saying if her description differs from the actual interior.

You also need to check with your solicitor on whether they have intimated any claims on behalf of your DC. It's unusual for occupancy concerns to be raised unless injury claims are received. So, if they are pursuing claims, yet you haven't even replaced the car seats, that will undermine your claim, and strengthen the other drive's claim that you and your DH were the only 2 people in the car.

Gracie990 Tue 27-Aug-13 13:59:18

The police will not attend unless an ambulance has been called. You should have whipped out you phone and filmed it all, including whitness number plates.

Littlemisstax Tue 27-Aug-13 14:04:05

My car was written off by someone driving up the back of me - I had no problems replacing DD's car seat- my insurance company told me to replace it as soon as I had sourced a new vehicle and I could be sure the new seat fitted. Her new seat is different to the old seat - again no issue with it being paid for.

I had whiplash in the crash, DD (then 18 months) bit through her tongue, but was otherwise fine.

specialsubject Wed 28-Aug-13 10:44:41

the car seats have been in an accident and need replacing, end of. Regardless of any injury to anyone.

When I had some idiot drive into my (empty) car, it was one of the first questions asked by the insurance company - even after finding out that no-one was in it, they still wanted to know if there were any child seats in it. (There weren't)

also the person who drives into the back of someone is ALWAYS at fault. Don't quite see why there is all this arguing.

Lonecatwithkitten Wed 28-Aug-13 12:54:36

The car seats need replacing regardless of whether the children were in them or not. I would not get hung up on arguing about whether the children were present or not. Just state that car seats were in car and have to be replaced.
I have extensive experience of other driver lying. You just stick to your account of events.

Tiptops Wed 28-Aug-13 15:48:37

Icantstopeatinglol without medical reports from the time you will not be able to make any claims for personal injury to you or your DC. My sister had an accident a couple of years ago and the other party made claims for personal injury, IIRC they had to provide 2 separate medical reports for each person.

tallulah Wed 28-Aug-13 17:36:30

DH was involved in an accident last year with DD (5) in the car. The other driver went through a red light, and wrote off our car. DH didn't take her to the GP because she said she was OK and he didn't think she'd done any damage, yet she told me months later that she'd banged her head on the window sad

DH didn't claim for the car seat on the insurance as his friend had told him it was a faff hmm.

DD started waking up screaming immediately after the accident, several times a night. That morphed into also refusing to go to bed. We didn't connect the behaviour to the accident at all and got more and more frustrated by it. Then the insurance company asked if she'd been affected and told us that if we didn't claim for her "injuries" she could sue us when she was an adult shock. I don't know how true that is.

But they told us we could claim for counselling/ psychiatric treatment for DD, rather than money. They sent us to a GP and a private psychologist who agreed that what she was suffering was classic behaviour following an accident.

It has taken 9 months of endless phone calls and form filling and they have just got back to us this week to say they've agreed to a pay out (not what we were expecting at all) for DD, but we have to go to court. It will be held in trust for her. They will also pay for her replacement car seat.

This has turned into an epic but I wanted to counter everyone saying that because you didn't take your DC to the GP you won't be able to claim. I will also say that ordinarily I loathe this compensation culture and certainly would not be claiming for a non-existent complaint but she really was traumatised for months by what had happened. (But had they told us from the off she would get cash we wouldn't have claimed - we were led to believe we'd get private medical treatment).

Rooners Wed 28-Aug-13 17:41:53

I'm sorry, I can't get past the fact you sought treatment for yourself but not for your children in what sounds like a fairly serious collision.

I can't even begin to answer your question in the light of that. I mean FFS.

Rooners Wed 28-Aug-13 17:42:41

And you didn't call the police! How fast was she going?

Floggingmolly Wed 28-Aug-13 17:50:01

If she'd realised she needed a medical report to claim compensation, she might have done, Rooners. There's no other conclusion to be drawn from this.

It sounds to me as if the other woman is trying to 'prove' that only the OP and her dh were in the car, in an attempt to minimise any subsequent claims for injury to passengers in the car - ie. it is cheaper to pay compensation for 2 people with whiplash/other injuries than for 4 people.

This is dishonest, and if I were the OP, this would make me angry too. Why should she get away with lying?

It is too late for the OP, but the advice given on this thread, to film both cars, the passengers and the circumstances, seems good to me. We took pictures of the accident where a car towing an overloaded, unbraked trailer rear ended the car behind us in a traffic queue, shunting it into our car and causing a fair amount of damage. These pictures helped, when it came to making the claim.

TensionWheelsCoolHeels Wed 28-Aug-13 18:47:55

It sounds to me as if the other woman is trying to 'prove' that only the OP and her dh were in the car, in an attempt to minimise any subsequent claims for injury to passengers in the car - ie. it is cheaper to pay compensation for 2 people with whiplash/other injuries than for 4 people

Thats not strictly true. It makes no difference to individual premiums affected by the claim if one injury claim is paid or 20. Has the same effect at renewal either way. Many times people only recollect seeing 1 or 2 people, haven't had a good look inside the other car, and jump to the wrong conclusion when more injury claims roll in that they thought there could be. Just as the OP is getting worked about about being called a liar, the other driver could be equally as worked up at the thought of false injury claims being made when she is convinced there were only 2 people in the car. That's why it's important to see what she actually said, as opposed to coming to the wrong conclusion about what has been suggested by someone at an insurance company giving information out second hand. Read the statement first, then see if she's saying there was definitely only 2 people because she stuck her head inside the car, the interior looked like this blah blah when the OP could know if that's a lie or not.

Icantstopeatinglol Wed 28-Aug-13 20:59:17

Thanks for the responses, I think my issues are the fact that our insurance company and solicitors haven't really given us suitable advice after the accident. Plus the fact this woman has given misleading information. We received her statement and it is outright lies. She states that we said we were fine when I told her then and there my neck was sore. She also stated that she suggested we called the police when she certainly did not, she was trying to avoid even involving the insurance companies. We were just happy the next day when her insurance company called as we thought she was pulling a fast one!
To all those who think I put myself before my dc please do one cos that is absolutely ridiculous! Obviously in hindsight I wish I had got them checked over but they are fine. I went myself as I have health issues myself which could be made worse by the accident.
Our insurance company advised they don't replace car seats and that was that, no advice really.
Strangely enough I'm not an accident expert and I didn't think police needed to be called to a minor accident nor did I think whiplash needed looking at as I'm not interested in claiming unless I need to so this didn't enter my mind.
Thanks for the practical advice though I'll have a think and try and decide what to do.

TensionWheelsCoolHeels Wed 28-Aug-13 22:18:33

Icant, if your own insurer didn't provide cover to replace car seats, then it falls under your uninsured loss claim, which basically is anything/everything your insurer doesn't pay for. You really need to replace the car seats, keep the receipts and add it to your claim. It doesn't matter if she says you said at the scene you were ok - you have it in your medical records that you attended hospital and that record will confirm the diagnosis. Whiplash can come on rapidly or take a few days to really kick in, so even if you were fine at the scene you could still develop symptoms after 12/24/36 hrs. You really only need to point out that your rear window is tinted, and describe in detail where she stood, what discussions took place from your POV to respond to what she's saying and any competent claims handler should be able to determine from that info that there is enough evidence to support what you have said.

If you want any more specific advice, PM me. But please, get new car seats!

LolaCrayola Thu 29-Aug-13 07:30:01

You say her information given to the insurance company was misleading, but you say your neck was sore but you didn't even call for medical assistance? Therefore, her stating you were ok at the scene is not misleading is it? You could have seeked medical attention, you chose not to, so to the outside world you appeared ok.

ilovebabytv Thu 29-Aug-13 07:46:40

What a load of sanctimonious bitter vipers on this thread. OP if you got whiplash then your children probably got whiplash too. TBH there is nothing a gp can do, other than tell you to dose them up on calpol. And your quite entitled to claim compensation, as are your children. This is legal. Everyone moaning that this puts their insurance up???? STFU. All claims put insurance up. The only claims that people should be getting worked up about is fraudulent claims. This is not a fraudulent claim.

I answer to your question just tell the truth. If your children were in the car, then they were in the car. The other driver not seeing them doesnt make it so.

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 07:59:56

Lola, if you read properly I did seek medical attention!?

Feelslikea1sttimer Thu 29-Aug-13 08:01:01

I haven't read all the replies but when we had an accident when the children were sleeping toddlers, I did take them to seek medical advice and was told that babies and toddlers cannot suffer whiplash as it is caused by tensing your neck when you feel the impact or see the other car coming and the fact that small children cannot anticipate what is happening they don't tense up! (I didn't seek advice so I could get compo, it was to make sure my children were not in pain!) x

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 08:06:59

Thank you Ilovebaby, I know it wasn't a serious accident but we were hurt but not seriously. You're constantly told how the police and nhs are over stretched so I didn't see the point in going or calling the police when I knew they would just say calpol etc. I've paid insurance for over 20 yrs and never claimed once. Some idiot drove into us and were claiming on her insurance for damages, if this upsets people then get over it.

Sirzy Thu 29-Aug-13 08:08:40

This is not a fraudulent claim

actually if she was wanting to claim for non existant injuries then it would be a fradulent claim.

A child correctly restrained in a car seat certainly shouldn't get whiplash anyway. But if they didn't need to be checked out afterwards then they were lucky and therefore there is no need for a claim for injuries.

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 08:09:51

Thanks feellikea, I was torn on taking them and they seem fine now so I'm sure I did the right thing but to put my mind at rest I wish I'd taken them but I can't change things now unfortunately.

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 08:12:26

So sirzy are you saying childrens carseats prevent any whiplash?? I think you're wrong otherwise no children would be hurt in accidents! Car seats are to restrain children and to prevent serious injury, they can't prevent the childs head being thrown backwards then forwards at speed therefore causing potential whiplash!

LolaCrayola Thu 29-Aug-13 08:14:20

I'm guessing she stated you were alright AT THE SCENE because you refused medical attention AT THE SCENE. She can't base her statement on what you did after the accident can she? Because she can only go on what she saw. You didn't request medics at the scene, and you didn't take your babies to get checked out after a car crash. So I think that shows you were not hurt.

Sirzy Thu 29-Aug-13 08:14:52

At a low impact crash like you are described it certainly should prevent that happening to the extent a child is injured!

Sirzy Thu 29-Aug-13 08:15:11

and also surely you got the children out of the car after the accident?

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 08:21:13

No I told her at the scene my neck was sore but obviously she'd just drove into us so that wasn't a surprise. I certainly didn't want an ambulance called for a sore neck!? However a few days later it was alot more painful which is why I then saw a dr. If everyone called an ambulance for whiplash I think you'll find alot more people who have serious problems would die!!? I'm not going to feel bad about not calling an ambulance when a child could be having a serious asthma attack or someone could be having a heart attack who needs them alot more than I would. That is ridiculous!!

Dackyduddles Thu 29-Aug-13 08:23:24

Have you all noticed that you are posting on Legal not aibu?

If you can't actually help answer the question what is the point in posting?

Op you don't prove anything. You just write your statement. It differs from hers. Par for the course. It's all he said she said in a crash. Just tell yours as much as possible.

LolaCrayola Thu 29-Aug-13 08:28:06

I am not suggesting you should call an ambulance for a sore neck. I am merely stating that you appeared OK at the scene. Which is all she was stating.

Terrorvision Thu 29-Aug-13 08:39:17

Oh FFS, when you are in a car that is in a collision you tend not to think straight. I can easily imagine not rushing apparently fine DC to the doctor immediately. When I was hit by another driver I didn't go to the doctor or take Dd or realise I had to call the police or take photos or look fior witnesses.

Pity, because the woman who admitted rushing and said she would pay for repairs so she didn't have to claim on insurance proceeded to lie her arse off to my insurance company. And no, the fact she hit me in the rear did mean she was automatically at fault.

And then she went quiet and refused to respond when I gave a great deal of detailed evidence about the incident - but I was still held partially liable despite her refusing to engage and clearly being a liar. But actually my insurer didn't care and were more than happy to settle the case and put my premiums up. I has to fight tooth and nail - bit I went through the stress as a matter of principle.

News flash: RTAs are not black and white and people are lying bastards. I hope all you judgy mumsnetters are lucky enough to live on in Ignorance of that

Rooners Thu 29-Aug-13 08:45:14

I don't mean to criticise arbitrarily. I just fail to understand how a crash that causes 2 and a half grand's worth of damage to two cars cannot be cause for getting the occupants of the car examined asap.

It makes no sense to me.

I've had incidents with a tree causing about a hundred quid worth of dent. We were travelling at approx 2mph, reversing out of a parking space many years ago. Obviously no one was hurt.

Being hit on a slip road at potentially 40-50mph? from behind by another car, while stationary, causing 2 grand of damage - I would get everyone checked out because it's what you do, never mind the fact your car was seriously damaged which would tend to indicate some level of damage to the occupants.

It sounds so crazy.

Pozzled Thu 29-Aug-13 08:46:21

Can I just highlight for the benefit of anyone reading that car seats should always be replaced after an accident OP, please get them replaced straight away, don't wait for the insurance. It sends a chi

Rooners Thu 29-Aug-13 08:47:29

ESPECIALLY children. You may have an existing medical condition but children are the most vulnerable in an accident by far. There could have been unseen injuries, delayed effects.

Is it not just common sense - also is it not obligatory to inform the police of a RTA? Sorry if I have missed this.

lljkk Thu 29-Aug-13 08:48:11

If carseats were in the car at the time of accident then they need replacing regardless of whether children were strapped in. So if the seats are normally in the car, you should be covered for replacement costs.

OP isn't claiming for injuries to the kids just cost of seats.

I'm not sure how being strapped correctly in would prevent whiplash, since heads can still bend forward when strapped in, no way to absolutely prevent being thrown back forcefully.

I think you've had a very unfair time on here, OP. Whiplash is a hidden injury that takes a while to manifest (I get serial whiplash) and I would never have taken DC to doctor to verify "no obvious harm", either. Whiplash is difficult to accurately objectively diagnose, too.

Sorry the bad news is that whiplash is a ligament injury, and like any ligament injury incurred when young, there's a high risk of it recurring easily thru rest of life. Hopefully they'll be like me and get used to managing it.

Pozzled Thu 29-Aug-13 08:48:49

Sorry, it sends a chill down my spine thinking that you've been driving around for months with car seats that wouldn't offer full protection if you were in another accident.

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 08:49:21

Thank you terrorvision, I have never been in an accident before and we didn't know what the procedure was. We knew noone was seriously injured and phoned our insurance company as soon as we got back but apart from that we were t really sure. It was only a few days later the pain really started and a few months down the line I'm still suffering so don't appreciate others making me out to be claiming fraudulently. We were hit at a junction, we were all hurt to some degree therefore I'm not claiming fraudulently. If she hadnt been in such a hurry and took some notice of the cars in the road I wouldn't be writing this now.

LEMisdisappointed Thu 29-Aug-13 08:49:42

Your ds hit his head. Not once but twice and you didn't take him to the doctors?? Unbelievable!

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 08:51:26

Rooners, who said 40-50mph?? Have you just plucked that number out of thin air? I think the main reason it cost so much is because she had a flash car.

Sirzy Thu 29-Aug-13 08:51:34

My thoughts exacrtly LEM!

And I can't believe that people still don't realise that car seats need replacing immediately, not months down the line. That is quite worrying when you think of how important car seats are in protecting children in an accident.

Sirzy Thu 29-Aug-13 08:52:08

Why would the type of car she had impact upon the damage to your car? confused

Rooners Thu 29-Aug-13 08:53:35

Look OP you made some mistakes at the time through ignorance.

I don't think you are necessarily trying it on. I would want the facts to be correct too.

And yes it was the woman's fault.

But when it comes down to it, it was very stupid not to get the children checked out immediately, and not to inform the police of the accident, and not to replace the seats.

and in the light of this, well there is really no way you can prove anything, though the point is more that your children have been put at risk first of all by the accident but secondly by your failing to have them seen by a Dr (head impact in an accident? Seriously? Did you not think this was a red flag?) andthen by your driving them about in seats that have survived an impact from another vehicle and could have unseen damage.

I despair that you can't see it's your own fault you've got no leg to stand on here.

Rooners Thu 29-Aug-13 08:54:44

Yes, I plucked it because that is the usual speed someone coming off a dual carriageway onto a slip road will be doing - well it's about the lowest tbh ime.

And because you refused to answer when I asked about her speed.

Rooners Thu 29-Aug-13 08:58:33

By the way isn't it illegal to park on a slip road? What on earth were you doing there?

OhDearNigel Thu 29-Aug-13 08:59:19


I won't lecture on legal reporting requirements in the event of an injury RTC. But you must report to the police within 24 hours of the RTC occurring. In fact, it's always safest to report an RTC, injury or no injury.

I haven't read the thread in great detail - if you are trying to prove that there were children in the car, did your RTC occur in a car park or a junction where there might be CCTV ? You could approach the police or council if it's on public land or the business if you were in a car park. The other way to prove that there were children in the car would be if you had any independent witnesses.

Pozzled Thu 29-Aug-13 09:00:15

Thinking about this more, I'm really struggling to see how it wasn't entirely obvious that your DCs were in the car, even with tinted windows. One of them hit their head, the other woke up- so they must have been crying, you or your DP would have gone to them immediately and was presumably inside the car, comforting them for a while, making sure they were ok- even if you didn't get them out of their car seats.

Dealing with an accident takes time- talking, exchanging details. With young children, you'd surely have had to keep talking to them/reassuring them?

If it all happened as you say, it doesn't seem even remotely possible that she didn't know- so her lie would be utterly ridiculous.

Rooners Thu 29-Aug-13 09:02:28

244: You MUST NOT stop on the carriageway, hard shoulder, slip road, central reservation or verge except in an emergency, or when told to do so by the police, an emergency sign or by flashing red light signals.

OhDearNigel Thu 29-Aug-13 09:02:33

Why would the type of car she had impact upon the damage to your car

Someone in a massive Range Rover is going to do a lot more damage rear-ending you than someone in a Daihatsu Sirion. Surely you can see that ?

Rooners Thu 29-Aug-13 09:04:09

Yes Nigel and likewise to the occupants, making it a moot point.

If you suspect the woman was on the phone at the time of the collision, her phone provider should have call records, surely?
Also, was there CCTV in the car park of the place you visited? That would show you getting DCs out of the damaged car on the date of the accident.

Rooners Thu 29-Aug-13 09:06:09

What the OP is saying is that the repair cost was high as it's a high end automobile. Not because the damage was significant.

I can see that's plausible.

But still - she took out the rear crash bar according to the OP, which in itself would be enough for me to think,

'shit the car is pretty fucked. There will be possible damage to the children'.

OP herself furthermore had a delayed response but still didn't think it vital to get the kids checked out.

Sirzy Thu 29-Aug-13 09:06:45

but she said it was because of a flash car not a big car.

There are just so many strange parts to this story. Just doesn't make sense!

Rooners Thu 29-Aug-13 09:07:54

If the police had been informed you'd have a record of the times involved, they could have investigated fault, they would have checked her phone records.

This iswhy it's daft not to inform them. They deal with this stuff every day and know the ropes. What possible reason not to tell them? I don't get it - unless the OP was actually parked illegally, but I'm not sure if she was as she is a bit short on detail.

LEMisdisappointed Thu 29-Aug-13 09:08:08

Try injury lawyers 4u im sure they'll bag you some compo

She said it was 2.5k damage "between the two cars", I'm assuming that means both claims added together.

LEMisdisappointed Thu 29-Aug-13 09:09:03

How did your ds hit his head?

Rooners Thu 29-Aug-13 09:09:42

I'm not convinced she is in it for compensation - that assumption tends to be leapt to a lot on here. I've been accused of it myself when it was furthest from my mind.

But still.

ivykaty44 Thu 29-Aug-13 09:13:15

you can't make money out of children getting hurt in an accident.

if children are hurt in a whiplash scenario then the insurance company will sort out a barrister and the parent will go with the child to court and the judge will decide how much the payment is to be, then the money will be locked up in a court account until the child is 18 years old and then the money will be paid out to the now adult and the interest is added.

I will say the court pays good interest so the money will grow over the years.

larrygrylls Thu 29-Aug-13 09:14:23


40-50mph?! That would not push a car one car length, but about 10. I would guess the impact, from the OP's description, at 15-20 MPH.

If the children were securely strapped in and not complaining about significant symptoms, what kind of "checking out" do you think would be necessary?


What are you actually after here? In terms of moral vindication, if you know that your children are in the car, then you know it, does not matter what some stranger claims. In terms of compensation, you just have to go down the normal route; tell your lawyer and insurers what happened and allow them to tell you the next steps.

OhDearNigel Thu 29-Aug-13 09:14:28

Rooners - from what the OP wrote "this woman drove down a slip road straight into the back of our car (which had been at a standstill for a while)" it appears to me that she was stationery in a queue of traffic waiting to join another road. Driver 2 was going too fast and failed to anticipate the queue, therefore shunting the OP when she was unable to stop in time.

BoozyBear Thu 29-Aug-13 09:16:05

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Sirzy Thu 29-Aug-13 09:17:37

I'm not convinced she is in it for compensation - that assumption tends to be leapt to a lot on here.

I agree with you in this case. But at the same time I can fully understand why that assumption is leapt to.

I was a rear seat passenger in a car that was stationary at lights when a bus didn't notice and hit at around 30mph. I was taken to hospital from the scene as I had injured my neck and arm, when in A and E my mum was asked by the doctor "do you not want checking to for the insurance claim" to which her answer was simply "no, I'm not injured"

At the scene my dad had gone onto the bus to make sure everyone was ok. Thankfully everyone fine, one mum took a baby to hospital just to get checked over. only about 6 people on the bus at the time, lots stood at the bus stop waiting to get on.

In the next 6 months we had about 8 letters from people wanting us to confirm they were on the bus for their insurance claims confused other than the child we were unable to confirm anyone was on the bus!

Rooners Thu 29-Aug-13 09:19:50

Thanks Larry - yes you might be right. I was finding it very difficult to picture what had actually happened, I think most of us are tbh.

If the OP could clarify a few details it would help.

Rooners Thu 29-Aug-13 09:20:27

Any one of these scenarios is possible. We just don't know.

RobotHamster Thu 29-Aug-13 09:27:25

I don't understand this thread. Stop worrying about what the other woman has said and worry about replacing your kids car seats instead. They absolutely do need replacing.

littlemisswise Thu 29-Aug-13 09:28:32

I agree with Pozzled. Surely the first thing you do when you are involved in a RTC, when your DC are in the car is tend to them. How could the woman not know they were there? I honestly don't understand it unless they didn't cry and didn't need either you or your DH to calm them down and reassure them, which in my mind would be unusual.

LEMisdisappointed Thu 29-Aug-13 09:29:12

So the op is saying that 1. Her children were injured in the accident and that is why it is pertinent to the claim. 2. The injuries didn't warrant getting checked out despite a "head injury" when asked if her kids were taken to hospital. So I am very confused as to what the op is saying so I am sorry if im wrong but I read this as the op trying to milk the situation. If the kids weren't injured then what does it matter if they were in the car. If they were why thd fuck was that not the ops prioritY AT THE TIME!!!!

KatyDidItAgain Thu 29-Aug-13 09:39:02

If your DCs didn't need medical attention then you won't get very far. However, the car seats should be paid for - I had a very slight shunt when somebody hit me from behind and their insurance company paid for new car seats without question. The other driver tried to get out of it by saying that I hadn't hit the car in front but my insurance company just wrote letter along the lines 'all that proves is that, unlike you, our customer was not driving too close to the car in front' grin

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 09:50:02

Jesus, some of you need to chill out. I'm just after some advice, I don't particularly care how you feel about the accident.
We were waiting at a roundabout as a car was travelling around the roundabout when the said idiot drove into us. It wasn't a huge accident like I said earlier and my symptoms got worse over a few days. The 'idiot' was so shook up she could hardly write and we were VERY concerned she was going to drive off so were quickly trying to get her details. We pulled over on the road which is why I didn't get the kids out. The damage didn't look too bad but obviously it's whats happened under the bumper that matters. The kids were shocked but ok and in hindsight I wish I had got them checked out but I thought dashing down to the drs after a minor accident when they seemed ok (yea ds did bang his head on his carseat but he was ok) looked more like me trying to get it on record for a compensation claim when this is not what it has been about.
Dh is going to phone our solicitors today for more advice and I'm going to look into new car seats.
Thank you for those being helpful and those judging need to look at themselves and wonder why they're getting so wound up over someone they don't know asking advice from others.

headinhands Thu 29-Aug-13 09:56:20

Maybe the other driver genuinely doesn't remember the kids, our memories are not great at the best of times but at times of stress they're even worse. As someone else pointed out the insurance will do all they can to not pay/pay as little as possible and it will be them driving the actions of the other driver ie the recent statement saying there were no kids. Difficult but try not to tale it as personally, it's all about the company. Just submit your own statement as its equally valid.

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 10:00:42

I think you're right headinhands, she was shook up but now we've received a 'statement of truth' from her insurance company saying she's saying there was def no kids in the car. I shouldn't take it personally but I am angry that they're believing someone who can drive down a very long slip road into a stationary car then tell her insurance company there was no damage at all which has now been proven and yet they accept this 'statement of truth'? I know it's to get out of paying but nonetheless very annoying.

LEMisdisappointed Thu 29-Aug-13 10:02:49

Im not gettting worked up at all - just saying what i think, which is that a) you should have got your kids checked out and i am stunned that you didn't. I actually know of somoene who lost their little boy in an accident, he was actually checked out and given the all clear but died in the night from a bleed on the brain sad and b) the more likely scenario imo - you think that if you emphasise your children's injuries then you will get some sort of pay out.

As for your neck injury, i do appreciate that wouldn't show at the time as inflammation and bruising would take a few hours or possibly a couple of days.

I think you are over complicating what should be a simply claim. She hit you up the arse, she was at fault and her insurance company should pay out for whatever damage was done to your car, and replace the car seats (which you really should have done already).

LEMisdisappointed Thu 29-Aug-13 10:05:48

Actually, you should have probably got yourself checked out at the time too

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 10:07:27

Lem, yea looking back as I've said I should have got them checked out but thankfully they seem ok. Hopefully it won't happen again but I'll know what to do if it does. I didn't want to waste the police or drs time when we all weren't seriously hurt. I'm mostly annoyed at her lies but not surprised as at the time all she was bothered about was how it would affect her insurance.

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 10:08:03

Lem, I got checked out a few days later and given codeine for the pain.

lagoonhaze Thu 29-Aug-13 10:12:55

Please look at for info on car seats. The problems your dcs are having dont surprise me sadly. Maybe look for a cranial oestopath too.

LEMisdisappointed Thu 29-Aug-13 10:15:07

if you had a whiplash injury though OP, then you actually should make a claim for that! my mum did this, this was before the age of and she got about 1k and i don't see why you shouldn't do the same.

LittleBearPad Thu 29-Aug-13 10:15:57

Try not to take it personally.

If she was as shaken up as you say and the children were in the back she may not have remembered or noticed them.

Simply explain your version of events to your insurer and if need be provide your own statement.

Get the car seats replaced ASAP and add the cost to your insurance claim. Regardless of whether your children were in them they would need to be replaced so proving the kids were present is irrelevant to claiming for new seats.

Good luck and try to ignore the AIBUers above.

larrygrylls Thu 29-Aug-13 10:16:21


I think that people are piling in with aggressive and unnecessary ex post facto advice. If my child had had a slight banged head on their car seat, I would not waste an A&E department's time if there were no further symptoms.

On the other hand, I think posters are getting frustrated in trying to understand what you really want from them. Do you really care what someone who banged into your car is saying or thinking? You are never going to see them again. Clearly, their insurance company are trying to minimise their cost so are hardly going to argue with their own client's version of the truth. As I said above, just give your version to your solicitor and insurance company and let them proceed with the claim. I guess what you want is to replace the seats. In that case, it is hardly relevant whether the children were in the car, merely the seats. And, most people wouldn't take their car seats out unless someone else without car seats was driving their children. So, I suspect you would be believed on that basis.

headinhands Thu 29-Aug-13 10:25:15

I doubt that the insurance company are sitting about thinking you're lying, they're just going through the motions they always do to try and lower the pay out and in turn you'll go through the motions to counter it. It's like a dance and it's not about your character or hers, it's big business doing what they do.

Rooners Thu 29-Aug-13 10:26:42

Yes I really don't care about your motives OP - it's what Larry said, I don't know what you are actually asking.

As someone has just said, it doesn't matter if the children were in the car as the seats would still need to be replaced (as long as the seats were in the car).

I don't think you can prove it either way though. This is exactly why getting the correct procedure rolling in the first place is so important. I know it is too late for you but for anyone else reading, they will know know that it's quite important to photograph the scene, inform the police asap, and get checked out for any injury, including your children and especially if they have any sort of head injury.

Anyway I am sorry for what you have been through and I understand your frustration. I hope you can get it resolved.

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 10:36:55

Thanks all, I've told dh to speak to the insurance company about replacing the carseats and looking into it today. I think I am just frustrated at the fact we had a lovely day then some idiot drove into us and has lied in her statement. Not just about the kids but she also said she told us to ring the police...she didn't, and there was no damage at all...there was. But those who are saying it doesn't matter are right, I just get annoyed thinking were being made out to be liars. Hey ho though, it could have been alot worse if we had crashed into the car that was going round the roundabout at the time! I don't even know where that car went we got such a shock.

Rooners Thu 29-Aug-13 10:41:25

Good luck and I am really sorry if I came across as aggressive or anything. I was putting the boot in and it wasn't necessary.

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 10:46:26

That's ok rooners, I know I wasn't very clear. Think I've taken it to heart being called a liar. I know I'm telling the truth so if the other driver is happy to lie so be it. My dc are safe and fine which is the main thing in all of this.
My neck however is another issue as I already have joint problems so just hope it hasn't caused further damage but time will tell.

Sirzy Thu 29-Aug-13 10:59:50

Unfortunately though if she didnt see the children then the truth to her is that they weren't there!

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 11:03:20

Yea I understand that too but she's already been proven to have lied and we haven't therefore surely what we say should be listened to and not her but I'm past caring now to be honest. I'm going to claim for the carseats regardless.

Sirzy Thu 29-Aug-13 11:06:51

Claiming for car seats it doesn't matter if the children were in the car or not. If car seats were in the car they need replacing straight away so I don't see why insurance havent done that as standard.

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 11:18:53

We did tell our insurance company sirzy but they just said they don't do that so we didn't think anymore on it. Dh is going to ask again today though so hopefully we'll get sorted. Dd needs to move up car seats soon though so will replace them regardless of wether they pay for them or not.

KatyDidItAgain Thu 29-Aug-13 11:31:34

Icant show your insurance company this

there is a .pdf of a letter that you send to them.

TensionWheelsCoolHeels Thu 29-Aug-13 11:35:19

Icant you might want to look into the sort of cover you have, and look around for another co that covers car seats as standard. You'll be using car seats for a number of years to come, and its probably an important element of cover for your family. At the very least, even if your insurer didn't actually include that type of cover on your policy, they should have advised you that the seats should be replaced.

Just so you know, if someone else raises the question of occupancy in another car, it's them that needs to prove the number of people in the car, not the other way around. What you will have in your favour is what you told your insurer when you reported the acc. You have a tinted rear window. You can comment on how the other woman appeared in shock etc. and you can also describe where she stood, who she spoke to, and if she was close enough to get a clear look inside your car. If she has made no comment on your interior, you can point that out too. You do have a lot in your favour to dispute what she's said, and I'm sure her insurer will then take the view that its not worth the expense of risking litigation to argue over the cost of car seats, and pay up. In order to prove someone who is claiming for injury wasn't actually in the car, you need cast iron evidence to take that forward. From everything you have posted, I don't think there is strong enough evidence for her insurer to maintain their stance here. Just giving them your own 'statement of truth' should be enough to get you the end result - the cost of replacing the car seats.

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 11:43:26

Thanks tensionwheels and Katy, I'm annoyed that our insurance company didn't tell us to replace the carseats and they do look fine but obviously that doesn't mean anything. I did look into it at the time but it was hard to tell what was the right thing to do and as our insurance co didn't seem concerned I didn't think it was a problem. I will be sorting it out today though, my kids are my world.

larrygrylls Thu 29-Aug-13 11:59:28


Where does a lawyer come into this? Are you making a personal injury claim for yourself? If so, surely the lawyer has encouraged you to claim for the children, too?

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 12:08:07

Larry, were claiming for me and my dh and the solicitors advised if we didn't claim for the dc we couldn't go back so we claimed but were thinking of withdrawing their claim as they're actually ok but were going to claim for their carseats.

TensionWheelsCoolHeels Thu 29-Aug-13 12:17:54

Icant that's probably the sensible option, the car seats will just form part of your claim and any argument over whether your DC were in the car or sufficiently injured to warrant claims can be sidestepped altogether. It just clears the way for your other 2 claims to be dealt with more pro-actively/in a straight forward manor.

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 12:37:26

Yea dh is onto it today and I'm online looking at suitable replacements now. Thanks for your help.

ilovebabytv Thu 29-Aug-13 13:43:06

me and ds (1) was in my stationary car when i was rear ended. Absolutely the other persons fault, and we claimed through their insurance. At time i got a bit of headache and it wasn't until later that I felt the pain of whiplash. I made an appointment with my gp and had my ds with me (but appt not for him). GP asked about ds though and he had been acting pretty much as how you describe your dc. GP told me that ds was also suffering from whiplash but there is not much to do other than calpol. I had to put claim in for car seat from other insurers. Are you claiming off other persons insurers, as youve not made it clear. If other person is at fault you should not be claiming off your insurance at all. We were awarded £500 for ds whiplash and £200 for his car seat. People saying that children cant get whiplash if in a car seat are speaking shite imo.

Sorry not what your asking but just sayin!

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 13:52:22

Thanks Ilovebaby, yea we are claiming of the other persons insurance co but when we reported it through our insurance they just kind of dismissed it so we didn't think we needed to. I am going to now though.

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 13:53:34

replace the carseats that is

RobotHamster Thu 29-Aug-13 14:17:11

Sorry for stating the obvious, but make sure you keep the receipts for the carseats.

zipzap Thu 29-Aug-13 14:31:21

You say you were all on a lovely day out.

Do you have any photos or other evidence (receipt from 4 ice creams or credit card receipt for entry or lunch etc) from the day out that you were all together on the day out?

Because then, if you were there and you were on the way home, where else could the children be... They are hardly going to be making their own way home at that age!

zipzap Thu 29-Aug-13 14:44:28

With regard the car seats and them not being changed earlier, I would make sure that you get it down in writing somewhere that you asked about car seats early On when making the claim but were told that they wouldn't replace them (sorry on phone so not trawling back for exact details) and that the implication was they would be fine to carry on using, you certainly weren't advised that regardless of whether or not they paid for car seats to be replaced, that they should always be replaced after any accident. And that now you have learnt that this is the case you are horrified that the incorrect advice you were given (particularly as it was at a time soon after the accident when you were still in shock and pain and not in robust health to be challenging what they said, you assumed that they would be on your side and providing correct advice) has meant you have been driving around with unsafe car seats for your kids.

Hopefully if you have a solicitor they will word it better but if some people up thread have said that you are likely to be penalised for not changing the car seats ASAP, then if the reason you didn't is because of what the insurance company did or didn't tell you at a time when you were vulnerable then that needs to be taken into account too.

MistyB Thu 29-Aug-13 14:53:42

I am sorry you have had such a drubbing on here.

Just write your statement of truth as you see it. The insurance companies will have to work it out. Regardless of what you say and what she says, she is at fault due to the indisputable fact that she ran into you.

Claims aside, I would take your children to see an osteopath to work out any stresses as a result of the accident. This might help with sleeping.

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 15:57:17

Thanks mistyb, I'm tempted to take the kids to make sure they're ok just to put my mind at rest. They do seem ok now but I'll see how they go.
I'm tough skinned though so the judgey comments don't bother me to be honest. I've got more important things to worry about than people I don't know having a go for no reason. I don't give them a second thought smile
I do appreciate the advice from everyone though.

Icantstopeatinglol Thu 29-Aug-13 16:01:07

Zipzap, I do have receipts but as you don't pay for under 5s and I was on a corporate pass the dc aren't showing on the receipt! Typical! I did see a co-worker at the theme park we visited and he wrote a statement saying he saw us and the dc which we included in our statement of events but they seem to have ignored this?

Terrorvision Fri 30-Aug-13 09:47:32

ican't just want to say: I totally get how upsetting it is for insurance companies to give credence and apparent equal weight to a liar, when you have acted honestly and in good faith. And like you I would do things differently if ever in a clod soon again (h

Terrorvision Fri 30-Aug-13 09:50:17

Sorry, iPhone.. Hope not to be in a collision again but if I was would know so much more about what to do but totally understand that it is not clear or obvious when you are standing shaking on a roadside

lborolass Fri 30-Aug-13 10:47:16

I'm late to this thead and it seems to be a but heated but I can't help wondering if you're overthinking this OP.

The other person has given their recollection of the accident, you should give yours and then let the insurance companies decide what to do surely.

You can't prove your children were in the car, she can't prove they weren't and this type of disagreement must happen day in day out at the insurance companies. They will know what to do, I'd stop worrying and just tell them the truth. You do seem to be taking it very much to heart, it's annoying but not personal imo.

peggyundercrackers Fri 30-Aug-13 10:54:30

ican why are you dealing with your insurance company? its absolutely nothing to do with them. someone run into you therefor they are liable for everything.

i have had 2 people run into me in the last year and the first time it happened i called my insurance company and they said they can deal with it or i can deal with it - i decided to deal with it on my own and never had any trouble with the other insurance company at all. unfortunately someone run into side of my car whilst i was shopping at the beginning of the week and im not not going to my insurance company this time as its nothing to do with them. the other company called yesterday and they have arranged for the car to go in and a hire car to be delivered - all at their expense.

If i needed legal advice i would use the cover from my house insurance to help me fight the case.

My insurance company did say if i involved them then it would affect my premium hence the reason I decided to deal with it myself.

Icantstopeatinglol Fri 30-Aug-13 11:12:03

Iborolass, I think you're right. I feel a bit better today and I'm just going to see what happens as I know I'm telling the truth so it's upto the insurance co to sort it out.

Icantstopeatinglol Fri 30-Aug-13 11:14:55

Peggy, the discussion with our insurance company was just when we reported the accident. Since then we've been dealing with solicitors but they're not very helpful to be honest. They just seem to be trying to hurry the process through without advising us properly. I'm sure it will all get sorted though.

bemybebe Fri 30-Aug-13 13:26:54

I could not see the whole thread and don't know if it was mentioned but maybe the park security can see make a copy of a cctv photo?

Icantstopeatinglol Fri 30-Aug-13 14:12:28

Yea I had considered that bemybebe but I'll see how we get on first. Hopefully it won't come to that.

zipzap Fri 30-Aug-13 14:35:18

Peggyundercrackers you might find it affects your insurance claims anyway sadangry

Somebody drove into dh in a car park (he couldn't turn his head so used to check it was clear before getting into the car and hope it was still the case when he reversed out of his space shock). He admitted full liability and although we told our insurers, his insurers dealt with all of it. However our premiums went up, despite us being completely not at fault. Apparently it's because having been involved in an accident we are now at higher risk of being in another one. And that we still get the same no-claims discount as before (ie the same percentage) but as we are now higher risk, the base price before the discount is applied is higher to reflect this risk.

I discovered this because when I was getting quotes the year after it happened I didn't mention it to my insurers and they came back and said you had a claim, I said I didn't, thinking they meant we had claimed on our own insurance, we were at no fault and all other person's fault and insurance, at which point they said the above. I genuinely wasn't trying to diddle them, it hadn't occurred to me that this situation would be counted as a strike against us as well as the bloke that actually caused the accident, plus the wording wasn't very clear given the circumstances. They also pointed out that should we have needed to claim on our insurance later on, they would have been able to turn down our claim on the basis of not having told them everything for them to give us an accurate quote.

These days I've noticed that the wording is often much clearer and more explicit about making any claim regardless of whether or not you involved your own insurers. And I always make sure that I mention it when getting quotes. I've also discovered that you have to keep mentioning it for at least 5 years and they want quite detailed info that it hadn't occurred to me to keep - actual date of the accident, how much claim was for etc etc - so it's worth writing it all down and keeping it somewhere handy so you can pull it up each year rather than try to dredge it out of your memory and discover you have a detail wrong. The one year I couldn't find the details I found it was easier to get the approximate quotes online and then speak to someone as on the phone you can say that it was about this time or cost about that much or that you can't remember - and they can deal with it, whereas online systems are very black and white and can't cope with that sort of fuzzy info so you can inadvertantly end up giving wrong info, again which might invalidate future claims.

Definitely not worth hiding it from your insurers as you might end up with bad knock on effects!

peggyundercrackers Sat 31-Aug-13 11:28:45

zipzap our renewal was 2 months ago and actually went down even though the insurance company knew about the 1st accident.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now