Talk

Advanced search

AIBU to be cross with this driver and insurance company, and to ask your advice?

(46 Posts)
MangoBiscuit Tue 28-Jul-15 17:37:32

DH stopped by our local supermarket on the way home from work to grab a few bits. In the car park on the way home, he was in an accident. He had pulled out of his spot, joined the main stream of traffic, was stationary but about to pull away (forwards), and the other driver reversed straight out into the side of his car.

Car is quite possibly a write-off. We've got a hire car for the moment. The other insurance company has been dragging it's feet with correspondence, and has finally come back to say that they're not accepting liability, but has offered to pay 50%. How can they think it's anyone's fault but the other drivers? She reversed into a (at that point) stationary car. DH now has to complete a diagram and description form.

Is this normal? Is there anything specific that it's important to include in the form? If they refuse to pay, where does that leave us? Is it likely that the other driver has lied to her insurance, or am I just painting her as the villain because she's probably written off our lovely car that we saved up for!? sadangry

TobleroneBoo Tue 28-Jul-15 17:39:21

That can't be right, I would say she has been dishonest. Would there be cctv in the car park or any witnesses?

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Tue 28-Jul-15 17:40:56

Is your insurance company dealing with it?

FarFromAnyRoad Tue 28-Jul-15 17:41:44

They're swinging it and hoping you'll give up or not have the guts for a fight. You must, of course, fight and from what you've said it looks like a cut and dried case of it being the other driver's fault. What is your insurance company saying?

AnImpalaCalledBABY Tue 28-Jul-15 17:41:53

I could very well be wrong about this but I thought it was because accidents on private land are dealt with 50/50?

londonrach Tue 28-Jul-15 17:43:53

Ask supermarket re cctv but suspect if private land its 50.50 anyway. Hope your dh was ok

MangoBiscuit Tue 28-Jul-15 17:44:12

I don't think they have CCTV, any witnesses drove off, we don't know who they are. Our insurance have said that as there is no claim on our insurance, but solely on the third party, our claim is closed, DH's no claims are protected, and their associated company will be liaising with the third party insurers on their(our insurance's) behalf.

SophiesDog Tue 28-Jul-15 17:44:12

If it comes to a vehicle inspection it will be obvious what happened from the damage.

I wouldn't worry too much but yes it sucks that you have to go through this.

No idea about the position wrt insurance

RealityCheque Tue 28-Jul-15 17:44:22

This is completely normal. 50-50 is what all insurance companies start off with in most cases.

Do not accept it. Tell your insurance that it is 100% their fault and that you wish it to go all the way to court if necessary. (Having legal cover helps here).

What if the car he didn't see was a child? Or a pensioner in a scooter? Would they have been 50% to blame too? (Would they bollocks!)

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Tue 28-Jul-15 17:44:26

Found this:

"For example: if you are reversing out of a parking space, and the other side is also reversing out of a parking space, and both vehicles collide, it is likely that liability will be apportioned on a 50/50 basis because it would seem that neither party was paying sufficient attention to their surroundings.

It may be that you saw the other party reversing and so you decided to stop your vehicle, but the other side did not see you and continued to reverse into your stationary vehicle; you would hold the other party at fault for the accident. Unfortunately there may be no evidence that your vehicle was in fact stationary and so as a result of the lack of evidence, it is possible that liability would still be apportioned 50/50."
www.spencerssolicitors.com/accident-guides/what-is-a-split-liability-agreement.html

Can you prove you were stationary (CCTV etc)?

londonrach Tue 28-Jul-15 17:46:17

Just googled. Supermarkets are same as public highway. forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2287423

RealityCheque Tue 28-Jul-15 17:48:40

The information about private land give above is incorrect and irrelevant in this case. For the purposes of Road Traffic Law, private land is defined by who has access to it rather than by who owns it. If the general public use the land in question it's public anyway. This changed a number of years ago.

MangoBiscuit Tue 28-Jul-15 17:50:52

Our car was a right angles to hers. DH was out of his spot, and had changed gears, well before she started to move. He even beeped at her, but she wasn't even looking behind her. All the damage is central on the side of the car. Our insurance only agreed that no claims were protected after they saw the report, so I'm hoping that's a good sign.

We will of course contest it. We have no choice anyways. Need the car for DH to get to work, and we can't afford to replace it, or even half of it, at the moment.

MangoBiscuit Tue 28-Jul-15 17:51:48

Very glad to hear about the private land issue. It's a big shared carpark in a retail park, so it doesn't even belong to the supermarket as far as I'm aware.

FatimaLovesBread Tue 28-Jul-15 17:52:32

But they weren't both reversing at the same time. The OP's DH was in the queue of traffic waiting to leave the car park so in the road bit the person was reversing in to. The damage on the car would show this as it would be at the side of the car rather than the rear or rear corner

contractor6 Tue 28-Jul-15 17:55:00

For future get a dash cam, then can prove stationary, it also lowers premium. For current call your insurance and tell them to argue ot on your behalf.

EsmetheWitch Tue 28-Jul-15 17:55:59

You won't have to pay anything other than half your excess if it is 50/50.
It means that each insurance company pays 50%, not you ad individuals.
Of course your premiumsearch may go up as a result.....

Kirsty40 Tue 28-Jul-15 17:57:56

Ditto what Reality said. My Husband works in Insurance and they always try to do 50/50 now. As a previous poster has said, it should be obvious from the damage to your car that the other car was at fault so don't accept that.

Bubblesinthesummer Tue 28-Jul-15 17:58:25

If there are no witnesses and it is their word against your DH then it may very well go 50:50

hellhasnofurylikeahungrywoman Tue 28-Jul-15 18:01:30

We had almost the same scenario. DH was driving on the road when another driver came out of a driveway, in reverse straight into the passenger side of our car. She denied responsibility, we had to provide diagrams of road positions etc and the garage did a report on the damage. Eventually it was settled at 99-1% in our favour.

Namechangenell Tue 28-Jul-15 18:03:09

They'll be able to see from the damage what happened so I wouldn't worry if I were you. If you've got a big dent in the side of your car, it's pretty obvious something went into you and not the other way round.

Pilgrimforever Tue 28-Jul-15 18:04:56

I had a driver go into the side of me in the car peak of our local supermarket last December. No witnesses came forward even though people saw it happen. We had to provide a diagram of road positions. Ours ended 100% their fault and their insurance company paid for everything.

jerryfudd Tue 28-Jul-15 18:46:14

They're trying it on. One word against the other or not, damage to the side of your car and rear of hers evidences exactly what happened. Stand your ground ground.

On a side note, are you in a credit hire vehicle now ? If you are, if those costs aren't fully met by the responsible party you might be liable for the remainder, so another reason to make her insurers pay.

It doesn't surprise me, the driver who reversed off his drive into our parked and unattended vehicle denied liability! He claimed it wasn't his fault because there were never normally cars parked there! We were legally parked on a normal residential road

loveareadingthanks Tue 28-Jul-15 18:51:30

It's not possible for you to be at fault unless you own a Wacky Races car that goes sideways.

All insurance companies try for 50/50 when they know their driver is at fault. 'Just respond that she drove into the side of your car, her fault 100%.

the stationary bit is not relevant really - even if you'd been driving past the parking space it's not ok to reverse out into the side of you.

Imustgodowntotheseaagain Tue 28-Jul-15 18:59:46

I was told in similar circs "the damage tells the story."

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