Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Original poster

Bil has given himself whiplash on purpose

194 replies

tartenjane · 21/02/2016 21:45

Found this out yesterday and still not sure what I should do.

Bil's car failed the mot, so he waited until someone was tailgating him slammed on the breaks and claimed a badger ran out into the road. This was fake. But the car driving too close was real and it went into him causing damage. It will cost too much to fix his car, so he's hoping to get the insurance payout for the car and a whiplash.

Its more really a wwyd?

OP posts:

JessicasElephant · 21/02/2016 22:41

Deliberately setting out to cause an accident is a million times worse than tailgating. I probably wouldn't report a family member tho.

AyeAmarok · 21/02/2016 22:44

What a twat. He could have badly injured the people in the car behind him.

Who told you he did this on purpose, and why?

lorelei9 · 21/02/2016 22:44

New "On the contrary I am always amazed by the amount of people on here who think it's ok not to report crime because it was committed by a family member."

this.

AyeAmarok · 21/02/2016 22:46

It was the tailgaters illegal driving that caused the accident.

Wtf! It was the man who intentionally induced the accidents fault!

JaneJefferson · 21/02/2016 22:46

What he did is not good and pretty stupid but I don'the think you should report him. You can tell him what you think though.

Mondy · 21/02/2016 22:51

Even if his old MOT still had time to run, as soon as he had it MOTd again (and it failed) then the old one is invalidated as it has been inspected since. Once a car fails the MOT then it can't legally be used on the road until it has been repaired and re-MOTd. Therefore the insurance is invalid (as they require a valid MOT) and they won't pay him out. They may even attempt to recover any costs arising from the claim from him.

He's been a very silly boy and could end up in serious trouble for this. The days of getting away with this sort of thing are long gone.

Mondy · 21/02/2016 22:53

As for whether to report him or not, I suppose it depends on your relationship with your family and what you'd expect them to do if you did a similar thing (which you clearly wouldn't).

Whether he's reported or not, I sincerely doubt that he will emerge from this unscathed.

suitsyousir79 · 21/02/2016 22:56

Im an insurance fraud investigator. You can report him here - sorry cant do clicky link.

www.insurancefraudbureau.org/cheatline/

Canshopwillshop · 21/02/2016 22:56

Ayeamarok - no, it was totally the tailgaters fault! Regardless of the intentions of the driver in front, the person behind should have left enough room to stop - read the Highway Code!

suitsyousir79 · 21/02/2016 22:56

Oooh it worked anyway

suitsyousir79 · 21/02/2016 22:57

There are exceptions to being at fault if you hit someone from behind. An induced slam on is one, which is what he did.

SoThatHappened · 21/02/2016 23:05

Meh. The other shouldnt have been tailgating. If it hadnt been driving so close, he could have stopped before hitting the other car.

Drivers do need to do emergency stops hence the reason for not tailgating.

He wont get that much in terms of compensation.

AyeAmarok · 21/02/2016 23:10

Canshopwillshop, I think you'll find people have been prosecuted for inducing a slam on and subsequent fraudulent insurance claims. Under the law, the BIL is in the wrong here.

I'd report him, insurance fraud costs us all about 90 quid a year in extra premiums.

Griphook · 21/02/2016 23:12

the fault is with the driver behind - if you can't stop in time when someone brakes then you are too close.

Assuming he had working brake lights and had not sabotaged them. Considering his behaviour it wouldn't be out of character

Canshopwillshop · 21/02/2016 23:12

Suitsyou - didn't know that but when I learned to drive I was taught that the driver behind should always be aware that the person in front might suddenly stop. I always drive with the 'only the fool breaks the 2 second rule' advert playing in my head! Yes, I am quite old!

FoolsAndJesters · 21/02/2016 23:13

I'd definitely report him.

The tailgater is in the wrong too but the BILs actions are worse

serin · 21/02/2016 23:15

It's not always the fault of the tailgater!

Not when an accident has been deliberately induced.

The police and insurance companies are getting much hotter at spotting this type of fraud. I hope they throw the book at your cheating shit of a relative.

SoThatHappened · 21/02/2016 23:17

There are exceptions to being at fault if you hit someone from behind. An induced slam on is one, which is what he did.

Actually no.

Exceptions to being at fault for hitting someone from behind mechanical fault with the car or the driver behind suffering a heart attack or black out. In these circumstances not the drivers fault they hit the car in front.

if you drive to close to the car in front, on your own head be it. You need to anticipate a car may stop suddenly

Tyres and tarmac anyone? I still remember that from driving lessons.

SoThatHappened · 21/02/2016 23:19

It's not always the fault of the tailgater!

Actually it is. You are not supposed to drive too close to the car in front for safety reasons.

If you dont tailgate you wont hit a car that stops suddenly.

BIL couldnt have deliberately induced an accident if the car hadnt been tailgating in the first place now could he?

suitsyousir79 · 21/02/2016 23:22

I agree that you need to leave a gap behind the car in front big enough to stop, but sometimes it cannot be avoided. Like if you leave a big gap and another car comes into it and brakes before you have had a chance to increase the gap. I have investigated plenty of cases where the driver of the car behind was not held at fault as it was felt "on the balance of probabilities", which is the standard for civil cases, that the accident was induced.

SoThatHappened · 21/02/2016 23:30

Like if you leave a big gap and another car comes into it and brakes before you have had a chance to increase the gap.

That was NOT the situation here. Tailgating and unable to stop in time when the car in front stopped. Had the one behind not been tailgating, he could have stopped in time.

You cant raise an entirely different scenario to argue the driver should not be at fault here.

Dont explain the standard for civil cases to me, I am a solicitor and have done plenty of PI.

suitsyousir79 · 21/02/2016 23:40

I apologise if you felt that i was specifically explaining to you. I wasnt. Some people don't realise the standard required. I was not aware if your knowledge and experience.

I was providing a further scenario to try and explain my point.

I dont want to turn this into an arguement on here, just trying to use my own knowledge and experience to offer advise to the OP. I can confirm that i am fully aware of cases where the "tailgating" driver has not been held at fault as the accident was proved to be deliberately induced, as the OPs brother in law has done here, and offered a means of reporting it if they wished to do so.

SoThatHappened · 21/02/2016 23:44

yes but no one knows that do they?

If he was in my office and he told me he did it deliberately I would refuse to take his claim. But he isnt going to do that.

If he was in my office and told me he needed to do an emergency stop, the driver behind was too close and couldnt stop in time accordingly, I'd run the claim and tell him he had a reasonable chance of succeeding.

No one is going to know. he might get £1500 for a mild whippy if he is lucky and fixed costs are shite especially if it stays in the portal.

Whatever. He hasnt committed murder.

LaurieFairyCake · 21/02/2016 23:48

Tailgaters fault. Not supposed to drive too close you can't stop.

And in my opinion it's really sad that people feel forced to do this because he likely needs his car. We live in a society where unless you live in a major city there's no bloody public transport. And if he can't afford it maybe he can't even get to work.

I don't judge him at all.

maydancer · 21/02/2016 23:53

Your Dh doesn't need to prove a reason for slamming his brakes on.Asd others have said , the fault is entirely theirs.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8