Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
SoThatHappened · 21/02/2016 23:58

Whether the BIL did it deliberately or not, the other driver has no justification for tailgating.

AyeAmarok · 22/02/2016 00:09

Holy shit, are people actually condoning the actions of an insurance fraudster who could have intentionally caused serious injuries to other road users who got caught up in this (eg people swerving into other vehicles) and deciding that it's OK because it's so sad that public transport isn't better?

Shock

Have I stumbled onto some sort of Bradford crash for cash community forum by mistake? Confused

LaurieFairyCake · 22/02/2016 00:14

I wouldn't go as far as 'condoning' - as far as I'm aware that means tacit approval.

But 'not judging' like I said. I can't be bothered with judging him when it's legally the tailgaters fault.

Earlyday · 22/02/2016 00:25

I work in insurance

If someone rang up and anonymously said that a person had deliberately slammed on - it would be very difficult to decline a claim without strong evidence. If the driver who stopped says he stopped suddenly to avoid a badger than it's very hard to prove otherwise.

If your BIL is claiming off the car behind's insurance then the lack of an MOT might have an effect on how much he gets as a settlement for his car but would not stop him claiming.

Also, the driver behind should have been traveling a safe enough distance back to avoid an impact.

What difference would it make reporting an accident to the police? Some whiplash injuries take a bit of time to develop. If you rang the police a few days later to report it they can't really do anything much.

suitsyousir79 · 22/02/2016 00:58

The Police wouldn't deal with this at all. Thats where the IFB come in.

custardismyhamster · 22/02/2016 01:04

I used to work in motor claims-I agree they'd find it very hard to prove fraud (but this IS fraud, nontheless) and if the mythical badger had actually been there and he'd actually hit said mythical badger-well, those buggers do some serious damage! Always try not to hit a badger, if you can safely slam on/swerve then do so.

MyNewBearTotoro · 22/02/2016 01:44

Definitely not condoning what your BIL did but the car shouldn't have been driving without room to stop. The car that crashed into him should have kept its distance - if the car behind had been driving safely then BIL wouldn't have been able to pull this stunt and it wouldn't have crashed.

That said BIL was a fool to endanger himself and the passengers in the car behind and is a bigger fool to be telling people what he did. I would want to report but don't know how you would go about it.

feellikeahugefailure · 22/02/2016 07:00

I feel for him, it sounds like he did this out of desperation as doesn't have the money to fix the car. Many people without a car unless they are in a big city struggle alot.

I doubt insurance will do anything. My friend went into the back of someone in a car park, very slowly and left no damage. However the driver infront made up that his 80 year old mother was in the car and got whippy. My friend said this was fraudulent as there was no passenger in the car. However the claim went through and the driver got 4000 for a claim that was clearly made up.

Helmetbymidnight · 22/02/2016 07:10

You feel sorry for him?

Jesus Christ. Unbelievable.

SimpleSimonThePieMan · 22/02/2016 07:33

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

Wrong

DisgraceToTheYChromosome · 22/02/2016 08:50

This sort of thing is why my lorry has cameras all over it, and why in the event of an accident we take photos of the occupants. There's an internal video of people getting into a rear-ended car so they could claim injury.

feellikeahugefailure · 22/02/2016 12:08

Yes I do a bit, he probably did it at low speed and checked there were no children in the car behind. Its 100% the fault of the tailgater. Maybe it was a good lesson for them to keep a safe distance. Better to find this out on a slow road than doing 70 on the motorway.

specialsubject · 22/02/2016 12:09

not wrong about an MoT fail.

now MoTs are computerised, a fail is recorded on the DVLA system and it doesn't matter if the old still has time to run. You are knowingly driving a failed car. It is therefore no longer worth getting MoTs done early.

as the roads are full of fuckwits with lights not working, someone who has an actual failed MoT really deserves all they get. If it fails you take it home and that's it, until you drive it to a prebooked fix and a new test. No other driving is legal.

Helmetbymidnight · 22/02/2016 12:27

He's making a fake claim for whiplash and it's 100% not his fault?

Right.

And from absolutely nowhere you've conjured up the idea that he's a really nice guy?

JessicasElephant · 22/02/2016 12:28

The bil deliberately caused a traffic accident. And people are excusing this behaviour?! I don't care how skint you are, you don't deliberately endanger the health / lives of other road users.

Another scenario: last week a car pulled out in front of me at a junction. I was able to brake in time so avoided an accident. Would it have been acceptable for me to not apply the brakes as hard and hit the car because technically it would have been the other driver's fault for pulling out? Of course not. Even if I needed a new car and some compensation.

bodenbiscuit · 22/02/2016 12:35

What an awful man he is. I would definitely report him. That said, if people didn't tailgate it wouldn't have had the opportunity to happen.

SoThatHappened · 22/02/2016 12:35

you don't deliberately endanger the health / lives of other road users.

No and you dont endager the lives of other road users by tailgating either.

What ever way you look at it, the other driver was at fault too and a dange to other drivers.

Tyres and tarmac! If you cant see the tyres of the car infront or the tarmac it is driving on...you are too close.

SoupDragon · 22/02/2016 12:43

Tyres and tarmac! If you cant see the tyres of the car infront or the tarmac it is driving on...you are too close.

Even if you can see them you will often be too close.

SoThatHappened · 22/02/2016 12:45

The BIL is a twat for faking an emergency stop but so is the other driver. Both were in the wrong.

Fuck it and let the insurance sort it out. I cant be morally outraged over two arseholes neither of whom should be on the road.

Doubleuponcoffee · 22/02/2016 12:45

Well he hasn't faked whiplash, he just tried to give himself it. Honestly I can't really get worked up about it. He never would've succeeded in his plan had the other road user not been driving dangerously.

SoThatHappened · 22/02/2016 12:46

Even if you can see them you will often be too close.

Exactly so you use that as bare minimum. I hate being too close to the car in front. Leave several metres of tarmac as you are supposed to.

SoupDragon · 22/02/2016 12:48

Exactly so you use that as bare minimum

Er no. It gives a false sense of security. I think there are very few scenarios where that is an acceptable distance to be behind a car.

2 (or 3) second rule.

PoundingTheStreets · 22/02/2016 12:54

I think it's important to separate the actual RTC from the claim for whiplash here. The RTC element is IMO irrelevant. BIL may be guilty of various offences because he's deliberately set up the collision, but equally the driver behind is guilty of driving too close - if BIL has actually seen real badger and braked the result would have been the same.

What's important here is that BIL is faking the whiplash. Which makes him guilty of fraud by false representation. He is dishonestly claiming something which is untrue with the express purpose of making a financial gain for himself - and also making a loss for someone else (and that other driver will pay for it via increased premiums).

BIL is a thief. Simple as.

In your shoes I think I would tell him to stop the claim or I would. Family or not, I would not tolerate this sort of behaviour - which is, incidentally, part of the reason why all our car insurance premiums keep going up.

Selfish. Dishonest. Illegal.

gleekster · 22/02/2016 12:54

Hmmmm this is tricky. As PP have said, if the car behind hadn't been tailgating,which is bloody dangerous, then they wouldn't have exposed themselves to this would they?

If you dob him in will your family support you as you will have to give a statement - an anonymous tip off isn't going to cut any ice is it? Any of us could call up police/insurance and say a family or friend had made a fraudulent claim and it could just be a malicious lie.

I would stay out of it I think.

Doubleuponcoffee · 22/02/2016 12:58

He's not faking whiplash, he's going to have whiplash from the collision. His insurance company will send him to a Dr to confirm this well before any payout.