Who is at fault for this accident? With diagram

[NeighbourHitMyCar]

Hi there!

I'm not going to do those annoying Driver A and Driver B posts.... My neighbour hit the front side of my car while reversing out of their driveway

We have had previous issues with them regarding a skip that was in front of our house and damage to our driveway from the skip lorry taking out a wall so there is history there!!

However, their insurers are now trying to say the accident was 50:50 my fault too and i just can't see how!

I was returning home after work and drove along my road and slightly passed my house. There was no traffic coming either way so I pulled across the road onto the other side slightly to line up the car (our driveway parking is at an angle due to a tree).

I had stopped the car and and put it into reverse when...BANG... I turned to see my neighbours car bonnet at my driver door having dented it.

They park forward into their driveway which means they have to reverse out. They had obviously seen no traffic was coming along the road and not looked directly behind them to see me already in the road.

Hope the dodgy diagram makes sense

Can anyone explain how their insurers are possibly claiming I am in any way at fault here?

Feel like I'm going mad having sent diagram after diagram

Unfortunately no ring footage or dashcam

What I was tyring to say above is that I don't think it even matters if you were moving or stationary, you were manoevering in the public highway in an entirely legal way, and he drove out of his drive and drove into you while you were doing so. It can't be your fault, otherwise we'd all have to stop and get out and look around every corner to see what might be coming!

100% your neighbour's fault. You were stationary, the fact you were mid manoeuvre is irrelevant. They should not have reversed out of a driveway onto a road, that is against the highway code. They were driving dangerously. They did not keep an adequate lookout for other road users, so you should argue they were driving without due care and attention.

I think the insurers must do this 50/50 thing as a first port of call. I was reversed into while stationery, and the first letter came back from my insurer saying the other company wanted to go 50/50, and did I have any further details. I sent an even more detailed description than I did in the first instance, and the next letter came back to say they had admitted fault. So I wonder if insurance companies tell people not to admit fault at first?

I had something similar, where somebody reversed into me as I was inching forward into my dedicated (work related) parking space. I was actually stationary when they hit me and was blowing my horn, as I could see what was unfolding, and I could also see that they weren't looking!

And yes, initially the insurers suggested 50:50 but I wasn't having that.

I went through my insurance broker and they fought it on my behalf, and there was no further 50:50 nonsense, the other driver's insurance paid out in full.

So do you have a broker?

Don't let it. Especially with the highway code rules that you shouldn't reverse into the carriageway (check that, I'm vaguely quoting a PP but you know it makes sense). Why do you reverse into your drive? Might it feel more safe? Stand your ground; I really hope you get this sorted fast.

What I really want to know is if your car had been a person, even though they shouldn't have been there, who's fault would it have been then? No amount of flowers would excuse that. They need to know where they're putting the car they're in control of.

I always thought if you hit a stationary car you are at fault so I would say your neighbour is at fault. He should have been looking in his rear view mirror when reversing - obviously wasn’t. You could have stopped for various reasons so I don’t see why you should be to blame

I was in an accident last year on a narrow lane where there wasn't space to pass another car. Another car travelling way too fast couldn't stop after coming around a blind corner, I stopped in time but he couldn't. He admitted liability at the scene. Skid marks and a BT box he hit showed he was going ridiculously fast. But no witnesses or dash cam so insurance went 50/50. His story was that I was too far to the right coming round the corner. A basic check of the photographic evidence would have demonstrated the accident happened on single width bit of road. So the only relevant factor was speed. 100% his fault but insurance couldn't care less.

Genuine question: how does an insurance broker help with insurance claims?IME they help find insurers, they don't have anything to dowith claims. Am I wrong?

Because you were both manoeuvring neither had right of way and neither were paying due care and attention. Had a similar one years ago. I fought it and won so push back.

Neighbour responsible because they're reversed onto a road and hit a vehicle that was already on the road.

But they were reversing in the same direction so if the OP was reversing at the time she would have been reversing away from the other car.

A good broker will handle your claim too. That's part of the service.

Contact an accident management company. They're really good in a no fault claim. They will handle all the aggro, and get your car repaired while providing you with a courtesy car in the meantime.

They also provide legal advice including a barrister should it go to court.

I had turned left at a junction, when I noticed two elderly people with sticks trying to cross the road, so I stopped to let them go. This dickhead came in from the right, and just as I was about to move off, he tried to pass me on the driver's side and hit my car.

All apologies at the scene and it was all his fault, until the insurance co got involved. Took it all the way to court insisting on 50-50 but I held firm. The court overran on time so my case wasn't heard but my barrister came and asked whether I would accept any liability as the other side wanted to settle. I said, "no, absolutely not" - barrister actually high-fived me and soon after came back to say that the insurance company had accepted full liability!

Best of all, it cost me nothing.

Insurance companies always try to go 50/50 at first, definitely don't accept it. This happened to my husband, he was driving slowly, in a straight line, on the right side of the road, in a car park. A car reversed out of a parking space straight into the side of his car. Their insurance still tried for 50/50.

You’re not at fault - you were stationary. Your car might be on the other side of the road for loads of reasons in day to day use - you’re not at fault while you do a 3 point turn for example.

You're on the road reversing off it, they are entering the road. They are at fault. The road was not clear for them to safely enter it. Their insurer is trying it on. Good luck!

Make sure.your insurance know you are contesting their claim,.as you were a stationary vehicle when they hit you.

Me too, I was just about to ask the same question.

Does he know that his insurers are trying to claim 50/50? It’s possible he doesn’t. He could go back to them and say he is 100% responsible if he accepts that.

Why? Are you constantly in motion as soon as you get into your car till you leave it?

Their fault not yours.

The other parties Insurers will generally try and go 50/50.

I had an accident at the last exit of a roundabout, the other driver was clearly at fault but his insurers were insistent at going 50/50, my insurers even recommended to agree. No way was I agreeing and at the final hour they agreed liability for their client. Suffice to say, I changed insurers!

Definitely his fault

Imagine if you were a car driving along the road and he reversed out, he would be at fault. Surely it's irrelevant if you were moving as he was on a drive not on the highway

He should be paying more attention

His fault, but in my experience insurers always go 50/50 at first.

It’s really easy to get shafted in this sort of claim. Someone reversed into my husband who was stationary in a multistory- (up a bloody ramp and at speed- no idea how that even happened). Even though it was deemed 100% the other party’s fault (which it clearly was) we still had to pay extra for the insurance for a good 3 years because of the increased risk. Husband was furious at having to pay more despite it not being his fault at all.