Woman reversed into my wife's car at traffic lights but won't accept liability. Please help

[domelsnake]

Hello all,

My wife had this incident a while ago.

While waiting at the traffic lights as soon as the light has changed from red to green the car in front of her put the reverse gear in and reversed into her.

The lady apologized saying she is a new driver and put the reverse gear in error.

Luckily for us there was no damage on our car and little dent on the other's car bumper. Because the driver of the other car was in fault they have decided to forget about this and come back to work therefore no personal details have been exchange.

I have reported this to my insurance company any way just as a backup.

After few weeks my insurer came back to me no saying the other party is blaming us for the accident and trying to make a claim.

Because no details have been exchanged they have reported this to the Police saying it was a hit & run and asking for the driver details that time which we have provided.

After few months we have received a court documents saying the other party is claiming their car to be fixed as well as £5k injury claim.

I spoke to our lawyer provided by our insurance company and have been told there is no way to win this case without CCTV footage, dashcam footage or witness (unfortunately there is none of those.) and have been asked to sign the from of consent which basically means my wife takes responsibility for the accident which we don't want to do.

Apparently the court bases their decision on statistics saying 9/10 times with this type of collision is the person in the back in fault.

Is there anything we can do to get the decision to be made in our favor?

You need to be firm with your solicitor (who I suspect won't actually be a solicitor or have any legal training). If that doesn't work complain.

If the other party is lying about their injuries and you can prove it, that will weaken their credibility on the issue of how the accident occurred.

My experience is that these court cases can end up costly if both sides contest and one of the insurance companies tends to cave in and accept liability as often the cost to do so is less than that of legal/court costs and time. We had a case that went on for 3 years and insurance company just gave in, we didn't have an option in the end.

domelsnake I took screenshots on Facebook showing by her posture / activities etc that she clearly didn't have whiplash in the relevant timescale.

I had also witnessed her jogging numerous times, as had others.

My solicitor asked if I was prepared to stand up in court, which I was, but it didn't come to that in the end.

If you can present credible evidence that she's lying about the personal injury I'd say you stand a very good chance of then persuading the solicitors / court that she's bullshitting about the accident itself.

The woman apparently said to the OP's wife that she was a new driver and had put the car into reverse gear in error. I would have thought that that alleged statement could be tested immediately by recourse to the facts ?

Get those social media updates screen shot asap. Don't just save the pics as she could claim they were taken before the accident

Can you find out if the 'new driver' bit is true? Surely that must be on her licence?

I hope you go to court OP although I'd put money on it being settled just before. In my work in a quasi judicial setting, I hear lots of oral evidence. My general view would be that if you are telling the truth, it's clear. Also , we give weight to contemporaneous accounts so that would also help you. Don't worry about being questioned - it's not the Old Bailey wth QCs after your blood. If you ( or in this case your wife) are telling the truth, you really don't have anything to worry about - if the other sides solicitor got too aggressive, the judge could well step in or your wife can just ask for a break. The others driver not going to the doctors for months is def in your favour plus the FB evidence - capture it now!

Don't know if this is useful but just in case:

A few years ago my car was scraped by a lorry trying to pass us on a side road. I was stationary at the time (had pulled over and stopped, hand brake on, to let them pass). The lorry driver and I exchanged photos, no particular damage to the lorry but huge cosmetic damage to my (new) car.

Insurance co started dealing and the other parties insurance tried to insist on 50/50. My insurance recommended we agree because 'if we go to court they may find it is all your fault'. I refused, we went to court and the other party didn't even show up! The judge found in our favour, they paid all costs.

My wife just spoke to our solicitor and have been told we can not question doctor's report and facebook is not sufficient evidence at all.

Guys is there anything I can do?

I have a feeling this solicitor isn't helping us at all.

Has your solicitor sought evidence of how long the other party has been driving, how long she had had the car and for how long she had carried insurance? Those facts wouldn't necessarily be dispositive but I would have thought they'd be pretty basic given your wife's statement.

The solicitor confirmed today the other party is a fresh driver as just turn 18 yrs old when the accident occurred and this can work in our favor but facebook screenshot, I have been told, can not be used as evidence....

I have made a lot of screenshots showing 3rd parties checking in on holiday 2 days after the accident while claiming she had to take couple days off work because of the accident....

It doesn't matter if you want to fight it or not. Ultimately your motor insurers have the right under the terms of your insurance policy to deal with any claim presented as they deem appropriate. So even if you think you have a case to argue, even if your wife is willing to go to court, the insurers can (and often do) settle claims like this on a without prejudice basis. They can do that without any agreement from you.

The reality is this case on liability is one person's word against another. As insurers, you either look to negotiate a split settlement, or you decide to take it all the way to court. But court action is a lottery. The judge who hears your case doesn't know the parties. He/she often won't be familiar with the accident location. All they have to go on is what they see in the courtroom. One party may deliver their evidence in a more believeable way, seem more honest, less nervous, and a judge could well prefer them. But if the evidence of both parties is equally compelling, then the judge looks at what's the more likely version of events. And unfortunately in this case it's a lot more likely that your wife would have been impatient to get away at the lights and pulled forward too quickly, nudging the rear of the driver in front, than that the other driver would have reversed by mistake.

If it went to court, and you lost, the total legal bill for your insurers would be c£30k. Compared to (if they settle it now) a fraction of that amount.

As for questioning injuries, have you actually seen the medical evidence? You say they went to see a doctor in November - was this for a medico-legal report? Ie it's an expert doctor, not their own GP. You say they didn't find anything, what exactly do you mean by that? In the report the expert will have given an opinion on the inuries suffered and a prognosis (timescale for recovery) based on their examination and information provided to them by the Claimant (and possibly consideration of medical records). Whether any evidence on social media is relevant depends on what exactly the medical evidence states.

The value of the claim will be comprised of damages for injury, out of pocket expenses, also vehicle damage and hire (if applicable). Has an offer been made, or are you taking the value from a Claim Form (you've mentioned court document, but not clear if that's what you're referring to).

Can you say which firm it is?

Hi VelvetSpoon - yes that was for medical report. In the report the expert says the other party suffered a back pain for 3 months after the accident (this is what he has been told) but it has improved and it's mild and intermittent now. Because of that she had to take 3 days off work and she could not be driving for a week.

No offer ha been made - the values are from the Claim Form

Re. the facebook pics not being admissable, that was initially what my solicitor said, but then he consulted his fellow solicitors at the practice and he came back to me and said they were admissable.

It sounds like your solicitor can't be arsed.

My insurance company also had my car examined by a claims investigator, even though it was months after the prang. This was to check it was, as I had stated, undamaged. They were able to say with confidence that if I had pranged into her with sufficient impact to cause whiplash, my car would have sustained some damage, and it hadn't.

I personally stood to gain or lose nothing by challenging her as my insurance would have covered the personal injury claim if need be. For me it was just the principle of it. It irritates me that people like her, who put in fraudulent PI claims, bump up the price of insurance for everyone else.

she doesn't talk to me at the school gate now

It's amazing how lacklustre lawyers are about fighting false injury claims. Xh shunted the back of a stationary car (totally his fault, only mitigation is they were double parked without any lights on at 1am dodgy fucks )
Xh called police because they were trying to intimidate cash out of him. Police took details of driver and xh photographed his driving licence.
When the paperwork came through they had claimed for whiplash for the owner of the car, who was a 50 something Arab (by the name) not a twenty something African as confirmed by the police. We pointed this all out to the insurance company's lawyer but they basically let it go. The owner was the father of the other young man in the car (he overheard him saying something about his dad) and was absolutely not there.
£6000 claim on my insurance as he was in my car

It's because it's incredibly hard to prove and incredibly expensive as you're raising allegations of fraud. It will always end up with expensive barriers, experts etc. It is ultimately about money and the lawyers need instructions from the insurer. It's not the lawyers money to waste.

1. Gather all the pictures
2. Ask the question: if it was a ht and run then how did your wife know the other driver had only just passed her test
3. Send it all to your solicitor and insurance company, hers too if you can, and ask why this spurious claim is still being pursued?
4. When all that fails, suck it up and insist that you do not accept any responsibility and your insurers can do as they damn well please!

I had a similar years ago. Even pointing out that cars don't travel sideways so I was in position to have slammed the side of my car into the rear of hers did any good. Insurance company settled it knock for knock. They didn't take away my no claims or raise my premiums because of my letter!

My friend has had something similar , although this is opportunism rather than a deliberate scam.
Her ds was coming out of work waited then couldnt see anything so went ahead when a bike came out of nowhere along the pavement. Believe there were bushes etc and she may have been on mobile.He knocked off the bike.police and ambulance was called and police told him it wasnt his fault and she wasnt hurt enough to go to hospital. He received a letter from the police closing case etc.
A few months later she is now suing his company for £50,000 for loss of earning etc

People sometimes react instinctively at the scene of an accident, go away and are later persuaded - sometimes by others - towards making a claim. I would imagine that the £5k the OP's post mentions is a common level where the insurance companies will generally decide just to pay up to dispose of the matter. It sounds like a lot of money but I suspect it's fairly small beer in terms of what compensation claims might conceivably amount to.

re Facebook pictures. I thought the authorities used them in cases where people have falsely claimed benefits etc

I haven't checked the Civil Procedure Rules, as amended, but I see no reason why they shouldn't be used.

Cozie - are you a lawyer? (Just out of interest, not many non-lawyer people mention the CPR).

CPR doesn't say anything about the admissibility of social media evidence as far as I know but there will undoubtedly be case law about it.

It might be a conduct issue for a solicitor. I have vague recollections of not being allowed to search for it or use it. It's been a very long time since I've done the work so things may have changed.

Surveillance evidence is used frequently in large personal injury cases if there's a suggestion of exaggeration but that is in ££££ cases. It isn't suitable for a small case like this.

Reference to £5k is just a statement saying the claim is worth no more than that and is relevant for the purposes of the court fee that needs to be paid to issue proceedings. Depending on how much is being claimed, the fee payable increases. Also gives an indication of how much the Claimant's solicitor values the claim but doesn't mean that they'll recover that much.

OP - have you spoken to your insurers? If not, I can't see the point in you taking any other advice. Your insurers are the people with the money and they make the decision about what happens. Tell your solicitor you're speaking to your insurers about what you'd like to do.

Your solicitor may not be interested in the Facebook posts but your insurer may. They will have their own insurance fraud team. Be wary of accepting liability, we accepted a fraudulent whiplash claim after lots of pressure and the chaim then increased by tens of thousands and was thankfully then investigated by the insurer and referred to the police.

As always, how evidence is collected might be important to its admissibility in a court.

If you think, though, how much of this country's social life and communication is conducted on eg Facebook? It's now equivalent, in most instances, to sending eg a letter or a postcard. If they would be admitted, I see no reason why their social media equivalent should be automatically barred.