What should I do to combat someone's needless meanness?
Posted by: rodwsmith on 08 December 2004
A month ago I was driving along and a twit-woman opened her car door as I was passing putting a dent and a scratch in my car, and causing her door to swing back and hurt her foot. She yelled quite loudly and I - and her passenger - was more concerned for the welfare of her foot that anything else.
She admitted liability and in the time that had elapsed being more worried about her foot, I did not seek or get any witnesses.
Well, you guessed it, she reported it to her insurance company that her door was already open and that it was therefore my fault. Insulting my driving in the process (bitch) I was only doing 15mph at most. I could have stopped for a frisbee, let alone a static door.
Fortunately for me, my insurance comnpany/legal assistance seems interested in acting on my behalf - the dent in my car doesn't even start at the front, and of course I would have taken her door off had it already been open. Both the garages I have taken it to for estimates said it's completely obvious what happened.
But why has she lied? And what should I do?
My insurance excess is £350, I will lose no-claims bonus that will cost me £400 next year and £300 the year after that.
More than a thousand pounds it will have cost me to show more concern for her foot than for my car. There's no way my insurance company will admit liability so it’s a choice between her losing her excess/no claims bonus, or us both doing so. It’s not hard to see which of these things the insurance companies would prefer, but why would she?
I'm a bit strapped at the moment and frankly £350 is the difference between a good christmas and a crappy one.
Should I write her a polite letter telling her this, or stick a flaming-newspaper wrapped turd through her door or what?
She admitted liability and in the time that had elapsed being more worried about her foot, I did not seek or get any witnesses.
Well, you guessed it, she reported it to her insurance company that her door was already open and that it was therefore my fault. Insulting my driving in the process (bitch) I was only doing 15mph at most. I could have stopped for a frisbee, let alone a static door.
Fortunately for me, my insurance comnpany/legal assistance seems interested in acting on my behalf - the dent in my car doesn't even start at the front, and of course I would have taken her door off had it already been open. Both the garages I have taken it to for estimates said it's completely obvious what happened.
But why has she lied? And what should I do?
My insurance excess is £350, I will lose no-claims bonus that will cost me £400 next year and £300 the year after that.
More than a thousand pounds it will have cost me to show more concern for her foot than for my car. There's no way my insurance company will admit liability so it’s a choice between her losing her excess/no claims bonus, or us both doing so. It’s not hard to see which of these things the insurance companies would prefer, but why would she?
I'm a bit strapped at the moment and frankly £350 is the difference between a good christmas and a crappy one.
Should I write her a polite letter telling her this, or stick a flaming-newspaper wrapped turd through her door or what?
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
I think that the legal phrase is along the lines of "Attempting to gain financial advantage by deceipt."
Point out to her that it is quite clear that your side know she is lying on her claim form and that you ( or your insurers) intend to inform *her* insurers of her attempted fraud: its a Police matter if she persists, etc.
Regards
Mike
Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.
Point out to her that it is quite clear that your side know she is lying on her claim form and that you ( or your insurers) intend to inform *her* insurers of her attempted fraud: its a Police matter if she persists, etc.
Regards
Mike
Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Deane F
Newspaper wrapped turd might be satisfying in the (very) short term but so far you have acted according to your character. You might find that doing something other than waiting for the wheels of justice to slowly grind out a result that confirms your good character would result in you finding as much to be disgusted about in yourself as you find in the dishonest woman with whom you collided.
Even if you eventually lose financially you will not lose your integrity and good heart, although it is a shame that you will probably lose the inclination to assume good faith from strangers.
I wish you well with the matter. It's not a good thing to happen on christmas. Good luck.
Deane
Even if you eventually lose financially you will not lose your integrity and good heart, although it is a shame that you will probably lose the inclination to assume good faith from strangers.
I wish you well with the matter. It's not a good thing to happen on christmas. Good luck.
Deane
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Geoff P
Just a few thoughts to add to the advice about the small claims court.Back it up with a written assesment along tehe lines of the verbal ones given by the garages if you can get it.
AA 0r RAC member? Ask them for advice on the legal process. Get which magazine? Write to them you might make it to the back page legal stories and get free advice into the bargain.
regards
GEOFF
"Just trying to make a NAIM for myself"
AA 0r RAC member? Ask them for advice on the legal process. Get which magazine? Write to them you might make it to the back page legal stories and get free advice into the bargain.
regards
GEOFF
"Just trying to make a NAIM for myself"
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Bananahead
Unfortunately there is not much that you can do except let the insurance process run it's course.
She admitted liability under stress at the time. It's like when someone walks into you and you say sorry as a reflex. She probably got advised to claim that her door was already open by someone else afterwards. She may already have gone no-win no-fee for the injury you caused. There is no chance of her being prosecuted because the police would just see it as a waste of time.
The best thing is to get written statements from as many experts as possible. Insist that both insurance companies send an engineer to inspect both cars.
The last accident that I was involved in made the news because of the traffic jam. The insurannce process took 30 months and i was out of pocket by 3 grand for that time. Interestingly I ended up taking legal action against the insurance company I was working for at the time. And I finally won by not giving in.
Sorry.
Nigel
She admitted liability under stress at the time. It's like when someone walks into you and you say sorry as a reflex. She probably got advised to claim that her door was already open by someone else afterwards. She may already have gone no-win no-fee for the injury you caused. There is no chance of her being prosecuted because the police would just see it as a waste of time.
The best thing is to get written statements from as many experts as possible. Insist that both insurance companies send an engineer to inspect both cars.
The last accident that I was involved in made the news because of the traffic jam. The insurannce process took 30 months and i was out of pocket by 3 grand for that time. Interestingly I ended up taking legal action against the insurance company I was working for at the time. And I finally won by not giving in.
Sorry.
Nigel
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by rodwsmith
quote:
Originally posted by Bananahead:
She may already have gone no-win no-fee for the injury you caused.
Well I'm sorry Nigel, and I'm sure this isn't how you meant it, but I very much resent the implication that I caused her injury in any way. It would be like blaming the architect of a bridge for suicides who threw themselves off it.
I caused this accident in no way other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Frankly, right now, I hope her foot becomes gangrenous and falls off. With near endless and excruciating pain and that she is/was a professional footballer.
I'm through with compassion for this lying vixen.
Patrick, unfortunately it will cost far more than the thousand to put the car right, and whilst it doesn't "need" fixing in the sense that it still goes, it was a lovely car and othertwise in concours condition. In fact - in a bitter irony for me - earlier this year someone failed in an attempt to do a three-point turn and squashed my rear wing and bumper whilst the car was parked. No note or witnesses of course and it proved less expensive for me to pay for the repairs (£1050) than to claim on my "insurance" policy - a system that if you live in London is little more than theft in any case.
The real problem is that my insurance company has a vested interest in "losing" this case, at least in the sense that they will become richer at my expense if this claim is split. Of course all insurance companies in the UK are ultimately underwritten by the same people anyway.
The real problem is that situations such as these are destroying my sense of humanity. Next time I will get witnesses even whilst someone may be dying.
I recently got a camera-fine for driving in a bus lane - because I had moved out of the way of an ambulance. I could not contest it, and the net effect will be that next time I will not pay fifty quid to give way to an ambulance, I would rather let some poor sod die on their way to hospital instead.
What a shit world we live in. I'm off to get (more) pissed...
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Steve Toy
Bus lanes with cameras exist for the purposes of revenue collection and not to improve the efficiency of bus services...
Why did you not contest the fixed penalty?
I guess you knew you had too much to lose in the face of such vested interest.
Law enforcement and financial liability have more regard for ability to pay than with the relationship between action and responsiblity, in a crypto-socialist oligarchical State such as ours.
Regards,
Steve.
Why did you not contest the fixed penalty?
I guess you knew you had too much to lose in the face of such vested interest.
Law enforcement and financial liability have more regard for ability to pay than with the relationship between action and responsiblity, in a crypto-socialist oligarchical State such as ours.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by HTK
Sadly, without an independent witness you can’t do much. You have options sure enough, but no grantee of recovering any money. People are mean and lie because they can get away with it. Not very helpful, but it’s probably best to learn and move on. This is galling when you are blameless.
If only you could somehow find someone who saw the incident….
Sorry
Harry
If only you could somehow find someone who saw the incident….
Sorry
Harry
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Denis O
Rod
Hopefully I can put your mind at rest a little by recounting a couple of incidents that family members have been involved in over recent years. They are quite similar to your circumstances albeit 2 seperate times.
1). Firstly my son was overtaking a slow moving car and trailer on a regular 2 lane road. On his right was another road joining his road. As he came to this junction a car appeared which was turning left into his path. The driver looked to his right only and started to pull out, hitting my sons car in the side. I took pictures showing the damage starting at the back of the front wheel arch amd continuing all the way to the rear bumper. He was also pushed into the car he was overtaking. So guy pulls out of side junction without looking and hits the side of your car; clearly his fault. But of course he lied and said he was stationary at the junction and my son drove into him. The pictures proved otherwise and eventually, with some persuasion from me, the his insurance paid out on the basis he was completely at fault. Even insurance companies can't argue with the laws of physics even if dumbass members of the public try. Your pictures and expert testimony will see you through this. Request her insurers send an assesor to review your damage. If they see what everyone else does you'll be OK. You will have to keep on at everyone yourself but you'll get there in the end.
2). This covers the issue of fraudulant claims. My wife reversed into a little sports car with her Range Rover as she came out of a parking space in a car park. The sports was not parked in a bay and because the RR sits so high she just didn't see it. The RR tow bar lightly touched the drivers door ( you can only go so fast when you are reversing out of a parking space) but it was impossible to tell how much damage had been done because of the pre exsisting damage to the complete off side of the sports. Wife left details with car park attendant. The next thing I get is the car owners boyfriend venting his spleen down the phone line saying he would be claiming for damage to the whole of his car as it was caused by my wife. Needless to say he got short shrift; something with 2 l's in it if I remember correctly. I told our insurance company that he was about to make a fraudulent claim, I put it in writing, I told them the pre existing damage showed the sports car had been hit by something with white paint and our RR was dark blue. Even with all this they still paid out more than £1800 for repairs to a sports car. Also bear in mind that we claimed nothing for repairs to the RR. I felt that claiming for a cracked plastic tow ball cover seemed irrelevant. So with all this evidence and knowledge of a fraudulent claim our insurance company did nothing, except pay out. They probably new that increasing our premiums the following year would compensate. However, because of their attitude to the fraudulent, we moved companies and got it much cheaper. In fact I would have moved from them if I had to pay more.
So hopefully that lot gives you some in-sight and will help with your problems. My advice is, if you are in the right then keep at it. Impress upon all parties that you will not go away until you get things sorted to your satisfaction and put everything in writing. Good luck and I also hope the old bags leg falls off........at the neck!!!!
Hopefully I can put your mind at rest a little by recounting a couple of incidents that family members have been involved in over recent years. They are quite similar to your circumstances albeit 2 seperate times.
1). Firstly my son was overtaking a slow moving car and trailer on a regular 2 lane road. On his right was another road joining his road. As he came to this junction a car appeared which was turning left into his path. The driver looked to his right only and started to pull out, hitting my sons car in the side. I took pictures showing the damage starting at the back of the front wheel arch amd continuing all the way to the rear bumper. He was also pushed into the car he was overtaking. So guy pulls out of side junction without looking and hits the side of your car; clearly his fault. But of course he lied and said he was stationary at the junction and my son drove into him. The pictures proved otherwise and eventually, with some persuasion from me, the his insurance paid out on the basis he was completely at fault. Even insurance companies can't argue with the laws of physics even if dumbass members of the public try. Your pictures and expert testimony will see you through this. Request her insurers send an assesor to review your damage. If they see what everyone else does you'll be OK. You will have to keep on at everyone yourself but you'll get there in the end.
2). This covers the issue of fraudulant claims. My wife reversed into a little sports car with her Range Rover as she came out of a parking space in a car park. The sports was not parked in a bay and because the RR sits so high she just didn't see it. The RR tow bar lightly touched the drivers door ( you can only go so fast when you are reversing out of a parking space) but it was impossible to tell how much damage had been done because of the pre exsisting damage to the complete off side of the sports. Wife left details with car park attendant. The next thing I get is the car owners boyfriend venting his spleen down the phone line saying he would be claiming for damage to the whole of his car as it was caused by my wife. Needless to say he got short shrift; something with 2 l's in it if I remember correctly. I told our insurance company that he was about to make a fraudulent claim, I put it in writing, I told them the pre existing damage showed the sports car had been hit by something with white paint and our RR was dark blue. Even with all this they still paid out more than £1800 for repairs to a sports car. Also bear in mind that we claimed nothing for repairs to the RR. I felt that claiming for a cracked plastic tow ball cover seemed irrelevant. So with all this evidence and knowledge of a fraudulent claim our insurance company did nothing, except pay out. They probably new that increasing our premiums the following year would compensate. However, because of their attitude to the fraudulent, we moved companies and got it much cheaper. In fact I would have moved from them if I had to pay more.
So hopefully that lot gives you some in-sight and will help with your problems. My advice is, if you are in the right then keep at it. Impress upon all parties that you will not go away until you get things sorted to your satisfaction and put everything in writing. Good luck and I also hope the old bags leg falls off........at the neck!!!!
Posted on: 09 December 2004 by Brian OReilly
quote:
Originally posted by Denis O:
1). Firstly my son was overtaking a slow moving car and trailer on a regular 2 lane road. On his right was another road joining his road. As he came to this junction a car appeared which was turning left into his path. The driver looked to his right only and started to pull out, hitting my sons car in the side.
Rod, I'm going to take a big risk and go off topic here(whole of the forum hold's its breath).
With utmost respect,Denis, I can't let what you've described go unanswered. The way you describe it sound like a classic case of driver error by your son. This is EXACTLY the reason you should not overtake at a junction. The other driver did not look left because he would not expect to see another car on his side of the road - this is a mistake that probably 99,9% of people make, you probably do it yourself. I'm amazed that your son was judged to be the innocent party here, perhaps I've misunderstood the events described.
Best wishes,
Brian
Posted on: 09 December 2004 by Nime
quote:
Originally posted by Brian OReilly:
With utmost respect,Denis, I can't let what you've described go unanswered. The way you describe it sound like a classic case of driver error by your son. This is EXACTLY the reason you should not overtake at a junction. The other driver did not look left because he would not expect to see another car on his side of the road - this is a mistake that probably 99,9% of people make, you probably do it yourself. I'm amazed that your son was judged to be the innocent party here, perhaps I've misunderstood the events described.
Best wishes,
Brian
I thought that too Dennis.
Ist Commandment of defensive driving:
"Thou shalt not overtake at a junction".
It doesn't make the emerging driver any less of a total moron though. He probably deserved what he received. But your son got away with a similarly moronic manoever. And he didn't deserve to!
Nime
Posted on: 09 December 2004 by Denis O
I would agree to an extent that his overtaking was not the most sensible thing to do and I told him as such. However, he broke no laws, did not infringe the highway code and was perfectly within his rights to be where he was. The driver that didn't look both ways before pulling out was totally at fault for causing the accident and his insurance company agreed, full recovery of all costs.
You state "the other driver did not look left as he would not expect another driver to be on his side of the road" He was not on "the road", he was about to turn onto it. He should have looked to see it was clear, he didn't and as such he is responsible.
I think it is a fairly common missconception that the overtaking driver is at fault if someone pulls into his path. It is not. It is exactly the opposite.
My point with regard to the original topic was that the pictures of the damage proved the other driver was at fault.
You state "the other driver did not look left as he would not expect another driver to be on his side of the road" He was not on "the road", he was about to turn onto it. He should have looked to see it was clear, he didn't and as such he is responsible.
I think it is a fairly common missconception that the overtaking driver is at fault if someone pulls into his path. It is not. It is exactly the opposite.
My point with regard to the original topic was that the pictures of the damage proved the other driver was at fault.
Posted on: 09 December 2004 by Brian OReilly
Sorry Denis, I don't want to beat this to death, but it's important:
Extract from The Highwaycode (rule 143)
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
I'm genuinely not attacking you, just trying to clarify this.
Regards,
Brian.
Extract from The Highwaycode (rule 143)
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
I'm genuinely not attacking you, just trying to clarify this.
Regards,
Brian.
Posted on: 09 December 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Brian OReilly:
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
It's always been my understanding that if you're involved in an accident while overtaking adjacent to a junction you'll be found at least partially liable.
Years ago my wife was in an accident with a van driver who overtook her as she was turning right. He tried to claim it was entirely her fault as (according to him) she wasn't indicating at the time. My wife thought she was indicating (but there were no witnesses) however on my having words with the van drivers employer about overtaking at a junction the claim was dropped.
Posted on: 09 December 2004 by Bananahead
quote:
Originally posted by rodwsmith:quote:
Originally posted by Bananahead:
She may already have gone no-win no-fee for the injury you caused.
Well I'm sorry Nigel, and I'm sure this isn't how you meant it, but I very much resent the implication that I caused her injury in any way.
Hi Rod
Sorry. It's not how I meant it. If she is cabable of claiming that the incident was your fault then she is capable of claiming compensation for her injury.
Nigel
Posted on: 09 December 2004 by long-time-dead
Rod
Not wanting to throw a damper on things but one of her clever points of contestation could be that you should have provided a safe and suitable distance between her car and yours during your passing manoeuvre.
This way, she could accept that maybe she did open the door as you were passing but because you were so close you denied her the opportunity to take evasive action before her door struck your car and rebounded onto her.
I think expert advice is the best way forward.
Not wanting to throw a damper on things but one of her clever points of contestation could be that you should have provided a safe and suitable distance between her car and yours during your passing manoeuvre.
This way, she could accept that maybe she did open the door as you were passing but because you were so close you denied her the opportunity to take evasive action before her door struck your car and rebounded onto her.
I think expert advice is the best way forward.
Posted on: 09 December 2004 by rodwsmith
Well LTD as anyone who has ever driven through Muswell Hill will confirm - as I expect in cities the world over - had I allowed enough room for people in parked cars to kick open their doors without looking, then I should have been driving on the wrong side of the road.
Probably without enough room for parked vehicles on that side to open their doors without hitting me. From some of the messages earlier it seems this would be easier to prove as not having being my fault. Good grief.
If this is genuinely some kind of justification in law for arseholes to claim that their own mistakes are the fault of others then I think I shall start a new career as a serial door-opening personal-injury-claiming burglar.
Nigel, if she even begins to cast aspersions on my character by claiming I am responsible for her self-inflicted injury, then frankly I think I shall plan actually to inflict one on her. By a bizarre stroke of luck, it transpires seemingly that a well placed opening of a car door as she walked/drove past would actually be her fault and not mine. What kind of world is this?
Probably without enough room for parked vehicles on that side to open their doors without hitting me. From some of the messages earlier it seems this would be easier to prove as not having being my fault. Good grief.
If this is genuinely some kind of justification in law for arseholes to claim that their own mistakes are the fault of others then I think I shall start a new career as a serial door-opening personal-injury-claiming burglar.
Nigel, if she even begins to cast aspersions on my character by claiming I am responsible for her self-inflicted injury, then frankly I think I shall plan actually to inflict one on her. By a bizarre stroke of luck, it transpires seemingly that a well placed opening of a car door as she walked/drove past would actually be her fault and not mine. What kind of world is this?
Posted on: 09 December 2004 by long-time-dead
What kind of world is this?
........ one that is slipping towards Americana-geddon........
........ one that is slipping towards Americana-geddon........
Posted on: 09 December 2004 by Nime
Your earlier point about no damage occuring to the front of your car is your best defense. The simple geometry of the arc of the door meeting your car amidships proves her argument is completely false.
If you drove into her door you must have some visible frontal damage or marking. The absence proves otherwise.
Damage along the length of your car can only occur where the door is opened after the front of the car has passed. A silent ratchet effect drags the sharp edge of her door into the side of your car. Probably causing a vertical dent or groove in your bodywork. That is the point of first contact. There is no other explanation.
If you hit her door with the front of your car the door would be turned hard against the hinges. But no sharp edge can reach your bodywork. Because only the inside of the door is available to do damage.
Her door would scrape relatively harmlessly along your bodywork. Without the ratchet effect allowing it to dig in anywhere. Once your car had passed her door would spring back against the powerful resistance of the hinges. And then clout her.
Nime
If you drove into her door you must have some visible frontal damage or marking. The absence proves otherwise.
Damage along the length of your car can only occur where the door is opened after the front of the car has passed. A silent ratchet effect drags the sharp edge of her door into the side of your car. Probably causing a vertical dent or groove in your bodywork. That is the point of first contact. There is no other explanation.
If you hit her door with the front of your car the door would be turned hard against the hinges. But no sharp edge can reach your bodywork. Because only the inside of the door is available to do damage.
Her door would scrape relatively harmlessly along your bodywork. Without the ratchet effect allowing it to dig in anywhere. Once your car had passed her door would spring back against the powerful resistance of the hinges. And then clout her.
Nime
Posted on: 09 December 2004 by John Sheridan
the highway code says the following:
section 214
so it doesn't matter at all if her door was already fully open before you made contact with it because she's opened it in the path of your vehicle.
I've always had success dealing with the guilty party's insurance company directly. Tell them exactly what has happened, that you're sick of being screwed around and demand to speak to supervisors. Quoting the above will help. All the claims I've had to make have been settled within a couple of days.
section 214
quote:
you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door
so it doesn't matter at all if her door was already fully open before you made contact with it because she's opened it in the path of your vehicle.
I've always had success dealing with the guilty party's insurance company directly. Tell them exactly what has happened, that you're sick of being screwed around and demand to speak to supervisors. Quoting the above will help. All the claims I've had to make have been settled within a couple of days.
Posted on: 10 December 2004 by rodwsmith
Am I legally entitled to know who her insurers are, does anyone know?
She only gave me her name, address and phone number and so on at the time.
Anyway I spoke to her on the phone to ask why she was lying, with nothing to gain but my loss. As Patrick said, no-one wants to admit they've done something stupid even if it hurts others deeply, but she now adds to her claim that her door was already open - which I can prove is nonsense - that I was going "stupidly fast". This on the basis that she "didn't see me when she looked". I have/had quite a nice car but I had literally just turned right. Even my engine cannot go from standing to above the speed limit in twenty feet. That she didn't see me is evidence of her fallibility not my excess speed. She was seriously suggesting I had appeared from nowhere and that therefore this was ample evidence I was driving too fast. I was doing about 15mph - something the length of the scratch on my car - I hope - may be able to prove.
I am not going to take this lying down for a second time in one year.
But worst of all for me, especially at this time of year I have come to the conclusion that the world is pure shit.
From now on, I shall assume that every person unknown to me is a complete, absolute, lying, dishonest 100% c*nt, until and unless they prove otherwise.
It seems to be the only to survive in this world these days. I'd say this is perhaps ample disproof of evolution. This is not a devolopment of anything. I truly despair of the whole crappy nonsense.
She only gave me her name, address and phone number and so on at the time.
Anyway I spoke to her on the phone to ask why she was lying, with nothing to gain but my loss. As Patrick said, no-one wants to admit they've done something stupid even if it hurts others deeply, but she now adds to her claim that her door was already open - which I can prove is nonsense - that I was going "stupidly fast". This on the basis that she "didn't see me when she looked". I have/had quite a nice car but I had literally just turned right. Even my engine cannot go from standing to above the speed limit in twenty feet. That she didn't see me is evidence of her fallibility not my excess speed. She was seriously suggesting I had appeared from nowhere and that therefore this was ample evidence I was driving too fast. I was doing about 15mph - something the length of the scratch on my car - I hope - may be able to prove.
I am not going to take this lying down for a second time in one year.
But worst of all for me, especially at this time of year I have come to the conclusion that the world is pure shit.
From now on, I shall assume that every person unknown to me is a complete, absolute, lying, dishonest 100% c*nt, until and unless they prove otherwise.
It seems to be the only to survive in this world these days. I'd say this is perhaps ample disproof of evolution. This is not a devolopment of anything. I truly despair of the whole crappy nonsense.
Posted on: 10 December 2004 by seagull
You're supposed to swap insurance details when you have an accident. So yes, I think you are entitled to know her insurance company - how else are claims to be settled?
Your insurers will need to communicate with hers whatever the outcome and especially if there is a dispute.
Your insurers will need to communicate with hers whatever the outcome and especially if there is a dispute.
Posted on: 10 December 2004 by Nigel Cavendish
Rod
You been in a car crash, not a war.
You pay for insurance, make your insurer do the work.
To any event, there are as many versions of the "truth" as there are witnesses - and every witness would claim to be sincere in their version.
Don't let this spoil your Christmas or your life.
cheers
Nigel
You been in a car crash, not a war.
You pay for insurance, make your insurer do the work.
To any event, there are as many versions of the "truth" as there are witnesses - and every witness would claim to be sincere in their version.
Don't let this spoil your Christmas or your life.
cheers
Nigel
Posted on: 10 December 2004 by rodwsmith
No Nigel - she's a liar who is doing so vindictively and with nothing to gain.
It already has ruined my christmas.
But thanks for the sentiment.
It already has ruined my christmas.
But thanks for the sentiment.
Posted on: 10 December 2004 by Rockingdoc
I recently posted a thread about being struck while stationary, other driver admitting all at the time, but subsequently denying.
I was outraged.
I was advised to let it go and just accept the uninsured loss, because it was going to happen anyway.
They were right.
I was outraged.
I was advised to let it go and just accept the uninsured loss, because it was going to happen anyway.
They were right.
Posted on: 10 December 2004 by Steve Toy
It would be easy to prove your speed was only 15 mph and the door opened as you came around the corner.
Otherwise you'd have ripped the door clean off its hinges.
The bitch's poorly foot proves, ironically, that you only hit the door with sufficient force for it to spring back off the hinges into it.
Regards,
Steve.
Otherwise you'd have ripped the door clean off its hinges.
The bitch's poorly foot proves, ironically, that you only hit the door with sufficient force for it to spring back off the hinges into it.
Regards,
Steve.