|
2 members (Mike D, sprinty),
346
guests, and
33
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sold
by simon8201 - 09/09/26 01:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wales
by Joske Vermeule, September 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums39
Topics49,896
Posts837,997
Members9,635
| |
Most Online1,063 Jun 14th, 2026
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 4,896
Drive on the Wild Side Part of the Furniture
|
Drive on the Wild Side Part of the Furniture
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 4,896 |
Ignoring who's to blame, it looks like you were not involved in the collision and that the accident was between the old woman and the woman that ran into her. So the fault is with either of them. The woman that rammed the old woman from behind is responsible for what is in front of her and paying due care and attention to the road and what is happening. With respect to them refusing to give you their details, if either of them hit the vehicle you were responsible for, then they have in fact broken the law, it in fact against the law to leave the scene of an accident and to fail to report it or give the other party your details irrespective of whose at fault or whether anyone is hurt or not. An individual can refuse to admit liability but cannot refuse details. I know this as fact from when our Freelander was hit when unattended in a car park and was hit by a woman who drove away and parked elsewhere. Luckily it was witnessed and reported by a 3rd party to the police with the reg of the offending driver. The police pursued her and after discussing with her and me as she was being uncoperative said they would prosecute her under criminal law for failing to report an accident and also failing to supply insurance details at the scene, which she should have left on the car or her contact details. She caved in with this threat.
Adrian
Buggered Off, to a modern none leaky car, heart's still ticking
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 407
Learner Plates Off!
|
OP
Learner Plates Off!
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 407 |
This is correct, Neilda. I asked, but was refused, though I gave mine. The insurer, when I spoke to one of the claims department, said the others had "no leg to stand on." The more I think about it, the more I think I was just a convenient excuse for one or both of the other parties. For the collision to have occurred about 10 seconds after I opened my door, then either one of the following scenarios must be true:
1) The old lady slammed on her brakes for something other than me/my door.
2) The old lady slammed on her brakes to avoid hitting my door, but 10 seconds later, the second woman hit her.
The scenario claimed by the other parties is impossible. If the old woman had slammed on to avoid the door as it opened or was open, then the shunt would have propelled her car into the door. Scenario 2 is also unlikely, as I would have seen her approaching, and slamming on the brakes. I didn't not see any cars approaching within 25 yards, even when I was walking backwards to the back of my car. She was about 10 yards away by the time I got to the boot!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,009
Member of the Inner Circle
|
Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,009 |
Surely it's just an insurance matter as the police only get involved if someone was injured? Your car was not involved in the accident and indeed you were not in the car when the accident happened....I just cannot see how you can be involved in this matter.
Jays Former Morgan owner. Gone but hopefully not forgotten!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 15,794 Likes: 15
Formerly known as Aldermog Member of the Inner Circle
|
Formerly known as Aldermog Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 15,794 Likes: 15 |
Although you were not involved it is reasonable to request the details of the other 2 cars simply because "old lady" believed you were involved. Because she refused you her details you have grounds to go to the Police and report her for failing to provide details when reasonably asked to do so.
This all smells: as has been said someone is looking for a scapegoat. I wonder if "Old Woman" is insured?
Peter, 66, 2016 Porsche Boxster S No longer driving Tarka, the 2014 Plus 8...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 688
Talk Morgan Regular
|
Talk Morgan Regular
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 688 |
Based on my recent dealings with an insurance company- irrespective of right/ wrong or liability- they will all try and make money out of the situation.
Your insurance company will soon be calling you to a) suggest that you have whiplash and b) you need a hire car!!
Then months later they will threaten you with loss recovery when the other side doesn't cough up for their inflated costs.
And this was all down to a no fault accident when someone simply drove straight into the side of my wife's comprehensively insured car.
Good luck with all of this- but try and extricate yourself from any of it.
Porsche 981 Spyder V8 Speedster ( 5 years) 4/4 Competition spec (5 years) 4/4 4str Kent ( 10 years)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,015 Likes: 1
Posting Desperado Talk Morgan Guru
|
Posting Desperado Talk Morgan Guru
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,015 Likes: 1 |
Roger there is not a QC , Barrister or Solicitor in the world who will understand this . Unless its a woman . As Dave says - nothing to do with you as the old woman should have stopped behind the Lexus and the old mare was too close. How can you be responsible when you had already not only started it competed your action of getting out of your car? Furthermore, if she thinks it is your fault and took your details and believes herself to be correct then she has committed an offence for not passing her details on to you, surely? Women's logic...
Last edited by Jack The Lad; 25/11/15 08:34 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,945 Likes: 28
Charter Member
|
Charter Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,945 Likes: 28 |
Ignoring who's to blame, it looks like you were not involved in the collision and that the accident was between the old woman and the woman that ran into her. So the fault is with either of them. Its not quite that simple - you can cause an accident whilst not being involved yourself. But in this case you were on the pavement with the door shut and your car parked between two others. Assuming you werent parked on double lines or causing an obstruction I cant see how you could be involved. However the law is unpredictable and not always rational. If you find yourself legally involved dont forget to claim whiplash. You looked round at the noise so fast that your neck hurts. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,643
Talk Morgan Addict
|
Talk Morgan Addict
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,643 |
Is this a scam. Are the two women related, and in this together? It smells wrong.
Ian 2011 Plus 4 Wild Mogs Reims 2019, Goodwood 2018, Isle of Man 2017, Carried on to Caramulo" 2016
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,015 Likes: 1
Posting Desperado Talk Morgan Guru
|
Posting Desperado Talk Morgan Guru
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,015 Likes: 1 |
Thinking that as soon as I read it. A Is this a scam. Are the two women related, and in this together? It smells wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,749 Likes: 158
Member of the Inner Circle
|
Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,749 Likes: 158 |
Is this a scam. Are the two women related, and in this together? It smells wrong. My thought too. I would go to the police and report it on the basis that you suspect insurance fraud. Then I would send a copy of that statement made to the police to my insurance company. I'm not sure how your car insurance company could cover you in this case as your car was not really involved and you were a pedestrian at the time. Some household policies cover policy holders and family members for public liability even outside the home. We are covered, for example, if one of us accidentally knocks over a valuable object in a shop.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|