Fraudulent Claim Against Us

Associate
Joined
7 Jan 2005
Posts
1,805
Location
London
There's another thread for that one :)


I'll address this separately. You still haven't addressed the important point of intent.

How can it be cyclists fault if the driver's intent is to open the door and know the cyclist off his bike? It can't be. The cyclist may get blamed for being stupid, but that just means the driver got away with assault.

Do you not understand that deliberately causing a collision is a crime? It is assault on a person, criminal damage, fraud, and who knows what else? Just because the victim was foolish doesn't mean it wasn't a crime.

Old people are foolish if they send their money to their Nigerian friends, it doesn't mean they deserved to be fleeced. They didn't commit a crime, the Nigerian scammer did.
 

Lum

Lum

Soldato
Joined
23 Nov 2008
Posts
3,283
Location
South Wales
But the cogent point is not about whether you have made a mistake and made yourself vulnerable. The cogent point is that someone has gone out to deliberately cause a collision. When that happens the fool who is too close is a victim. They haven't caused an accident or a collision. Without an accident then the usual logic of the person behind being too close does not apply. The collision was caused by the person in front who did it deliberately with that in mind. Because of the intent, this is not an accident, the person behind was RAMMED.

Anything else is ridiculous. It smacks of dogmatic adherence to IAM/ROSPA standards which are for safe driving and avoiding accidents. They don't take into account situations where someone has aimed their car at yours.

I agree with you on the point of intent, however the reason people fall victim to these scams is because they are susceptible to this sort of crash which can also happen due to innocent reasons on the part of the car in front.

I have little doubt that the driver in the OP is a scammer, however if a child had run out then the OP would have been blamed for the accident with no comeback at all (technically the fault would be on the child though blame is never going to follow, not in this day and age) and thus regardless of the other driver's intentions the OP needs to learn from this and be more careful next time.

What if you parked behind someone at the lights and they reversed into you? It's the same thing. They suckered you into being close enough to cause a collision where you would be blamed.

That is a really annoying one, there is no "suckering" involved as it'll get you even if you do sit far enough back that you can see both wheels touch the road. It's also pretty much impossible to prove without witnesses, also in some cars, with certain driving styles, it's pretty easy to select reverse instead of 1st without realising so it may not even be intentional, and if it's an old duffer driving they may not have even noticed that they've done it and protest their innocence all the way.

If you're in a queue at the lights and you see reverse lights come on ahead of you, I would suggest you back off and hope the guy behind you does the same, beep your horn or take a picture (not with a mobile phone obviously, that would be illegal)

The fact that all this goes on is why as soon as I've got the Car PC re-installed into my Nissan, I'll be constantly recording video footage of my travels (deleted after 15 minutes) as we still haven't touched the other common scam where someone just pulls in front of you then slams on in a pre determined location where all their mates are hanging out on the street corner to be witnesses.
 
Associate
Joined
7 Jan 2005
Posts
1,805
Location
London
I agree with you on the point of intent, however the reason people fall victim to these scams is because they are susceptible to this sort of crash which can also happen due to innocent reasons on the part of the car in front.

I have little doubt that the driver in the OP is a scammer, however if a child had run out then the OP would have been blamed for the accident with no comeback at all (technically the fault would be on the child though blame is never going to follow, not in this day and age) and thus regardless of the other driver's intentions the OP needs to learn from this and be more careful next time.



That is a really annoying one, there is no "suckering" involved as it'll get you even if you do sit far enough back that you can see both wheels touch the road. It's also pretty much impossible to prove without witnesses, also in some cars, with certain driving styles, it's pretty easy to select reverse instead of 1st without realising so it may not even be intentional, and if it's an old duffer driving they may not have even noticed that they've done it and protest their innocence all the way.

If you're in a queue at the lights and you see reverse lights come on ahead of you, I would suggest you back off and hope the guy behind you does the same, beep your horn or take a picture (not with a mobile phone obviously, that would be illegal)

The fact that all this goes on is why as soon as I've got the Car PC re-installed into my Nissan, I'll be constantly recording video footage of my travels (deleted after 15 minutes) as we still haven't touched the other common scam where someone just pulls in front of you then slams on in a pre determined location where all their mates are hanging out on the street corner to be witnesses.


So in other words you agree with me on all points but are trying pick holes in it which are quite obviously there (but only apply to other scenarios - take note of "other" because that is an important word) just because you can.

Regarding the lights scenario. I am pretty sure that someone who is really trying will be able to reverse a car length (from the time his reverse lights are on) than most people will be able to register the action (minimum 200ms) release the handbrake, engage reverse and raise the clutch. And of course there is not suckering involved - that was kind of my point. You left yourself vulnerable to a scammer, and yes a full car length behind is still vulnerable to someone determined to reverse into you.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
20 Jul 2008
Posts
4,363
As far as I'm concerned if somebody opens a door, it should ALWAYS be the fault of the person who opened the door.

You open a door to EXIT the vehicle. It should only be open when you are doing so and when it is SAFE to do so, thus it shouldn't be:

- left open unless you are exiting the vehicle
- opened if ANYTHING is coming which it would obstruct.

I'm sick to the teeth because I'm going to court with a bunch of drunks morons who opened a door when I went passed. In my eyes it should automatically be their fault, even if I drove straight into it they could see me coming 200 metres away and should have shut it or not opened it at all. ****s
 

Lum

Lum

Soldato
Joined
23 Nov 2008
Posts
3,283
Location
South Wales
So in other words you agree with me on all points but are trying pick holes in it which are quite obviously there (but only apply to other scenarios - take note of "other" because that is an important word) just because you can.

No the point I'm trying to make is that although the OP is not the cause of the accident in this specific case, they could well have been in a similar circumstance where the only difference is the intent and reasons of the driver in front and really the OP and everyone else for that matter needs to be aware of this sort of situation and drive in such a way as to prevent it from happening.

Some of the situations such as someone reversing into you when stationary, or someone cutting in front then slamming on the anchors are not reasonably avoidable (no-one expects you to leave a whole car length or more when queueing at the lights) but running into the back of someone because they slammed on the brakes unexpectedly IS avoidable and the OP should've avoided it.

In some ways the OP is lucky that the person who did this has turned out to be a proven scammer because if it were someone who slammed on for a legit reason then the OP would now be facing NCB loss and increased insurance premiums.

I realise it may not the be nicest thing to do, to point out someone's own mistakes when they fell victim to a scam, but it's still necessary, whether it be driving related or because they sent money to Prince Abdagwengo of Nigeria.
 
Associate
Joined
7 Jan 2005
Posts
1,805
Location
London
No the point I'm trying to make is that although the OP is not the cause of the accident in this specific case, they could well have been in a similar circumstance where the only difference is the intent and reasons of the driver in front and really the OP and everyone else for that matter needs to be aware of this sort of situation and drive in such a way as to prevent it from happening.

Some of the situations such as someone reversing into you when stationary, or someone cutting in front then slamming on the anchors are not reasonably avoidable (no-one expects you to leave a whole car length or more when queueing at the lights) but running into the back of someone because they slammed on the brakes unexpectedly IS avoidable and the OP should've avoided it.

In some ways the OP is lucky that the person who did this has turned out to be a proven scammer because if it were someone who slammed on for a legit reason then the OP would now be facing NCB loss and increased insurance premiums.

I realise it may not the be nicest thing to do, to point out someone's own mistakes when they fell victim to a scam, but it's still necessary, whether it be driving related or because they sent money to Prince Abdagwengo of Nigeria.


Well, you failed to make your point previously. Instead you seemed infuriatingly dense because you kept saying the OP and driver B were at fault for the accident (there was no accident). They were not, as you say and I have said repeatedly. I also acknowledged long ago (and knew from the start) that the OP was at fault for not doing more to prevent the collision, but that's not the same as being at fault for a collision. We both knew from the start that if the same thing had happened but no intent was involved then it would be an accident and the OP would 100% incur blame and fault.
 

Lum

Lum

Soldato
Joined
23 Nov 2008
Posts
3,283
Location
South Wales
This is simply a problem of word definition then. When I said "fault" to begin with, I was using the insurance company definition of "fault" (what with this being a thread about insurance fraud, and all), this definition ultimately means "the person who is going to get shafted at renewal time".

By that definition the only reason the OP isn't "at fault" is because he is now able to prove that the other guy is a scammer. Likewise when your car is stolen you are deemed to be "at fault" except in the rare occasion where the police actually catch the scumbag thief AND the insurance are able to sucessfully recover the money from them.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
23 Apr 2004
Posts
8,410
Location
In the Gym
to Eriedor actually it isn't as simple as that anymore.

Basically.. if you are the driver behind you are not automatically at fault (i know this btw after speaking to the Accident Investigator last night), basically it used to be that if you hit from the rear it was your fault no if's no but's but now there is a part of a clause in the Road Traffic Act that states that along the lines if the person in front is driving erratically with a potential to cause others harm there is room to take action against that individual.

Update Section:
After the 5.5 hr chat last night (i kid you not the guy turned up at 5.15 and left after 10.30) the guy took details of our series of events. I got talking to him while my wife was upstairs and he used to be a Police Officer (Traffic) and also normal Police before he retired to do this job throughout his retirement.

He said he see's incidents like this all the while and he said in his opinion the driver couldn't have received whiplash or soft tissue damage as was being claimed, but did say he is not medically trained to make that assumption.

We got talking about the "Asian" factor and his last 6 incidents have all involved an asian party being hit in the rear and making a claim for whiplash (i swear).

He was telling us that the normal story is to slam the brakes on, then call for backup and he told us of one woman who had an accident on a bank near to where i grew up where several other taxi's turned up and started to threaten the woman. He mentioned about her having a "strong" character and wouldn't back-off and it took the Police to resolve the amount of people there or something. But they got their just deserts.

We asked him too what the likely next steps will be and he told us along the following lines.

- First possibility is he drops his claim from his side and hopes for no repercussions of cost
*we butt in at this point as we've had to pay a considerable amount in excess, plus time off work, plus phone calls etc
- Second possibility is he drops the claim from his side and then will be taken for us and possibly the insurer to claim damages
- Third possibility and most unlikely is he refuses to drop his claim etc/or he does drop and we have to take him to court along with the insurer to re-claim our excess+time off work etc (as my wife had to take off a few mornings from work without pay so we are a good £50/60 down straight away).

So far i have to say guys it is starting to look a little perkier but as the guy told us in this/these instances the insurers take it that "we" are at fault then try to negate his claim by making it 50/50 through the liability side, once we pull back (apparently) from 40/60 to 50/50 the insurer continues to battle it towards 60/40 and then on to a settlement, if none is reached, thats when it reaches court. He did however say that it would be most unlikely it goes to court.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
1,188
1. Your driver was at fault and will have to pay whatever your respective insurance companies agree is the correct damages for car and injury.

2. Don't respond in any way to any further direct contact with the 3rd party. That is what insurance companies are for.
 
Back
Top Bottom