# How to get your car fixed



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

Run your car into a wall recently?

Don't want to claim on your insurance?

Easy! 

sit in traffic and wait for a bit where two lanes merge into one.
Take note of number plate of car infront.

Drive to police station and claim they drove into you but didn't stop.
File insurance claim against said car.

Wait for court case.

This is the good bit!    

Despite the other car having NO DAMAGE whatsoever, their insurance will pay for your car to be fixed!    

BASTRADS!


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

I take it someone has done this to you then?


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

> Run your car into a wall recently?
> 
> Don't want to claim on your insurance?
> 
> ...


Is this a suggestion or a scenario thats happened to you recently?

If it's a suggestion it's an unusual one from a moderator... :-/


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

The key word is the last one in the post. And the fact that this post is in here.

My insurance company (well, luckily my company insurance) is now funding:

a written off old knackered Ford (Â£250 worth of damage = write off)
90 days 'loss of use' claim at Â£10 per day
this that and the other

total bill in excess of Â£2K

because someone was clever enough to write down my number plate

like I said - BARSTARDS


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

??? - how can they prove that. You dont have any damage on your car and show that no work has been done ??


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

you would have thought it would be that easy wouldn't you?

I did :-/

It went through the small claims court - where the case does not have to be proved 'beyond reasonible doubt' (as per criminal court), but rather 'on balance'.

ie you both put your case and the judge decides who to believe.

which boils down to this:

ok - I believe the defendant when he says that he did not notice the impact (and therefore did not stop)
but - have proof of damage to car
have husband and wife both saying defendant hit their car
have defendant not denying that he was there or thereabouts at the time

so...... ok - defendant's insurance can cough up for their car.

next.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

That's outrageous.

Is there nothing else your insurance company can do - surely they must not want to pay out.


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

completly outrageous.

but no - it would appear not. 

*guess* they could appeal the decision, but, as my (ins co) solicitor said before going in 'these can go one way or the other - it's just down to how the judge feels....'

I'm guessing it might have been different if the other car had more damage - twas (apparently) scrapes down drivers door and front wing / bumper.
Judge decided that whilst I was not at fault for not stopping (agreed that I might not have noticed the impact), basically decided not to believe me when I said I had no damage.

How can you prove the lack of damage?

Contact Audi to prove no work?
you could have taken it to a back street garage.
But why would I have done that?
To avoid the 'driving without due care' charge....

Innocent until proven guilty?

Not in this land, it would appear. :-/

Worst of it is that I can't even give any advice on how to stop this happening to anyone else :-/ :-/ :-/


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Local newspaper? Watchdog?


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

dunno.

TBH, had the shoe been on the other foot....

Imagine that you are in left lane of two in slow moving traffic.
Road narrows to one lane.

Burk flies down right hand lane and dives into 'gap' infront of you.
You slam on brakes to avoid T boning him, but he clips your car.
He refuses to pull over and drives off into the distance.
You stop at police station and report him.

You'd be pretty pissed off if he then went to court and said 'yes I was there, no I didn't hit anyone, look no damage'
And got off with it.

Which is basically the way they put it.

Judge decided that it would have been too much hassle (for them) for them to have made it all up. Â :-/


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Well I might have to try it then has some fecker has rubed green paint all down my offiside rear bumper.

Looks like it might come off, but it might not...


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

the only *slightly* good news is:

a) the cops believed me (6 months after the event) and dropped the 'driving without' charge as soon as they saw my statement
b) hopfully this will not catch on as it took them over 18 months from the date of the 'accident' to getting any money at all.

b) is slight consolation tho Â :-/

Sorry to hear about your paint tho


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

> a written off old knackered Ford (Â£250 worth of damage = write off)
> 90 days 'loss of use' claim at Â£10 per day
> this that and the other
> 
> total bill in excess of Â£2K


90 days loss of use for what sounds like a minor scrape - that is clearly taking the piss


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

I just think its fucking incredible - makes you wonder why there is so much dishonesty and ways to make a quick buck.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

I can't believe what I have just been reading . Sorry to hear about this D.I.R.Y. It's terrible and makes you so vigilant of what other people are capable of doing!


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

> 90 days loss of use for what sounds like a minor scrape - that is clearly taking the piss


apparently 'I' took out the driver side: side indicator, front indicator and front light.

Being a low income family and not having 2 brain cells between them (ok - lots of brain cells, zero common sense) they 'could not afford to fix the car, so had to get lifts with friends / family / taxis'....

Think this is one bit where the judge leaned slightly in my favour.
'Accident' was 18 months ago, but he 'only' gave them 3 months loss on the grounds that they should have got the car roadworthy within that amount of time.

Still 90 days @ Â£10 per day. :-/
But could have been the full 540 days


----------



## uppTTnorth (Jul 5, 2003)

If i had not read this , i would never have belived it possible, like you said BASTARDS


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Don't you think that it was a mistake to admit in the court that you may have had an impact and not notice it?

You should have been more positive about the fact that you NEVER had an impact and that you are a careful driver and looking after this car that it is your pride and joy.


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

When asked the question outright (having already admitted that you could have been in that area at that time) :

'So - is it possible that you may have been in collision but not noticed it?'
'I'm sure I would have noticed it, and there was no damage to my car'
'But it is possible'
'I don't think so, no'
'But possible - perhaps you could have mistaken it for, say a pothole?'
'I don't think so, no'
'have you ever had a bump like this before?'
'no'
'So - you don't know what it would feel like?'
'no'
'So it is possible that you perhaps were in collision, but didn't realise it....'

where do you go from there? :-/


----------



## Guy (May 13, 2002)

Had your insurance company done the simple things such as measuring the height of the damage to the Ford and cross matching paint samples or damage profiles they may have saved themselves a bill in excess of Â£2K.

Some insurance companies will take active steps to prevent this type of claim but it seems as if you have a bad one.
The other thing is that if the Police did the job they were paid to they would have been round to see your motor within hours and could have supplied the proof there were no contact marks.

Have you noticed this type of claim is always against someone who they can more or less guarantee is insured and not against other Â£250 Escorts?

You (and Kell) have my sympathies.


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

thank you


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> When asked the question outright (having already admitted that you could have been in that area at that time) :
> 
> 'So - is it possible that you may have been in collision but not noticed it?'
> 'I'm sure I would have noticed it, and there was no damage to my car'
> ...


Swines solicitors!! They are trying to make you say things.

Well you know that they were lying about you hitting their car. You had to lie about as well in the question if you had a bump like this before and should have said YES. In this case he would have been in trouble as you had experience of what it feels like and wouldn't be able to stuff you like this.

Also if you are not sure what to answer you could stop the hearing and consult your solicitor, if you had one for advice.

So if next time I return to my car and find damage at Tesco's I just write down a random car registration and make a claim on it.


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

I would never have believed this was possible. Â Totally mad! Â Mind you, I reversed in to someone's parked car recently. Â There was zero damage to my 406 since i hit the side of that car with the corner of my bumper (very strong). Â I hit the middle of his drivers side door (very week). Â

I knocked on doors until I found the owner of the car. Â He came out and started pointing at damage at the FRONT of the car which was nowhere NEAR where I had hit it. Â Clearly that damage was from some kind of slow speed frontal impact whereas I had driven smack bang in tot he centre of the drivers door!

I told my insurance company I thought he would try to claim additional work etc and they said they would keep an eye out for it. Â A few weeks later I walk past this guy and he stops me and happily tells me that my insurance company paid for all of the work on his car to be fixed Â 

So - they will raise premiums next year for everyone claiming that there are more accidents. Â Fact of the matter is that they are rolling over for crooks and paying out more than they should be. Â Who bears the cost? Â You know who... 

w


----------



## LerxsTT (Jul 18, 2003)

I wonder how many people would have the honesty and decency to actively find the owner (Well - apart from everyone on here obviously  )

It seems a bit rich after doing the decent thing that the owner's first reaction is to think "Yes! I can get the front of the car repaired for sod all!"

Makes you wonder why you bother. :-/


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

Insurance companies generally pay out because the costs of doing so are so much less than the costs of contesting it in a court. The real winners here are the lawyers - they win whatever happens.


----------



## Guy (May 13, 2002)

> I told my insurance company I thought he would try to claim additional work etc and they said they would keep an eye out for it. A few weeks later I walk past this guy and he stops me and happily tells me that my insurance company paid for all of the work on his car to be fixed


Wintermute
If you give your insurance company a ring and ask them just what they paid out for, they will normally tell you over the phone. You can then say whether this chap has, in fact, made a fraudulent claim and insist, yes insist, that your company do something about it. Most (if not all) insurance companies will and if you feel even more aggrieved contact the insurance ombudsman who will ensure the fraudulent claim aspect is followed up. There is always the possibility the other guy did a 'deal' with the garage to get the front of his car fixed up. If this is the case, unless the garage admits to 'loading' the claim you won't get anywhere. 
With the insurance company a lot will depend on your own determination to pursue the fraudulent claim aspect. They do it all but, it is your will that drives them.


----------

