Driver Refuses to Provide Evidence of Damage to Tesla

razorack999 on 21/11/2017 - 13:00
Last edited 21/11/2017 - 13:40 by 1 other user

Basically my mother was driving our car and apparently gently touched the rear of bumper of a Tesla.

My brother was with her at the time and used his phone to take a pic of the Tesla's rear bumper which showed a little scuff. The woman driving the Tesla refused to allow proper examination. The collision is estimated at 1-2 km /hr and was really a "kiss", as she rolled into the other car. My brother says there was definitely no dent in the bumper and he doubts there was any paint damage.

The woman concerned has refused to show any evidence of the "damage" but apparently has a panel beater recommending the bumper being resprayed.
What should we do about the lack of cooperation with the other owner. She has shown no evidence that there is damage and for all we know is just trying to get a few shopping carpark scratches removed on us.

Of course if there is legitimate damage then my mother will pay the damage.

Automotive

Comments

    • HighAndDry on 21/11/2017 - 13:10
      +57

      That's flat out wrong, there's no reason why a person in the car can't be a witness. Wtf gave you that idea?

      • tomleonhart on 21/11/2017 - 13:20
        +8

        I believe the witness must be neutral.

        https://www.taylorandscott.com.au/said-said-motor-vehicle-ac…

        • HighAndDry on 21/11/2017 - 13:59
          +33

          Being neutral helps with objectivity and credibility in court. It's not a legal requirement by any means, and a possibly non-neutral witness is still better than no witness at all.

        • HighAndDry on 21/11/2017 - 15:31
          +29

          @blaircam: A more legit place than yours, and more than you - respectively. And respectfully. For obvious reasons I don't advertise it.

          Edit: As an example, consider that both drivers will also tender their own statements as to what happened in court - and those statements are effectively witness statements. If non-objective statements aren't allowed, neither of those would be allowed either, and without CCTV or other evidence, there'd be zero indication of exactly what happened. A dent to the back of a car can happen by the rear car hitting the forward one, OR by the forward car reversing into the rear car.

        • GetOffMyUnicorn on 21/11/2017 - 21:27
          +4

          @0blivion: "The collision is estimated at 1-2 km /hr and was really a "kiss".

          Yep, that's a collision.

        • jacross on 22/11/2017 - 08:52
          +8

          @blaircam: Well I got my LLB from UC and oblivion is correct.

        • Mrs W on 22/11/2017 - 12:38
          +2

          @blaircam:There is a difference between providing legal information and providing advice, I don't see where 0blivion provided any advice…

        • blitz on 22/11/2017 - 16:10
          +5

          I'm @0blivion's lawyer and I approve this message. In fact, I think it's awesome.

        • djmm on 22/11/2017 - 23:27
          +5

          I am very good looking lawyer and Oblivion was correct.

        • pegaxs on 24/11/2017 - 18:02

          @jacross: You didn’t get your LLB from a Udemy course on OzB like everyone else on here? :D

        • jacross on 27/11/2017 - 09:00

          @pegaxs: I'm sure I have a law related Udemy course in my account that I'll never end up doing.

      • berry580 on 22/11/2017 - 07:49
        +2

        If the person is in the car during the accident, the witness's statement would hold less strength than a witness not in the car.

        • BartholemewH on 22/11/2017 - 10:01
          +2

          The photo certainly helps regardless.

    • Diji1 on 21/11/2017 - 15:58

      Surely the brother being the son of the driver is what stops him, not being in the car,

      • HighAndDry on 21/11/2017 - 16:26
        +1

        That definitely goes to the objectivity/impartiality of the witness and any statements given by them, but it "stops" them from being able to give a witness statement as much as issues with objectivity "stops" either driver from giving statements as to what happened - it doesn't. The court, if it comes to that, will take those considerations, and other factors, into account when assessing the credibility of the statements.

      • stueyh on 22/11/2017 - 09:16
        +2

        That would be like saying the son of a suspected murderer couldn't give evidence because they're related

    • canigetsometoo on 24/11/2017 - 08:12

      I will continue to read all the comments because a Tesla was mentioned …. shhhhhh (maybe that Tesla autonomously drove into your mothers car????)

    • Randxyz123 on 24/11/2017 - 08:37
      -1

      Wow -25 votes… For stating a fact ?

      Independent witnesses will ALWAYS have more credibility than ones that are related…

      • pegaxs on 24/11/2017 - 18:06

        Your brother doesn’t count as a witness because he was in the car at the time.

        They said that the brother doesn’t count, this is incorrect. He says it was based solely on him being in the car, that’s incorrect. He does count, but like you said, not as credible.

        That’s why he has copped so many negs. It wasn’t a fact they stated, it was fallacy.

  • HighAndDry on 21/11/2017 - 13:09
    +26

    Use the photo you have to argue that no panel-beater is needed. If they want to claim money from you, they need to provide the evidence.

    For the time being, report this to your own insurance, provide the photo, and otherwise ignore the other driver.

      • HighAndDry on 21/11/2017 - 13:12
        +26

        If the photo shows no dent, that's better than the word of anyone.

        • smashed on 21/11/2017 - 13:22
          +30

          @qwerty:

          Heck, perhaps the whole car is a write off.
          I would suggest that they quote for a new car, after all you have admitted rolling into it. That is all they need according to qwerty.

        • qwerty on 21/11/2017 - 13:25
          +2

          The panel beater said what needs to be done and it is very reasonable for a low impact rear end collision . His options are to ask for an additional quote , pay the current quote or pay his excess.

          But hey just be a smartass about it hes still going to pay one way or the other as it was 100% his mothers fault.

        • razorack999 on 21/11/2017 - 13:49
          +4

          @qwerty: qwerty I dont know why you are so sure that there must be damage. I find it very strange that the other party is not willing to provide the evidence that a reasonable person would provide without question. It would be quite easy to resolve this. Just send a photo of the damage rather than dust that has been disturbed on a dirty car. You do realise that the collision was at less than walking pace?

        • qwerty on 21/11/2017 - 13:59
          -5

          "Standard sized vehicles can still hit another car with a force of about 3.7 tons when driving at a low speed. SUVs, trucks, or semi-trucks will collide with an even greater force because they are much bigger than standard vehicles. For example, it’s estimated that a vehicle that weighs around 3,000 pounds will produce a force of 5.6 tons during a low impact accident."

          Even assuming no visible exterior damage at all after the accident they take it to a panel beater - the panel beater removes and inspects the bumper and other damage and puts it back - who pays in that situation ?

        • razorack999 on 21/11/2017 - 14:01
          +3

          @smashed:

          Thats an extreme example to illustrate the point I am trying to make.

        • smashed on 21/11/2017 - 14:05
          +2

          @razorack999:

          Extrene examples are sometimes required to make a point unfortunately.

        • smashed on 21/11/2017 - 14:05
          +12

          @qwerty:

          Sorry, but a car can hit me at 1kph. It will not be 3.7 tonnes of force. Seriously?

        • razorack999 on 21/11/2017 - 14:06
          +2

          @qwerty:
          I believe modern bumpers are designed to take collisions up to 15km without damage- it is part of the australian standards. But that is not even in question- its whether there has been paint damage that is in issue. And to determine that you would need to see the car clean, which it wasnt. All i want is the woman to give me a pic of the cars damage and I will pay.

        • singlemalt72 on 21/11/2017 - 14:20
          +4

          @razorack999Auto associations do impact tests of "shopping centre" collisions on popular cars. Generally walking pace into a bollard is enough for 3 -6 thousand dollars damage and can result in a write-off on some vehicles.

          https://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/written-off-in-10kmh-cra…

        • smashed on 21/11/2017 - 14:24
          +4

          @singlemalt72:
          The problem is that we have no idea on the true impact or damage so everything is conjecture.
          That is why the OP doesn't wish to just take their word for it, particularly as they have a photo.

        • qwerty on 21/11/2017 - 14:34
          -5

          @smashed:

          The only person with an idea of the true impact and damage in this situation is the panel beater.

          He has provided a quote and a recommended remedy .

        • smashed on 21/11/2017 - 14:36
          +7

          @qwerty:

          Have you ever had 2 different quotes from 2 different places?

          Do you believe it is reasonable to believe that this panel beater may like some work when it is not required?

        • try2bhelpful on 21/11/2017 - 14:47
          +4

          @qwerty: I don't think it is unreasonable to expect there should be proof as to what damage was done. Not sure why she wouldn't be willing to provide it? If it was on the up and up, then she shouldn't object to you meeting with the panel beater and seeing what he is talking about; as long as you behave yourself and not get into an argument.

          I presume you don't have insurance or are trying to avoid excess etc. However, if the cost to the bumper bar is high (and given it is a Tesla I suspect so) handing it to the insurance company might be your best bet. They sure as hell will want proof.

        • razorack999 on 21/11/2017 - 14:51
          +1

          @smashed: No I havent been shown any quotes yet, so far i believe she only has one . But I do have reason to believe that the panel beater may be looking for work

        • razorack999 on 21/11/2017 - 14:52
          +1

          @qwerty: so why not provide the evidence? I am trying to be cooperative but none is coming back

        • qwerty on 21/11/2017 - 14:53

          @smashed:

          Have you ever had to get 2 different quotes ?

          a second panel beater will easily get a similar quote no questions asked.

        • qwerty on 21/11/2017 - 14:55
          -1

          @razorack999:

          She said shes got a quote and should get it for you - you can ask for her pannel beater and call them up

        • qwerty on 21/11/2017 - 14:57
          -4

          @try2bhelpful:

          Shes got a quote and is going to get back to him - hes jumping the gun.

          Ever hear the saying truck and taxi driver saying - Rear ender , Career ender ?

          Hes got 2 choices pay his insurance excess or pay the panel beater - just do whatevers cheaper and be done with it .

        • try2bhelpful on 21/11/2017 - 15:04
          +3

          @qwerty: Why does he have to do anything without any proof? Insurance/Crash scams are not unknown and so is inflated repair bills to cover off a few other things that needed doing, e.g. car park scrapes, etc. I would certainly be asking for proof of damage if I was the OP and I would ask to have a chat with the Panel Beater. I'm not sure what the legality is here, but I would be surprised if the other person can just present a bill with no proof of damage caused.

          I do agree that the best thing, now, is to take this to the insurance company and let them fight it out. Even once this is paid, there may come another bill later on when she decides the frame has been skewed by the accident as well. (With no proof offered).

          Transparency in these issues is best for everyone concerned.

        • qwerty on 21/11/2017 - 15:39

          @try2bhelpful:

          Seeing in this case you dont have excessive damage - you have 1 bumper being removed , inspected and resprayed and that is really easy to get a second quote at a higher cost - plus they can throw in some extras i.e costs of hire car to increase the cost.

          Insurance will probably check out the car but in such a situation they will not fight it out in court which would probably be a 100% loss for them , they will just deal with lowering the panel beaters costs but op will be out the excess and probably pay more for insurance .

          The frame and future damages is the real issue in this so you would need some guarantee that no other damage was done provided by the panel beater.

        • try2bhelpful on 21/11/2017 - 15:53

          @qwerty: Don't, necessarily, disagree but there is no skin off the nose of the other driver to just send a couple of photos to show the damage and give a bit of a breakdown as to what they are doing for repairs. It will provide everyone with transparency.

          https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal-answers/traffic-o…

          Some insurers require you to notify them of an accident, even if you don't make a claim on them; so there is likely to be an affect on the premiums, anyway.

          Without knowing what costs the OP is up for, and who knows with a Tesla, it is hard to say if the insurance is the best way to go.

        • [Deactivated] on 21/11/2017 - 20:49
          +1

          @smashed: It is a 3.7tonne vehicle and it hit you from above.

          Game.

        • zuuutoootuuu on 22/11/2017 - 01:53
          +1

          @razorack999:

          A cut and polish may solve the marks if there are some…

          Maybe someone should explain to the driver that if she gets the bumper resprayed, when selling the vehicle it maybe harder to sell because the inspecting person maybe of the opinion that the car was in some who knows how big accident.

          Panel beaters like to blend panels, so chances are they will want to blend the boot lid and rear quarters to match as many are hopeless at colour matching.

        • berry580 on 22/11/2017 - 08:02
          +3

          @qwerty: if he knows he won't get the job, I'd believe the assessment.

          I'm not trying to say there is damage to the cars or not. But the panel beater's assessment cannot be relied upon when he knows he's going to get a $1,000+ job from his "professional opinion".
          Why would he turn away business, the Tesla owner told him there's been a collision, OF COURSE there's work to be done! Which translate to profit for him?

        • jacross on 22/11/2017 - 08:54

          They aren't arguing there's a dent. They are arguing it needs to be resprayed.

        • Hellman109 on 22/11/2017 - 13:51

          And the Tesla owner can provide their own pictures to counter the claim.

          He is right, I do really basic photoshop work on some photos I take, removing power poles and such, its stupidly easy, from never using photoshop to doing that really well is less then an hour of practice and effort these days.

        • nicbaz on 22/11/2017 - 17:45

          @razorack999: I'm not an expert by any means, but if my memory of high-school physics serves, cars are designed to basically 'crumple', spreading the force of the collision over a longer time, resulting in a lower impact to occupants/pedestrians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_(mechanics)

          The downsize is that bumpers crumple, and any minor collision can cause costly damage.

        • Harold Halfprice on 23/11/2017 - 18:45

          @qwerty:

          The panel beater said what needs to be done and it is very reasonable for a low impact rear end collision . His options are to ask for an additional quote , pay the current quote or pay his excess.

          Precisely - his option is to get another quote from elsewhere. But the owner is refusing to provide evidence of damage.

          Just because one panel beater is quoting a full respray of the bumper, doesn't mean it's an honest quote. I know several panel beaters that will be happy to bump up the quote if you tell them it's an insurance job.

        • qwerty on 23/11/2017 - 19:20

          @ILikeBargenz:

          You really think shes going to be stupid enough to go to a second panel beater that says nothing needs to be done and show OP the quote ? If that magically happened she will do is go to a another one that says the same thing or something higher and now shes got 2 experts saying a bumper needed respraying . Plus shes not going to go to his pannel beater friend who says no damage or go with him to a panel beater where he and his family will argue that there was no accident just dust being wiped off .

        • Harold Halfprice on 24/11/2017 - 14:06

          @qwerty:

          That's not how this works. You want someone to fix your car, then BOTH PARTIES need to be reasonable and cooperative. There is no reason to not provide OP a photo of the damage. If both parties can't come to an agreement then that's when you can turn to insurance.

          Why are you assuming OP will take it to his friend who will say it doesn't need repairing?

          I've been in a similar situation. I accidentally pranged the car in front of me in a parking lot (friend parked the car in gear without me realising and it jerked forward a bit when I started it). I went to reception and got them to call the owner of the vehicle. We both took pictures, exchanged details and he got a quote. The damage was a tiny tiny scuff. He got a quote saying $900, and I politely told him that that was rather overpriced, and my panel beater that I've had do plenty of work on my cars quoted me $300. He happily accepted $300 cash and probably never even bothered to get it fixed cause there was much worse damage on the rest of the car.

          Unless you're trying to get pricey quote to pocket a bit of cash, it makes no sense to refuse providing a photo. If the bumper actually needs a respray, then going through insurance will get you your respray - but the insurance company certainly isnt going to give you cash. Nothing is stopping the owner of the tesla going through insurance.

        • Reubzy on 24/11/2017 - 16:22

          @qwerty: You are hilarious, OP has no obligation whatsoever to believe any casual throw off comment from a random panel beater. Grow up and live in the real world friend, if you want to prove something, you need hard and credible evidence. A panel beater is not a content expert on the damage/potential damage one car can cause another in a slow collision and neither are you. Don't pay a single cent until they produce credible evidence of the damage.

        • trev likes bargains on 24/11/2017 - 17:06

          @qwerty: I got two quotations when someone knocked my parked car and I was claiming from their insuarance. The prices were significantly different. Imho the panel beaters are just after some easy $$. If the op is telling the truth, they will just wax the bumper and get the money

        • qwerty on 24/11/2017 - 17:17

          @Reubzy:

          Yes we should trust OP , his nonsense story about only dust getting removed when the cars kissed lol and lack of providing a photo vs a quote from a pannel beater that said it needs to be resprayed which is reasonable in this situation.

          But that is why insurance places use assessors and why op should go through insurance - but i dont think he wants to pay excess or the respray so hes

  • razorack999 on 21/11/2017 - 13:10
    +1

    That there was damage thats all. They are refusing to show photos

    • k-rokfm on 21/11/2017 - 13:24
      +1

      Your brothers photo showed evidence of damage - a scuff?

      • razorack999 on 21/11/2017 - 13:51
        +1

        The tesla was dirty/dusty. If i brushed against it with my thigh it would show a scuff. The fact that a dusty car has had it dust disturbed is not evidence of damage

        • k-rokfm on 21/11/2017 - 14:00
          +16

          That’s not how it came across. Show us the picture or gtfo really.

        • razorack999 on 21/11/2017 - 14:54
          -5

          @k-rokfm: happy to pm a photo not wanting to put it into the public domain for privacy reasons even with rego photoshopped.

        • k-rokfm on 21/11/2017 - 15:15
          +1

          @razorack999:

          Yeah send it through and I’ll have a look to see what I think 🙂

        • acky on 22/11/2017 - 06:22
          +1

          @razorack999: Can I see as well?

        • railspider on 22/11/2017 - 12:19
          +6

          Who drives a dusty Tesla!?

        • Kangal on 23/11/2017 - 00:55

          @railspider:
          Dusty electricians…named Edison

        • skeptik on 23/11/2017 - 18:53

          @k-rokfm: did u see the photo?

        • skeptik on 23/11/2017 - 18:53

          @acky: did u see as well?

        • acky on 24/11/2017 - 00:02
          +1

          @skeptik: OP same as Tesla driver and won't send photos :P

    • Randxyz123 on 21/11/2017 - 13:50
      +4

      You admitted there was damage and your mother hit the car?

      Just give the details to your insurance and move on

        • abb on 21/11/2017 - 14:49
          +71

          It was not a collision. There was contact

          I did not have sexual relations with that woman
        • zuuutoootuuu on 22/11/2017 - 01:44
          +1

          @abb:

          but it slipped in when you tripped over the rug at night while she was sleeping on the floor?

        • jacross on 22/11/2017 - 08:55
          +1

          If there was contact there was a collision.

        • cameldownunder on 22/11/2017 - 11:24

          @abb: I did not smoke that cigar !

    • JH100 on 23/11/2017 - 13:45
      +1

      No evidence of damage = no damage = no payment for no damage. Simple really.

  • qwerty on 21/11/2017 - 13:10
    +4

    There was an accident and your mother was 100% at fault for rear ending . Tesla driver got a freebie rear end repair and if you want to push it she will go through insurance and she will still end up with a free rear end repair .

    • razorack999 on 21/11/2017 - 13:17
      -1

      so you are saying that evidence of a collision is enough. That they dont have to provide evidence of damage?

      • plmko on 21/11/2017 - 13:26
        +9

        That's right, they don't have to do anything until the court orders them to. That's why OzB always recommends insurance, let them handle it.

      • supaderp on 22/11/2017 - 08:32
        +2

        Even if your mother left 1m gap travelling at "1km/h" she had 4seconds to react. You must need to have your foot on the brakes to travel at that speed. So now the insurance ask what was your mother doing leaving in the car.

        As minor as it seems, if you got a 100k car and someone hit your rear and cracked your paint job, I'm sure you'll do the same.

      • ATangk on 22/11/2017 - 20:32

        You know his Tesla isn’t going to be worth as much with a repaired/replaced rear end. If you do have to pay make sure to write it in the service history ;)

  • dasher86 on 21/11/2017 - 13:10
    +31

    Regardless if the bumper already has scratches on it if you 'kissed' it and damaged the paint the whole bumper would need to be sprayed.
    You're lucky for a high end car sometimes they opt to spray the entire vehicle to ensure the paint work matches.

      • k-rokfm on 21/11/2017 - 13:24
        +14

        You said there was a scuff. Thats damage?

        • berry580 on 22/11/2017 - 23:30
          +1

          @razorack999:

          Unfortunately that's not how the would works when it comes to vehicle accidents.

          If you had a low impact collision with a 93 Toyota Camry driven by a busy dad, may be he would let you go.

          But if you've hit a $100K car, even an damage assessment would cost money even if there's well and truly no damage in the best case scenario.
          Once you've exchanged details after the incident, you've acknowledged an accident occurred and you're on the hook.

        • teasatotalling on 23/11/2017 - 18:57

          @berry580: more like $150K

      • anonymous01 on 22/11/2017 - 15:00

        You are saying that he is 'Assuming', and yet in same sentence you are saying 'may not'. How are you any different than him?

  • nocure on 21/11/2017 - 13:19
    +10

    Pic please?

      • Quantumcat on 21/11/2017 - 14:04
        +34

        That's what MS Paint is for

      • WatchNerd on 21/11/2017 - 14:07
        +7

        Block out the rego number then.

        • ItsMeAgro on 23/11/2017 - 09:55
          +3

          Just in case anyone actually tries this: BLURRING DOES NOT WORK.

          If you want to hide something in a photo you post online, paint over it completely in black in MS paint, take a screenshot, and post that.

          Blurring and similar methods can be undone with the right tools (enough to see what you are hiding).

          Screenshot insures there is no original metadata (like the location and time) included and that you don't unwittingly save it as a layered PNG or something where the black bit can just be removed.

        • johnno07 on 23/11/2017 - 17:06

          @ItsMeAgro: surely the screenshot is unnecessary? As far as I'm aware, once saved/compressed JPGs don't retain any metadata that could be used to reverse anything like that?

      • IamEzza on 21/11/2017 - 22:30
        +4

        Just crop most of the photo so it only shows the scuff and not the rest of the car

  • [Deactivated] on 21/11/2017 - 13:22

    I don't think that you will find much if any sympathy here, pay up and move on… That is what insurance is for.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join