Neighbour Reverses into Our Car, Denies Liability

randomuser645 on 12/04/2018 - 11:49
Last edited 12/04/2018 - 14:32 by 1 other user

Hey everyone,

Just wanted to ask on thoughts on a current situation.

As my father was leaving for work yesterday he was reversing his car and at the same time my neighbour was reversing his. When my dad saw that he wasn't stopping, my dad stopped and honked his horn but my neighbour still reversed into the car. They both went out of their cars and my neighbour admitted liability and said he will pay for the repairs. My father trusted him and went on with his day.

The next day he knocks on our door and now refuses to admit liability. Not only that, but he then gets his son to say he never heard a car honk, my father is adamant that there was no one in the car, he then gives a story as to why his son 'must have been in the car'. For the record, I did not see anyone in the car either.

My dad has third party insurance and they're unwilling to help (RACV, any suggestions for a better insurance company?).

We're currently contacting our lawyer.

Is it possible to know who was at fault based on the dents in the car? My dads car was stationary at the time so based on that, if the cars are of a similar make, which dent would be bigger? (their car, or ours)
I'm also fairly confident I can prove his son wasn't in the car too.

Automotive

Comments

    • randomuser645 on 12/04/2018 - 11:59

      Would it be too late to go the police now? The accident was a couple days ago, both cars are still damaged though.

      • Detective Pikachu on 12/04/2018 - 12:01
        +3

        The earlier the better. The more details the better.

        Anything else, it's best to seek advice from your lawyer.

        Lastly, also weigh in whether it's worthwhile having discord with your neighbours.

        • randomuser645 on 12/04/2018 - 12:10

          Will do, thank you.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 13/04/2018 - 01:22
          +6

          @ryuzaki371:

          I would take a hidden recording device and question the perpetrator with the aim of baiting him into an admission.

          Ask questions such as, "why did you admit liability before?"

      • drewbytes on 13/04/2018 - 07:53
        +12

        It's not a police matter, it's civil between your dad and the other driver.

        • centrelink on 13/04/2018 - 13:02
          +7

          Yep police will do nothing

        • D6C1 on 13/04/2018 - 22:25
          -3

          @centrelink: Excellent use of our tax money though

        • barratttc on 14/04/2018 - 09:07
          +3

          @D6C1: why should the police do anything??? It is a civil debt!!! Its like saying ill go to the police because someone hasn't paid their bills. Police deal in criminal matters.

        • D6C1 on 14/04/2018 - 19:59
          -1

          @barratttc: I get your point!!! Right????

        • YellowDieselGolf on 14/04/2018 - 20:40
          -1

          @barratttc:

          Cool!! I thought road rules were enforced by the police! I’m never giving way again!

        • Detective Pikachu on 16/04/2018 - 01:57

          For public record purposes, never expected Police to do anything about it unless in the limited circumstances included in the Victoria Legal Aid link.

  • BertieBrown on 12/04/2018 - 12:03
    +1

    No doubt somebody more legal saavy than I can weigh in, however considering circumstances as described (lack of footage or other witnesses etc) perhaps seeking 50/50 with the other driver, may be the most sensible option here?

    • Save 50 Cent on 13/04/2018 - 07:24
      +7

      OP’s father has 3rd party insurance. Seeking 50/50 just means he’ll pay for having his own car repaired, so there would be nothing to seek!

  • tsunamisurfer on 12/04/2018 - 12:58
    +25

    Without witnesses or footage this is he said she said.

    In such cases insurance companies will simply say everyone claim on their own (plus excess).

    The presence or absence of a honk is irrelevant, every driver is expected to watch where they reverse into.

    Unless they can conjure up more witnesses the best case for neighbour to claim on his own insurance and pay the excess, and its no further outlay for him to cover your dad.

    Your dad stands to lose more with only third party insurance.

    Your dad also chose to buy Third Party, so he signed up to self insuring his car where he cannot prove fault. The monies he saved between comprehensive and Third Party all these years will go a long way to covering the costs.

    • John on 13/04/2018 - 17:10
      +4

      Agreed. Something similar happened to me few years ago. We both back out at the same time and hit.. we both sort of agreed its just bad luck that we happen to reverse at the same time.. similar thing could be said to you. And without any proof its really no chance to win a case.. its he says she says…

      Let it go and just take it as one of those unfortunate event in life. And try not to deal with that neighbour again.

      • love2buy on 14/04/2018 - 10:24

        what about ncb. would they both lose them?

    • payton on 12/04/2018 - 13:57
      +39

      Draw a dick shape on their lawn with the weedkiller

      • wozz on 13/04/2018 - 12:44
        +4

        Do you know the best way to ensure it is accurate if someone is going large scale?
        I was thinking GPS plots on mobile phone, though now i'm concerned this wouldn't be accurate enough.
        Possibly marking out points beforehand, than an aerial photo from a drone before final round up application?

        Sorry if this suggestion is stupid, just want the best for OP to resolve their situation as quickly as possible

        • payton on 13/04/2018 - 13:10
          +2

          Practice makes perfect. Draw multiples, diversity and all

        • ozzpete on 13/04/2018 - 18:21
          +3

          "Do you know the best way to ensure it is accurate if someone is going large scale?"
          Could just flop mine out on the field, then trace round it :)

        • GregRust on 14/04/2018 - 10:17
          +1

          Don't forget to salt the earth too.

      • YellowDieselGolf on 14/04/2018 - 20:42

        Noooo! It wasn’t me! My son is a witness!

      • MessyG on 15/04/2018 - 08:31

        Nah use metho and set it on fire so they get a flaming dick, followed by dick shaped scorchmarks.

        (NB. I am joking but imagining it is satisfying).

  • Butt Scratcher on 12/04/2018 - 13:20
    +1

    Any pics? Of course it is possible to tell who reversed into who based on the impact. If the damage is in a way you can't possibly do, but they could, then you could prove it.

    How much monies worth in damage are we talking about?

    I haven't got any experience actually doing it myself, but you could take it to small claims (I don't imagine the damage is over 10k). If in their response they do mention that they have a witness, and if you say that you could prove the neighbours son wasn't there, then your neightbours credibility goes out the door at hearing. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a ruling in your favour on that alone

    • randomuser645 on 12/04/2018 - 13:30

      I'll pm you photos, don't have time to blur out number plates, cheers.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 13/04/2018 - 01:19

        Basically, whichever's damage is closest in direction to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, was moving at the time of the collision.

        • Euphemistic on 13/04/2018 - 10:04

          Don't think it's as simple as that. Especially for a low speed incident. It depends on the angle of approach for both vehicles. I think that for a low speed incident such as this tail to tail reversing incident you could probably repeat the damage by having either car stopped and moving the other.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 13/04/2018 - 10:31
          +3

          @Euphemistic:

          It is as simple as that, but the closer they were to parallel the harder it will be to distinguish. If they were parallel, the damage will be indistinguishable since the relative motion in each case is identical. If they were perpendicular the damage will obviously show this as a car can't drive transverse to it's longitudinal axis.

        • Euphemistic on 13/04/2018 - 10:56

          @Scrooge McDuck: Ok, misread a little. Either way the damage will be very difficult to determine in a low speed reversing incident. If either of the cars were in the motion of turning it will add complexity

        • randomuser645 on 13/04/2018 - 16:54

          I'll pm you the photos too

        • Scrooge McDuck on 13/04/2018 - 22:26
          +3

          @ryuzaki371:

          I'm on the case…

  • dogboy on 12/04/2018 - 13:22
    +3

    This is why we all need to get driving cameras for proof. People are the worst!
    I don't think there will be much that you can do in this situation other than to try guilt them into telling the truth. I.e. Why did they admit fault straight after the accident but have now changed their story. If they aren't willing to do the right thing, I would just make them pay for it in little ways that can't be traced to yourself as long as they live there.

    • randomuser645 on 12/04/2018 - 18:08

      I’m not that petty, just as long as the cars are repaired and we’re not out of pocket I’ll forget everything.

      On the other hand if they ever need our help, they can look elsewhere. The son seems reasonably bright, I only hope he doesn’t grow up to be like his dad. I could tell he just wanted to admit he wasn’t there so the arguing would stop but then his dad made him go into the house.

      • cktftw on 13/04/2018 - 11:33

        Make him do a stat dec.
        If he is as you say a reasonably bright person, he'd hesitate to lie under stat dec.

        • randomuser645 on 13/04/2018 - 16:57

          He's 10, his dad would never allow him to sign anything.

        • cktftw on 13/04/2018 - 17:30
          +1

          @ryuzaki371:
          Great. Go to the police. 10 year old will piss his pants trying to lie in front of the police officer.

        • whooah1979 on 13/04/2018 - 18:50

          @tm87:

          10 year old will piss his pants

          Persons under 18 in vic have legal rights that may help keep their pants dry.

      • Cheap Charlie on 13/04/2018 - 12:14
        +4

        Play the neighbours game and fabricate evidence after the fact.
        Double sided tape a camera on your house under the cover of darkness, pointing towards where the incident took place.
        Point out to your neighbour it was all captured on CCTV and that making a false claim to an insurance company constitutes fraud.
        He may be silly enough to fall for it?

        • ShannonN on 15/04/2018 - 10:34

          Except he may be an ozbargainer here, lurking and ping the op for fraud?

        • Cheap Charlie on 15/04/2018 - 10:48

          @ShannonN:

          Holy crap we got Nollsy up in this biatch.
          You did so well on Idol all those years ago.

        • ShannonN on 15/04/2018 - 11:10

          @Cheap Charlie:
          Definitely not nollsy

  • blitz on 12/04/2018 - 13:40
    +1

    I'm also fairly confident I can prove his son wasn't in the car too.

    How?

    • Detective Pikachu on 12/04/2018 - 14:47
      +5

      I don't think the OP should reveal more than necessary on a public forum.

      • randomuser645 on 12/04/2018 - 14:50

        ^

        • blitz on 12/04/2018 - 23:40

          Suit yourself. Sounds like you can figure it out then.

        • blitz on 13/04/2018 - 21:56

          @ryuzaki371:

          they could find a way to wriggle out of the evidence

          I think if the strength of the evidence depends on the accused not knowing it, then the evidence is weak.

        • randomuser645 on 13/04/2018 - 22:20

          @blitz:

          You can wriggle out of anything. Are you saying if you were in a court case, you'd be happy giving all the evidence to the other side before the trial begins?

  • whooah1979 on 12/04/2018 - 14:25
    +3

    50/50 fault. Each driver pays for their own repairs.

    • deepblonde on 13/04/2018 - 10:04

      One driver was stopped apparently when the car other reversed into him. That's not 50/50

      • whooah1979 on 13/04/2018 - 12:09
        -1

        stopped apparently

        Which is an account by someone that wasn’t present at the time of collision.

        • Cheap Charlie on 13/04/2018 - 12:15

          Yes, however the OP is recounting his fathers version of events, who you would imagine was present at the time of the collision.

        • whooah1979 on 13/04/2018 - 12:36
          +7

          @Cheap Charlie:

          OP is recounting his fathers version of events

          What we need is the neighbour’s son to come on here and tell their account of what happen. That’s the only way get a fair account of what happened.

        • Cheap Charlie on 13/04/2018 - 12:38
          +1

          @whooah1979:
          Can we subpoena the son?
          It's imperative we have a clear outcome ASAP…jk

  • tomsco on 12/04/2018 - 15:02
    +10

    My dad has third party insurance and they're unwilling to help (RACV, any suggestions for a better insurance company?).

    What do you mean do this comment? Was assistance are you expecting. If you want an insurance company to fight for you, you should get comprehensive.

    • randomuser645 on 12/04/2018 - 18:00
      -2

      I would have hoped that they would fight because if the other party wins, we’d claim it on third party and our insurance company would have to pay out theirs, right?

      We’re completely fine to repair the car ourselves and then get their insurance to pay it out, we just have to prove it.

      • steven231 on 13/04/2018 - 16:08
        +3

        Yeah you'd need comprehensive, no insurance company is gonna seek out and help you find a resolution if you're on third party. Has happened to my family, scum gave details and everything so it wasn't technically a hit and run. But knowing the kind of person they are, my family didn't want any unnecessary conflict so we decided to repair the cars ourselves. It was just a bumper damage on a pretty old and common car.

        If you get into an accident, the only time the police will help you is if its a hit and run. Otherwise forget the police.

        • May4th on 15/04/2018 - 11:27

          had a similar incident, had comprehensive with AAMI - was ruled as 50/50, completely useless

        • steven231 on 15/04/2018 - 15:22

          Have AAMI too, they're all the same. AAMI are probably one of the better ones too. Make sure you get comprehensive insurance on newer or if it's your main car. My family has 2 vehicles.

      • Hellfire on 15/04/2018 - 16:07

        The insurance company will only get involved once you raise a claim (same with comprehensive). If you want them to fight then you'll need to start a claim. But beware that a 50/50 outcome is a win for them so that's probably all they will go for.

  • Fergy1987 on 12/04/2018 - 15:24
    +4

    I believe it was the great legal mind of Fred Durst that stated this would be a case of "It's all about the he said she said bullsh1t"

  • Brucet on 12/04/2018 - 15:27

    Always need witnesses at time .

  • Seraphin7 on 12/04/2018 - 15:29
    +4

    Yet again, the value of having comprehensive insurance comes to the fore.

    I recently did a quote on my car between comprehensive and TPP … the difference was ~$20 a month. That's good value IMHO. TPP is there if you really don't care if your car is damaged/written off.

  • beeawwb on 12/04/2018 - 15:33
    +3

    Since your dad opted not to take out Comprehensive insurance, the only way he would be able to get RACV to come to the table is under the Uninsured Motorist Damage section of their policy. Page 20 says:

    Uninsured motorist damage
    This provides limited cover for damage to your vehicle when you are not at fault in a collision (if you are at fault see ‘Liability cover for damage you cause someone else's property’ on page 22).
    We will provide you with limited cover up to $5,000 for loss or damage to your vehicle if:
    - your vehicle is damaged in a collision with another vehicle, and
    - the driver of the other vehicle is uninsured for the damage, and
    - we agree the collision was entirely the other driver's fault, and
    - you can provide us with the registration number of the other vehicle, and the name and residential address of the other driver, and
    - the damage is more than the basic excess that applies to your Policy.

    So if the neighbour isn't insured then maybe you could get RACV involved, but even then a "both parties reversing" situation is very difficult to prove that one party stopped their vehicle.

  • adr8 on 12/04/2018 - 15:33
    +1

    With a reversing accident apparently you are both at fault, so each pays to get their car repaired. If one car had stopped reversing and was stationary at the point of impact, then the other car who continued to reverse is liable for damage to both vehicles.

    • tomsco on 12/04/2018 - 15:35

      Which is fine, but OP said his dad had stopped. So only the neighbour was reversing.

      • adr8 on 12/04/2018 - 15:37

        That is what I said ;)

        The problem in these types of situations is that often the parties disagree as to what the exact circumstances were.

        • tomsco on 12/04/2018 - 19:13
          +1

          You did. My apologies.

      • whooah1979 on 12/04/2018 - 16:34

        but OP said his dad had stopped. So only the neighbour was reversing.

        op wasn't present at time of the collision. it could well be that the neighbour was parked or stationary and op's father reversed into them.

        • randomuser645 on 12/04/2018 - 17:12

          I was in the house and I heard my dads car honk, I know because it’s been a family car for years. I went to see what happened, I didn’t see anyone in his car (his son).

        • whooah1979 on 12/04/2018 - 17:15
          -1

          @ryuzaki371:

          did you see the collision?

        • randomuser645 on 12/04/2018 - 17:23

          @whooah1979:

          Nope, I won’t lie. I only heard the car horn and saw the aftermath.

  • ShannonN on 12/04/2018 - 15:34
    +2

    Is this the same neighbour you are fighting with over the tree falling on fence?

    • randomuser645 on 12/04/2018 - 17:13

      Nope, different.

      • ntb on 14/04/2018 - 19:00

        what troublesome neighbors you have there.

    • crazyboy on 13/04/2018 - 20:20
      +1

      Not possible because the neighbour with tree must be on side.
      The reverse neighbour has to be the opposite one.

  • Ughhh on 12/04/2018 - 21:36
    +4

    My dad has third party insurance and they're unwilling to help (RACV, any suggestions for a better insurance company?).

    As long as you cheap out on insurance and only get third party, you'll get the same response with any insurance company.

  • mgh4me on 12/04/2018 - 22:36
    +4

    The bigger issue is that this is your neighbour and without knowing your circumstances you could be living beside one another for a long time. Unless the damage was serious and it may be I would be saying to the neighbour “that although you are clearly in the wrong my relationship with you is worth more than the damage to my car”. Maybe guilt will drive him to to take responsibility, if it does not than the man obviously lacks integrity and could be a warning sign about the kind of person you are dealing with. Worse case you could offer to pay the excess but not direct to him/her only to the insurance company.

  • barratttc on 13/04/2018 - 07:47
    +3

    Nothing to do with the police. No independent witnesses. Civil dispute. Pretty much stuffed.

  • [Deactivated] on 13/04/2018 - 09:22
    +2

    Member since 2012.

    Dash cam for everybody mate. If you see a friend or family without a dashcam, get a cheapie and pay kindness forward etc.

    Always inform dashcam users not to point out they have a dashcam. Let dishonest people babble and incriminate (loosely termed) themselves.

    • randomuser645 on 13/04/2018 - 17:03

      I have a dash cam, my dad doesn't, I've already ordered one for him.

  • Jalif on 13/04/2018 - 09:30
    -5

    Two cars reversed into each other is 50:50 liability unless there is overwhelming evidence.

    Even with a dash cam.

    The fact your dad was stationary immediately before the collision means nothing. He was in the act of reversing and should have seen the other car earlier.

    Your dad using the horn doesn't mean he is in the right.

    • SlickMick on 13/04/2018 - 09:58
      +4

      two cars can't reverse into each other if one is stationary - that's one car reversing into a stationary car!!??

    • ruddiger7 on 13/04/2018 - 12:35

      The number one reason for a horn is to prevent collisions. The fact one car was stationary and not reversing but also attempting to warn the other driver of a collision would mean something.

      • whooah1979 on 13/04/2018 - 12:40

        The fact one car was stationary

        There isn’t any evidence that support this claim to be considered fact.

        • randomuser645 on 13/04/2018 - 22:18

          Based on feedback from the photos, there actually evidence that my dads car was stationary at the time of impact.

  • HeWhoKnows on 13/04/2018 - 13:11
    +11

    We had a similar situation in a public car park. Put a claim into insurance and just like OP said we had stopped reversing and honked the horn at the other driver attempting to reverse into the same car space as they struck our car on the side. Clearly they were at fault! Insurnance company ruled both at fault as both were reversing.
    Moral of the story - NEVER EVER ADMIT YOU WERE REVERSING EVEN IF YOU HAD STOPPED!

  • Geryatric on 13/04/2018 - 15:03

    Both parties are at fault.
    Both parties pay.
    If you don’t have insurance than that’s a gamble you took

    • randomuser645 on 13/04/2018 - 17:02

      Cool, so if you're stationary and you see me reverse into you even though you've honked your horn, we'll split the cost 50/50, sound fair?
      He has insurance, my concern is whether or not there's sufficient evidence to prove he's lying and at fault. Worst case scenario they will say it's 50/50.

      • Geryatric on 13/04/2018 - 20:54

        He’s not solely at fault is the point, as numerous people have stated. Both parties shared responsibility and liability in the eyes of insurance if the scenario is as you have described.

        • randomuser645 on 13/04/2018 - 22:17

          Explain the fault of my father in this situation, he saw my neighbour reversing into him, so he stopped, and honked, what more could he have done? I asked my dad and he says that he had no time to accelerate fast enough to avoid him coming in.

          The next day I actually recorded the moron reverse out of his driveway pretty fast without even looking behind him, you'd really think he learned his lesson.

        • tomleonhart on 15/04/2018 - 13:15

          @ryuzaki371: your dad isn’t at fault if what you describe is true.

          However there is no way of proving what you say is true to insurance. Therefore it’s 50/50.

  • MisterQ on 13/04/2018 - 16:21
    +1

    I don't know how many times it needs to be said - If you (or your dad) aren't going to have full insurance, then you lose the other benefit of having an insurance company as your advocate.

    Get a Dash Cam - The Mini 0906 is on ebay for between 140 and 150 bucks - that gives you HD, front and back cameras, Polarizing filter on the front, GPS integration, and Parking Guard (aka hardwire) which will capture info even if the car is turned off, and someone hits you in a parking lot. Just add a Micro SD card. When someone tries to bluff you that you were at fault, a quick point to the camera in your car, is enough to call their bluff (unless they have one as well…)

    I really think that Insurers should offer discounts to people that have dashcams.

  • dsp26 on 13/04/2018 - 17:04

    Denying liability whether you are at fault or not is the practice expected by most if not all insurance companies so they can independently investigate.

    Admitting fault could cause either party to forfeit a claim

    • randomuser645 on 13/04/2018 - 17:07

      On paper, sure, but it's pretty much known that insurance will pay out even if you admit fault.

      • dji1111111 on 13/04/2018 - 18:02

        you want to try your luck when thousands of dollars is at risk?

        • randomuser645 on 13/04/2018 - 18:14

          What’s our risk? Since he’s he one that admitted liability only his insurance would be void meaning he would just have to pay us out of his own pocket.

          Am I missing something?

      • dsp26 on 13/04/2018 - 20:16

        In most cases. But for extreme or difficult cases this is the difference between a payout or not… especially if one vehicle was a luxury car and the other a lemon.

        Look at Third Part Property polices when claiming against an uninsured at fault driver… there is a covered value extension and the other person will get reemed by jacked up workshop quotes by the defendants insurer preferred

  • Windows98 on 13/04/2018 - 18:37

    Ignore this. Looks like there's more to it than the original post. GL

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join