False insurance claim against a relative...

Haggisman · 4 Nov 2016 at 21:21

bainbridge said:
This is the sort of thing which makes me think a dash am is the way to go.

What would a dash cam prove in this situation?

muon · 4 Nov 2016 at 21:43

Nasher said:
He said tell the other guy's insurer to let lost until they actually have some evidence to present. I'd do the same.

Ah, completely misread the OP then.

Finglonga · 4 Nov 2016 at 22:17

Haggisman said:
What would a dash cam prove in this situation?

That the car did not hit the M3.

muon · 4 Nov 2016 at 22:48

Finglonga said:
That the car did not hit the M3.

Dashcams aren't permanently on though.

Haggisman · 5 Nov 2016 at 00:59

Finglonga said:
That the car did not hit the M3.

Indeed. At the point the dash cam was running.

No way of proving you didn't hit it and then delete the video.

Video is great for proving something did happen, completely useless for proving it didn't

manic_man said:
This sounds as good a case for potential insurance fraud as any that I have ever seen.

Easy potential racket if you think about it. Take a picture of your "pride and joy" (don't underestimate the sorts of vehicles fraudsters will use, some of them crash brand new cars via slam-on as the payouts and appearances are better), wait until nice honest driver has gone, get a mate in to do the damage in some knackered old thing, if actually clever then use a similar colour car, claim nice honest driver was to blame and it's your word against theirs.

Out of interest, where is the potential gain in this for the fraudster?

Assuming they are claiming it happened when the vehicle was parked, then there's not going to be any injury claim, so they get their previously brand new undamaged car repaired after their mate has crashed into it... What else do they gain other than increased premiums for the next 3-5 years?

Could work if you're out to screw someone over, but I can't see the financial benefit (unless it's an old banger about to die and you want it written off)

DampCat · 5 Nov 2016 at 01:36

I'm confused about why they are even contacting her? How did they get her number? Why didn't they go to her insurance company first? When is there ever occasion for someone to talk to someone elses insurance company? Isn't that what you pay yours for?

Stringy · 5 Nov 2016 at 13:06

Haggisman said:
Indeed. At the point the dash cam was running.

No way of proving you didn't hit it and then delete the video.

Video is great for proving something did happen, completely useless for proving it didn't

If the video pulling out of the space shows an undamaged M3 then it proves that the M3 was damaged afterwards, and that something didn't happen.
Doesn't sound useless to me, unless you want to counter with "nothing to say the OP's relative didn't then go back into the space for no reason, and damage the M3, then delete the footage of re-entering the space" as that's pretty far fetched.

AtreuS · 5 Nov 2016 at 21:45

DampCat said:
I'm confused about why they are even contacting her? How did they get her number? Why didn't they go to her insurance company first? When is there ever occasion for someone to talk to someone elses insurance company? Isn't that what you pay yours for?

I wondered this as well at the time! she actually had a letter first and phoned them and left her details ( i know... daft but thats what she did ). In hindsight i should have said this but no point altering the post now as its all sorted

Jamesyboyjim · 7 Nov 2016 at 11:06

Haggisman said:
Out of interest, where is the potential gain in this for the fraudster?

Assuming they are claiming it happened when the vehicle was parked, then there's not going to be any injury claim, so they get their previously brand new undamaged car repaired after their mate has crashed into it... What else do they gain other than increased premiums for the next 3-5 years?

Could work if you're out to screw someone over, but I can't see the financial benefit (unless it's an old banger about to die and you want it written off)

I don't think the m3 owner is a fraudster as such, but somebody at some point that day probably did hit his car, he's just assuming its the car that was parked there when he arrived, basically because he has no one else to blame!

Hagar · 7 Nov 2016 at 12:40

Jamesyboyjim said:
I don't think the m3 owner is a fraudster as such, but somebody at some point that day probably did hit his car, he's just assuming its the car that was parked there when he arrived, basically because he has no one else to blame!

Unless the M3 was already damaged when it was parked.

manic_man · 7 Nov 2016 at 12:43

Haggisman said:
Out of interest, where is the potential gain in this for the fraudster?

Assuming they are claiming it happened when the vehicle was parked, then there's not going to be any injury claim, so they get their previously brand new undamaged car repaired after their mate has crashed into it... What else do they gain other than increased premiums for the next 3-5 years?

Could work if you're out to screw someone over, but I can't see the financial benefit (unless it's an old banger about to die and you want it written off)

I can think of a number of potentials:

1) They damaged it themselves and looking for a way to get a non-fault repair on their car.
2) The car is stolen (in which case the insurance will be under a false name anyway so no increase in premium for them, only the poor sod they have cloned).
3) The insurance is "stolen", so they hope the car is written off, get a payout and then just disappear with the cash.
3) The car is effectively knackered for some reason other than anything visually obvious and they are looking for a way to make some quick money before it goes to the scrap heap in the sky.

I'm sure there are other more elaborate things but the one thing that shouldn't be underestimated is the stupidity of people trying to commit insurance fraud... the annoying thing is how often it works simply because our legal system is so expensive...

In this case I would hazard a guess either their car was damaged by someone else and they were just looking to lash out (most likely) or they damaged it themselves and looking for a non-fault claim to fix it.

Insurance fraud is huge business for gangs though, absolutely massive, it is up there in terms of organised crime!

theone8181 · 7 Nov 2016 at 13:05

manic_man said:
I can think of a number of potentials:

1) They damaged it themselves and looking for a way to get a non-fault repair on their car.
2) The car is stolen (in which case the insurance will be under a false name anyway so no increase in premium for them, only the poor sod they have cloned).
3) The insurance is "stolen", so they hope the car is written off, get a payout and then just disappear with the cash.
3) The car is effectively knackered for some reason other than anything visually obvious and they are looking for a way to make some quick money before it goes to the scrap heap in the sky.

I'm sure there are other more elaborate things but the one thing that shouldn't be underestimated is the stupidity of people trying to commit insurance fraud... the annoying thing is how often it works simply because our legal system is so expensive...

In this case I would hazard a guess either their car was damaged by someone else and they were just looking to lash out (most likely) or they damaged it themselves and looking for a non-fault claim to fix it.

Insurance fraud is huge business for gangs though, absolutely massive, it is up there in terms of organised crime!

But a non fault claim would still increase there premium.

Six6siX · 7 Nov 2016 at 13:06

[TW]Fox;30177839 said:
Yes?

Perfect, where can I get one in Medium?

manic_man · 7 Nov 2016 at 13:14

theone8181 said:
But a non fault claim would still increase there premium.

Maybe less than the cost of repair? Maybe they haven't done the sums? Maybe their policy is under a false name? As i said, it's more likely given they have dropped it that they were just lashing out at the only person they have a photo of but fraud takes some surprising guise's!

helpimcrap · 7 Nov 2016 at 18:29

peterwalkley said:
Document all the conversations you have had so far and insist any further communication is in writing. Tell them you regard the matter as closed and any continuation will be regarded as harassment and reported to the insurance ombudsman.

Innocent until proven guilty and the onus is on them to prove their case, not the other way round.

This. It's down to them to prove it. It could well have been damaged and then hers was the first car they'd known about. Just watch out for the whiplash claim.

Nasher · 7 Nov 2016 at 18:58

Good job the claimant isn't a cop. "I found this body next to your car, so you must have done it!"

[TW]Fox · 7 Nov 2016 at 19:03

Six6siX said:
Perfect, where can I get one in Medium?

That would be the smallest of the bodystyles, the saloon

Coupe is bigger

ScottyJKB · 7 Nov 2016 at 23:29

Glad the fraudulent claim was dropped.

I don't know how you kept your cool... I would have went nuts!

Illusion · 8 Nov 2016 at 09:36

Finglonga said:
Very suspicious that someone will photograph their car every time they park up just in case as well.

I must admit I've done this a couple of times but only when the car I have parked next to has been an absolute shed ie bumpers hanging off or dints and scrapes all over it as the driver clearly doesn't care about damage to their own car and are more likely to just hit yours on the way out.

I'm talking 2-3 times in 10 years of driving though