Will I Lose?

JagXJRXJ40

JagXJRXJ40

New Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2018
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Country
United Kingdom
Hi,


So I've been in a battle for the last two years against a couple who wrote off my vehicle after speeding through a red light and hitting my car, writing it off as a Category B write off. At the time of the crash my son got out and took pictures of my car, their car and where the crash happened.


After months of waiting the third party claimed to have a dash cam in their car, despite there not being one in the pictures we took. They sent through dash cam footage which did not show the following.


* My car was not seen anywhere in the footage.
* I was not seen anywhere in the footage.
* Raindrops were on the third party's windscreen, despite there being no raindrops in our pictures.


And the biggest and worst part of their footage was that their camera moved and then came the sound of a loud bang. I slowed down their footage and the moving footage changes briefly to three pictures which fade in and out, the three pictures are of a white car - mine was white - but this does not prove that it is my car, you can't even see the number plate. In their first picture I am supposedly behind them, then in their second one I am driving alongside them before stopping behind them.


When they hit my car I was indeed alongside them, but then pulled over behind them. How could I have been behind and then alongside them? After my headlamp exploded and the wing bent inwards bending the chassis I certainly didn't speed up...


In their footage the woman driving says "I saw him coming and knew I had to speed up."
When I was driving across the junction and saw them out of the corner of my eye approaching, I hit the brakes and turned, hoping they would turn and go beside the car, but she made no effort of turning whatsoever.


They have sent through the "full" footage which shows two minutes of them driving along the motorway to where the crash happened. There's no speech until the crash happens, rain on the windscreen and you can see the bottom of their dashboard in the footage, which suggests their dash cam is at the bottom of the windscreen, but in our pictures there's no camera anywhere.
After the crash they get out of the car and close the doors, despite the doors being closed voices can be heard. One voice they claim to be mine says - "Sorry, I don't know what happened. It was too late I didn't see the lights." The voice is similar to mine but I do not recall saying this whatsoever... But my insurance company want to back out now. I am so disappointed in them and now am at a loss of what to do...


They want to back out just because a voice is heard. It might not even be me, I fail to see how that can be used as evidence when my vehicle a classic Vauxhall and myself are not even seen?
Also when the voices start there's a strange bleeping sound which says to me like most of the footage it has been edited. I am sure of that. According to their statement we hit them at speed, the road they were going along has a clear view of the road we were on, nowhere in their footage is my car seen approaching that road...


The afternoon after my crash they came to my house and noted that my car was not by the roadside anymore, I believe that is when they shot the phony dash cam footage. They lived in the opposite direction to that motorway so how on earth could they know my car was gone unless they went all the way up there again?



My insurance company want to back out and now I don't know what to do. I don't want to lose this case, I loved my classic car and have never ever run a red light, especially as my wife and son were also in the car. I am not a bad driver.


Our evidence is...


* Pictures of everything. All the damage, both cars and the scene of the crash.
* Pictures fade into their dash cam footage.
* My car is not seen nor am I in their footage.
* Raindrops are on their windscreen despite our pictures showing both cars and the road as completely dry.
* The date and time on their dash cam is incorrect.


What should I do? I don't want to back down, I feel this is an insult to my driving ability and to my poor car. But I also don't want to make matters worse. I just don't see how their dash cam can even be considered evidence, the time and date on it is incorrect and there's not a sign of me or my car, only a voice which sounds too high pitched to be me... Just want this case settled and over. Court is this week and my insurance company are starting to buckle, even though in my opinion, there footage and story is completely untrue.


Please help. Your assistance with this would be greatly appreciated.


Many thanks.
 
Your insurance company is probably just trying to minimise the risk to themselves, even if that means paying for the damage to your car. A trip to court will cost them time whatever happens and time can be expensive.

If your photos clearly show your damaged car and their damaged car with readable plates in the same image and you also have photos of them with the damaged cars then there is not much doubt that there was an accident involving them. You just need to prove that it was their fault, but I can't tell from what you have written if you do have that proof? If you do have the proof and the only problem is their video then I suggest that you don't back out because they will almost certainly either back out or retract their video. Submitting false evidence and claiming it to be true could get them in serious trouble. It might be a good idea to prepare a slowmo version of the video that you can present to the your insurance company and the court so that they can clearly see the edited pictures and thus have reasonable doubt of it's accuracy. Perverting the course of justice can easily result in a jail sentence, maximum of life, not worth the risk!
 
JagXJRXJ40 said:
my vehicle a classic Vauxhall
Click to expand...
Don't see many of those around, what model is it?

Remember, if you want it fixed instead of written off, then they must fix it if that is what you want. You can accept money instead but you don't have to unless fixing it is impossible.
 
Nigel said:
Your insurance company is probably just trying to minimise the risk to themselves, even if that means paying for the damage to your car. A trip to court will cost them time whatever happens and time can be expensive.

If your photos clearly show your damaged car and their damaged car with readable plates in the same image and you also have photos of them with the damaged cars then there is not much doubt that there was an accident involving them. You just need to prove that it was their fault, but I can't tell from what you have written if you do have that proof? If you do have the proof and the only problem is their video then I suggest that you don't back out because they will almost certainly either back out or retract their video. Submitting false evidence and claiming it to be true could get them in serious trouble. It might be a good idea to prepare a slowmo version of the video that you can present to the your insurance company and the court so that they can clearly see the edited pictures and thus have reasonable doubt of it's accuracy. Perverting the course of justice can easily result in a jail sentence, maximum of life, not worth the risk!
Click to expand...

Ok, well unfortunately I can't prove that I didn't go through a red light, but I know that I've never done anything like that so truly believe that they did go through the red light. What I can prove though is that their dash cam footage is fake. The sound of the crash comes after their camera moves, the camera spins to the right then a picture fades in, then it's facing left (the direction I came from) and then another picture fades in, and then another one before it goes into proper moving footage again, no other car in sight at this point.
In all the pictures we took both cars are visible, all the damage can be seen and all number plates are clearly visible, although my car's front plate was broken off at the front.
They leave their dash cam on when they get out of the car so I will challenge them for the whole footage as at some point, if the footage is real my son should be seen walking to the front of their car as he took pictures of it. If he is clearly seen doing so then I know I was in the wrong, but I don't believe they have this footage, our pictures show no dash cam in their car.

I have a hunch they're trying to scare us out of proceeding with this. The whole way through everything has been delayed, we only got the footage with my supposed voice last night and even then it doesn't really sound like me, and there's a strange bleeping as I apparently start speaking. Their voices and mine gets quieter, almost like its been faded out. There's a pop sound, no voices and then all you hear is their indicator before that too goes silent even though the footage is still rolling. That tells me they've edited it as I can't see a reason why all sound would suddenly stop like that?

I am in no doubt that this is flimsy fake footage.

It was a Vauxhall Senator 3.0i 24v, great car! Nice digital dashboard, automatic and very fast for an old Vauxhall.
Sadly when they hit us they bent the frame, causing the engine bay to shift over so sadly we couldn't get that one back. We have since bought a classic Jaguar XJR 4.0i, it's a good replacement for the Senator.
 
Proving that their video is fake will not prove that they were at fault, either they will retract it before it is presented, or the judge will dismiss it. Either way it will become irrelevant to who wins the case.

You need proof that they were at fault, otherwise it will probably end up as 50/50 and your insurance company would have been right to settle out of court and save costs. We use dashcams to prove that we have green lights...
 
When your insurer, who is suppiosed to be your advocate, decides to do otherwise you can't stop them. In all insurance contracts you agree to this. If you can't convincce them otherwise then you will need your own Solicitor/Attorney to take up the matter. As to the cam footage, I can see where any decent Attorney could have it dismissed as it shows nothing which is provably you or yours, and it's only their assertion that it is accurate which gives it any standing. It might be real and it might be fake- there's nothing you've told us which would allow that to be decided with certainty. I think that Nigel has this sorted correctly- unless someone can prove whether the light was red or not, it's going to be a split settlement. You can still refuse to accept that, but if you lose that case you might see the offered settlement reduced by the costs they incurred by defending against you. I've always held that car insurance is a legalized scam, and this is yet another example of why I feel this way. All we can do is live with that as it's not going to change and to have our own Attorney working for us to make the pain as low as possible.

Phil

PS-Regardless the outcome, you can now see why you too need a dashcam.
 
The UK is a common law country. These maxims of law should help you in court. (Latin with the English translation)

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. False in one thing, false in everything.
Lex punit mendaciam. The law punishes falsehood.
Impuris manibus nemo accedat curiam. (Taylor 239) No one may come into court with unclean hands.


The dashcam falsification takes away the other sides entire defense and dirties their hands. Fabricating evidence tells an honest judge that everything the other party claims is a lie. No honest man with nothing to hide fakes his evidence. Falsification is fraud.

I would get a weather report for the day of the crash. If it was not raining that day the pictures must be fraudulent.
 
Last edited:
country_hick said:
The UK is a common law country. These maxims of law should help you in court. (Latin with the English translation)

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. False in one thing, false in everything.
Lex punit mendaciam. The law punishes falsehood.
Impuris manibus nemo accedat curiam. (Taylor 239) No one may come into court with unclean hands.


The dashcam falsification takes away the other sides entire defense and dirties their hands. Fabricating evidence tells an honest judge that everything the other party claims is a lie. No honest man with nothing to hide fakes his evidence. Falsification is fraud.

I would get a weather report for the day of the crash. If it was not raining that day the pictures must be fraudulent.
Click to expand...
Where did you get that from?

Wondering why it is in Latin, we don't use Latin for UK law.

Also, although England is a common law country, that is where the term "common law" originates, other countries in the UK such as Scotland have different legal systems. I don't know which country the OP is in.
 
Nigel said:
Where did you get that from?

Wondering why it is in Latin, we don't use Latin for UK law.

Also, although England is a common law country, that is where the term "common law" originates, other countries in the UK such as Scotland have different legal systems. I don't know which country the OP is in.
Click to expand...
I would bet if you looked at the british legal writings and court cases you would find a lot of latin is still being used.
The reason for the source being in latin (some maxims are in french and others were originally created in english) is an accident of history. England was invaded and taken over by those who spoke latin and was also conquered by those who spoke French. The victors demanded their language be the official language. The courts then used the language of the conquerors and aristocracy. Legal language uses French, Latin, and English due to accidents of history.

I got the maxims from this book and other books like it. A maxim of law is a universal truth approved by all that also controls an honorable court.
A Collection of Legal Maxims in Law and Equity: With English Translations
George S. Diossy, 1880 - Legal maxims - 332 pages

https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Collection_of_Legal_Maxims_in_Law_and.html?id=qMkEAAAAYAAJ

The 3 languages of the law: A 20 page explanation of why English, Latin, and French are used in legal writings.
http://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/userfiles/other/5850855-43.Baker.pdf

I do not like anything that uses latin or french. From my perspective that makes law inceomprehenisble in violation of the rights currently granted by the legislature and parliament (U.S. and U.K.) to those with various mental disabilities including learning disabilities. Do you have subpoenas there? That is a latin word. Many words used in Court are Latin in origin.
 
Last edited:
country_hick said:
I would bet if you looked at the british legal writings and court cases you would find a lot of latin is still being used.
Click to expand...
We made English the only language to be spoken in court by an act of parliament in 1362 so that everybody could understand what was being said, and made all documentation presented/generated in court to be in English by another act in 1730. There is an exception for Welsh courts that allows Welsh to be spoken but it will be translated into English for those that don't speak Welsh.

English does use a lot of words of Latin and French origin for all fields, and there are also a lot of legal terms which came with the Normans who spoke French, but they are now part of English so if we use them then we are still speaking English.
 
country_hick said:
Do you have subpoenas there? That is a latin word. Many words used in Court are Latin in origin.
Click to expand...
We call them "summons", and apparently "subpoena" comes from the middle English word " suppena ", but since that is not used in current English it's use in court was banned so that people could understand.
 
Last edited:
Nigel said:
We made English the only language to be spoken in court by an act of parliament in 1362 so that everybody could understand what was being said, and made all documentation presented/generated in court to be in English by another act in 1730.
Click to expand...
Prior to reading this thread I was unaware of those 1362 and 1730 laws. Do you know what those laws were? I would like to read them.

I am trying to figure out how the USA after leaving England decided to include Latin in its legal language.
My state *ALMOST* lost the Latin during its creation. During the constitutional debates one representative tried to remove Latin from Court language. He stated clearly that his constituents did not speak Latin. His motion to eliminate all Latin died after another representative pointed out that representative spoke Latin himself. I only wish that representative would have stood firm and declared that what he spoke was irrelevant. He had to ensure the constitution was written so the people of his district could understand the language used in court regardless of whether or not any representative understood the words or not.
 
Last edited:
country_hick said:
Do you have subpoenas there? That is a latin word. Many words used in Court are Latin in origin.
Click to expand...
As far as I know we don't use "homicide" either which is of French origin. Does seem strange that you would even want to create a legal system using words not understood by most of the population even if you were basing it on the existing English system.

Should remember though that during the relevant period the English Kings were of Norman origin and although Normandy is today in France, back then it wasn't, so a significant proportion of the Kings subjects did speak Norman French as their native language while much of the legal system would have covered both areas.

100ywar-map-1430.gif
 
If you think it's fake then try looking at the audio in an app like Audacity. Often there is a really obvious jump where two bits of video have been spliced together.
 
If you have the time, I think you should talk to your lawyer and take this to court. What what you said about the video, it is a fake and the opposing side will have a hard time deciding whether to submit it in court. That video was made to intimidate you. If you lawyer knows his stuff, he should be able to get you nice settlement. I found an article about the legality of using dash cams here: https://dashcamcar.com/dash-cams-legality/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
jordanspringer Do I need to disclose to passengers/police that I am recording audio? Legal Questions 19
Similar threads
Do I need to disclose to passengers/police that I am recording audio?
Back
Top