saintscottofthenortham Posted 9 December, 2011 Share Posted 9 December, 2011 Last night, pulled into City College, reversed into a parking bay and before I have fully entered the bay I have gone (very slowly) bumper to bumper with a car. The owner (security guard for College) was watching the said car on CCTV and instantly out claiming I have damaged the car. I had to take photo's because to me there was no relevant damage and his car was a good foot plus into my parking space. He says that is totally acceptable and j should have been aware that he was there. He is now claiming the bumper and lights are all off set and need replacing. I am far from happy and feel like I have been set right up. Thing is... Does the fact that he was so far into my space have any relevance or am I f*cked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 9 December, 2011 Share Posted 9 December, 2011 If they've got CCTV footage, surely he'll be able to prove that you reversed fast and recklessly enough to cause that damage. If he puts an insurance claim in, state that you are aware that he was watching on CCTV and will therefore have a recording of the incident. I can pretty much guarantee that the tape will have "gone missing" and he'll probably drop the case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintscottofthenortham Posted 9 December, 2011 Author Share Posted 9 December, 2011 He is using the fact that it's on CCTV as his main threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz Posted 9 December, 2011 Share Posted 9 December, 2011 Ask to see the footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 December, 2011 Share Posted 9 December, 2011 Even if he has got CCTV footage the quality of such material is hardly like to show that your car damaged his if the impact was as negligible as you say. Call his bluff I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintscottofthenortham Posted 9 December, 2011 Author Share Posted 9 December, 2011 Hmmm... I'm fuming. I would hold my hands clean up if I thought I was in the wrong but I just can't accept it. Just cautious of him going insurance route and having my no claims dashed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 December, 2011 Share Posted 9 December, 2011 Hmmm... I'm fuming. I would hold my hands clean up if I thought I was in the wrong but I just can't accept it. Just cautious of him going insurance route and having my no claims dashed. You won't lose your no claims discount if there's no proof that you damaged his car. Simply deny you caused the damage (which is the case) and the burden of proof falls on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintscottofthenortham Posted 9 December, 2011 Author Share Posted 9 December, 2011 Cheers for the feedback. Have asked to see the footage, denied under Data Protection Act and told that it would only be made available if the police were to become involved. As it stands he is getting qoutes for the cost of repair, guess that's when I find out if he is out to rip me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 December, 2011 Share Posted 9 December, 2011 Cheers for the feedback. Have asked to see the footage, denied under Data Protection Act and told that it would only be made available if the police were to become involved. As it stands he is getting qoutes for the cost of repair, guess that's when I find out if he is out to rip me off. The only way he can try and get reimbursed for any repair bill he comes up with is by making a claim through his insurers who will then contact your insurers who will then contact you, at which point you state it wasn't you that caused the damage that he is claiming for. Then sit back, relax and let justice take its course. If, for some bizarre reason the insurers conclude it was you that caused the damage this simply appeal and demand they prove it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 9 December, 2011 Share Posted 9 December, 2011 Cheers for the feedback. Have asked to see the footage, denied under Data Protection Act and told that it would only be made available if the police were to become involved. As it stands he is getting qoutes for the cost of repair, guess that's when I find out if he is out to rip me off. As you will be on the alleged images, you can make a Data Subject Access request under the DP Act. This is an extract from the Code of Practice : " [h=3]9.2 Subject access requests[/h] Individuals whose images are recorded have a right to view the images of themselves and, unless they agree otherwise, to be provided with a copy of the images. This must be provided within 40 calendar days of receiving a request. You may charge a fee of up to £10 (this is the current statutory maximum set by Parliament). Those who request access must provide you with details which allow you to identify them as the subject of the images and also to locate the images on your system. You should consider: How will the staff involved in operating the CCTV system recognise a subject access request? Do you have internal procedures in place for handling subject access requests? This could include keeping a log of the requests received and how they were dealt with, in case you are challenged. A clearly documented process will also help guide individuals through such requests. This should make it clear what an individual needs to supply. You should decide: What details will you need to find the images? Is it made clear whether an individual will need to supply a photograph of themselves or a description of what they were wearing at the time they believe they were caught on the system, to aid identification? Is it made clear whether details of the date, time and location are required? What fee will you charge for supplying the requested images (up to a maximum of £10) and how should it be paid? Make this clear to people making access requests. How will you provide an individual with copies of the images? If images of third parties are also shown with the images of the person who has made the access request, you must consider whether you need to obscure the images of third parties. If providing these images would involve an unfair intrusion into the privacy of the third party, or cause unwarranted harm or distress, then they should be obscured. In many cases, images can be disclosed as there will not be such intrusion. Example: A public space CCTV camera records people walking down the street and going about their ordinary business. Where nothing untoward has occurred, this can be released without editing out third party images. Example: Images show the individual who has made the request with a group of friends, waving at a camera in the town centre. There is little expectation of privacy and the person making the request already knows their friends were there. It is likely to be fair to release the image to the requester without editing out the faces of their friends. Example: Images show a waiting room in a doctor’s surgery. Individuals have a high expectation of privacy and confidentiality. Images of third parties should be redacted (blurred or removed) before release. Where you decide that third parties should not be identifiable, then you will need to make arrangements to disguise or blur the images in question. It may be necessary to contract this work out to another organisation. Where this occurs, you will need to have a written contract with the processor which specifies exactly how the information is to be used and provides you with explicit security guarantees." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 9 December, 2011 Share Posted 9 December, 2011 When you get your copy of the tape perhaps some clever person could work out how fast your car was going when it touched, or in fact if it even did, and so give an idea if his claim is even possible. I mean could claimed damage have been done by such a mild impact. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 9 December, 2011 Share Posted 9 December, 2011 Come to think of it, were there clear signs up concerning the use of CCTV on the car park ? If not, the images can't be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 December, 2011 Share Posted 9 December, 2011 When you get your copy of the tape perhaps some clever person could work out how fast your car was going when it touched, or in fact if it even did, and so give an idea if his claim is even possible. I mean could claimed damage have been done by such a mild impact. . Exactly, but that's what the insurance assessor(s) will deduce as part of their usual investigations into any claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintscottofthenortham Posted 9 December, 2011 Author Share Posted 9 December, 2011 As you will be on the alleged images, you can make a Data Subject Access request under the DP Act. This is an extract from the Code of Practice : " [h=3]9.2 Subject access requests[/h] Individuals whose images are recorded have a right to view the images of themselves and, unless they agree otherwise, to be provided with a copy of the images. This must be provided within 40 calendar days of receiving a request. You may charge a fee of up to £10 (this is the current statutory maximum set by Parliament). Those who request access must provide you with details which allow you to identify them as the subject of the images and also to locate the images on your system. You should consider: How will the staff involved in operating the CCTV system recognise a subject access request? Do you have internal procedures in place for handling subject access requests? This could include keeping a log of the requests received and how they were dealt with, in case you are challenged. A clearly documented process will also help guide individuals through such requests. This should make it clear what an individual needs to supply. You should decide: What details will you need to find the images? Is it made clear whether an individual will need to supply a photograph of themselves or a description of what they were wearing at the time they believe they were caught on the system, to aid identification? Is it made clear whether details of the date, time and location are required? What fee will you charge for supplying the requested images (up to a maximum of £10) and how should it be paid? Make this clear to people making access requests. How will you provide an individual with copies of the images? If images of third parties are also shown with the images of the person who has made the access request, you must consider whether you need to obscure the images of third parties. If providing these images would involve an unfair intrusion into the privacy of the third party, or cause unwarranted harm or distress, then they should be obscured. In many cases, images can be disclosed as there will not be such intrusion. Example: A public space CCTV camera records people walking down the street and going about their ordinary business. Where nothing untoward has occurred, this can be released without editing out third party images. Example: Images show the individual who has made the request with a group of friends, waving at a camera in the town centre. There is little expectation of privacy and the person making the request already knows their friends were there. It is likely to be fair to release the image to the requester without editing out the faces of their friends. Example: Images show a waiting room in a doctor’s surgery. Individuals have a high expectation of privacy and confidentiality. Images of third parties should be redacted (blurred or removed) before release. Where you decide that third parties should not be identifiable, then you will need to make arrangements to disguise or blur the images in question. It may be necessary to contract this work out to another organisation. Where this occurs, you will need to have a written contract with the processor which specifies exactly how the information is to be used and provides you with explicit security guarantees." Spoken to City College and because it is private land the CCTV will only be made available under the request of police. So up to the lad if he wants to take it that far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfred Posted 9 December, 2011 Share Posted 9 December, 2011 SSOTN, I work in car insurance claims so feel qualified to give you some advice, but I don't think I'm going to bring good news. How or where his car was parked isn't going to be a defence - it wouldn't matter if it was parked on double yellows either. It will be argued it was there to be seen. And admitting to a knock, however slight, will cause your insurers some concern and if they get to learn of this "accident" and will probably pay up - it's the cheapest and easiest option for them as it will be easier to say you did cause the damage than didn't. Another one settled and off their desk. Maybe a bit of a moan from you when they do, but that's an arguement you'll never win. Don't kid yourself that forensic engineers etc will get involved. They don't come cheap and if every bump like this had one involved we'd all be paying far more for our insurance. And the bump happening at night, probably in the dark, is also against you. How good a look at his car was it possible to take? Difficult to say too much as I guess the bloke hasn't told you how much he is claiming for. Make sure any estimate is from a decent repairer rather than a back street job as they are far less likely to quote for damage that isn't there or was caused at another time. This leaves you open to a higher cost possibly, but at least you'll know that matey isn't profiting from this one. See this an awful lot. You could think yourself lucky he wasn't sat in his car at the time, as no doubt they would claim their neck was hurting - then it gets really expensive. But I only see claims that do go as far as insurance - I'm sure loads are never followed up, or settled with a few quid. Hopefully that is what will happen with you. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintscottofthenortham Posted 10 December, 2011 Author Share Posted 10 December, 2011 Thanks for your reply. Very helpful. I had a very good look, I got my torches out of the car and lot the front up, and where my car would have come into contact with his there was no damage at all, yet he is claiming I have pushed lights out of place. Meh... I'll just have to wait and see what sort of qoute he comes back with. Ta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 10 December, 2011 Share Posted 10 December, 2011 (edited) Spoken to City College and because it is private land the CCTV will only be made available under the request of police. So up to the lad if he wants to take it that far. As far as I am aware that is b0ll0x - the 'private land' rules apply only for an individual's house or property, the ICO says "The Data Protection Act does not apply to individuals’ private or household purposes. So if you install a camera on your own home to protect it from burglary, the Act will not apply", although there is guidance on whether you can use it to monitor public spaces - so you can monitor a private driveway but should try to avoid the footpath outside your curtelage. IMO the college car park is a public space by definition, and the College is a business premises, so the DPA applies. Also, not sure of the relevance or accuracy, but I found this elsewhere : " If this is a private car park then neither careless driving or reporting a road accident apply so it is not a police matter. If the car park is public then careless driving laws apply and any accident needs to be reported (or details exchanged/owner informed etc) As per RTA 1988 section 3 and section 170, both as amended by RTA 1991." Edited 10 December, 2011 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesaint sfc Posted 10 December, 2011 Share Posted 10 December, 2011 This exact thing kind of happened to me. I bumped the car in front of me in traffic ever so slightly and she said that she was going to have to have the bumper taken off and checked etc etc etc. It all went through insurance as I wasn't prepared that any such damage had been caused. It went on for a year. The insurance company said that she had the car checked by a garage which was reputable to them and as the damage to her car tallied up with where my car had made contact I would have to pay - it was about £368! I said I didn't want my no claims affected so I would pay the £368 out of my own pocket directly to her insurance company. They passed my details on to her insurance company who about 4 months later contacted me and asked for about £218! So my insurance company had completely inflated what was owed. Her insurance company provided me with all the receipts etc so I felt as satisfied as I could do in the end. To be honest I wish I'd hit her at 100mph and then the horrible old cow wouldn't have had the opportunity to have wound me up so much. There really are some cocks on the road. Unfortunately though, if you've made contact with their car then there isn't much you can do to avoid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 10 December, 2011 Share Posted 10 December, 2011 Spoken to City College and because it is private land the CCTV will only be made available under the request of police. So up to the lad if he wants to take it that far. Im sure you deserved it and if you didnt, it goes someway to making up for what a tool you are on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintscottofthenortham Posted 10 December, 2011 Author Share Posted 10 December, 2011 Im sure you deserved it and if you didnt, it goes someway to making up for what a tool you are on here. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 11 December, 2011 Share Posted 11 December, 2011 Im sure you deserved it and if you didnt, it goes someway to making up for what a tool you are on here. I lol'd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now