A***hole neighbour hit my car

[project.r.racing]

Since he is old, with presumably somewhat impaired senses, maybe even if he did hit your car he honestly didn't know?

Don't want to open a can of worms, but in that case, he would want his licence taken off him.. Who knows he could hit a child and not know.

"IF" you are 100% sure it was him, then I would bluff him with this angle.

Suggest that if he doesn't own up to his mistake, you'll have to go higher up officially. And his driving ability may come in to question. The thought of loosing their license may just make them find honesty and a few dollars in reciprocation.

Please don't do any revenge attacks of any form. Somehow you'll still loose if you go down this road.

[Mr Morlock]

what a silly suggestion- and a silly conclusion. I dont think we are going to accept that the neighbour is suffering from dementia based on a throwaway comment. It would be ill advised to threaten a person with empty comments of escalating a unprovable issue which involved no injury to any person. That's not acceptable behaviour. If a person is getting toward the end of their driving capacities it becomes as issue for families to address . Incidentally- being old does not mean that a person is not capable of driving a car and besides what is "old" .

[NitroDann]

OP's point here is really clear.

Matching paint marks, a scenario which makes it easy and obvious the neighbor did it, and the Alzheimers claim is CLEARLY a stab at the neighbor 'not remembering'.

Dann

[Mr Morlock]

The whole thing was a ridiculous post in the first place. I would not put any weight at all in so called matching paint and right heights etc. Paint analysis- same colour - oh come on. Measured with what and does that mean that the other car had the identical marks? And if they did line up how can it even be said with any surety which car actually instigated the incident. Furthermore how do we know who had access to those cars. The other person was said to be old ( and no one even confirmed what is old) presumably because that identifies incompetence - to does not anyone can make mistakes in driving. And the issue raised of going back to the neighbour of another attempt to harass the person has not been mentioned.

[StuwieP]

The whole thing was a ridiculous post in the first place.
We all have our passions. Clearly Cherry's car is important to him. Over-reaction maybe but some of the responses to this thread haven't exactly been measured and polite either...


I would not put any weight at all in so called matching paint and right heights etc. Paint analysis- same colour - oh come on.
Why not? Seems to me to be not far from basic common sense that two cars trading paint would sport marks of similar size, at the same height, and in the appropriate colours. This is being dismissed as 'circumstantial' evidence. Guess what? Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. This isn't some American TV show, that kind of information is pretty key to any question of fault or fact.
What's the alternative? Aliens? Some guy who goes around scraping pain off one car, putting it on another and vice-versa in the dead of the night?


Measured with what and does that mean that the other car had the identical marks?
That's what he said. So yes, the two cars had 'matching' marks.


And if they did line up how can it even be said with any surety which car actually instigated the incident.
Well we've been told they were parked in line (cherry in front, other car behind), I think that unless you're saying this is all a fabrication and in fact cherry reversed into the car parked behind him, or hit something without noticing at some other time, that you can join the dots.


Furthermore how do we know who had access to those cars. You don't. Your implication is that anybody could have been driving, and I think that's an unfair jab at the OP. If the car belongs to the neighbour, and there aren't other people living there (unknown to me) then it's also a fair assumption that he was the driver.


The other person was said to be old ( and no one even confirmed what is old) presumably because that identifies incompetence - to does not anyone can make mistakes in driving. True. But this means nothing, because as you point out, anybody can make a mistake, including the neighbour. I'm sure Cherry can provide you with an approximate age but I'm guessing by the tone of the first post that he doesn't mean 50 or 60...
Frankly, could just be an embarrassed guy lying to save face. If he genuinely can't remember there are greater problems at play.


And the issue raised of going back to the neighbour of another attempt to harass the person has not been mentioned.

I won't defend Cherry suggesting he would have liked to punch the guy, or slash his tyres. Obviously neither of these opinions should be condoned and perhaps a look in the mirror is needed to address that attitude. Nonetheless, many posts here disregarded the substance of cherry's complaint in favour of attacking that attitude and dismissing the rest.

People saying the police don't give a damn - why would the police get involved in essentially a civil matter? Their job would be in some alternate reality where Cherry jumped the guy.


Dann clicked. Scenario is pretty clear. Anger in the post perhaps clouds it but not so much. Cherry does himself some disservices but in the end its his car with the scrapes.

As far as insurance - if it's his fault, report to your insurance to chase up his. If he's at fault, he should pay.

[project.r.racing]

I'm sure Mr Moron would act differently if someone scratched his car and failed to admit fault. It just it hasn't happened to him, and he is able to take the highroad on the other side of his keyboard. His same BS, different thread.

As for attempting to bluff someone into admitting truth is classed as harassment. Police, lawyers, employers, employees, boyfriends, girlfriends, husbands, wives do it every day. It is not harassment unless you repeatedly do it over and over again.

I agree with the above poster, I'd give his details to your insurance company, you have his address and license plate number. Should be enough. Take photos of his and your damage for the claim. If they question you for his name and license number, say he refused to give details. Which I assume he has already done so anyway.

[bootz]

Had my pass window smashed. All they took was a bag with my bathing gear. Then had my pass window smashed and all they took was my owners manual (must have thought it looked like an ipad)

Who the freaking hell am I supposed to get mad at?

[project.r.racing]

The thief?

[Mr Morlock]

PRRs you should get out a little more or perhaps even do a bit more reading or tuning into societies expectations of what is acceptable behaviour.. Making accusations without real proof after someone has denied responsibility can readily become harassment and that can have real consequences. Stuwie does not even understand that circumstantial evidence is something that is not proven. We certainly don't know who has access to the car or cars - many of us have other members of the household or friends that drive our cars. We have not had any proof of anything including a very inappropriate title for a post and comments that really were uncalled for.

[Odd]

I'd get photos of damage/paint on both cars
Get an estimate of cost to repair....
Write a letter making a statement of claim....
Discuss with your insurer....as you have a reasonable assumption as who did the damage
They maybe prepared to fix it and take action to recoup costs...(they may not also...depends on insurer)

I found a small dent in my car whilst parked at work....had no idea who did it...but had reasonable assumption it was a building tradesman given the car was parked next to a door in a store room....made a claim against building owners insurance....they paid for repairs and building owner changed door swing to make it hard for it to happen again

If you don't ask....you won't get

[StuwieP]

Stuwie does not even understand that circumstantial evidence is something that is not proven.

We certainly don't know who has access to the car or cars - many of us have other members of the household or friends that drive our cars.

have not had any proof of anything including a very inappropriate title for a post and comments that really were uncalled for.

Thanks for the jab mate.

On the contrary, you have confused evidence with proof. I have only referred to the evidence we have been provided, flawed as it may be. Evidence is the information from which we draw our conclusions. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of the context of the event and is critical in any assessment of truth or fact, especially where the only potential witness may not recall or wish to lie about what happened. To dismiss it off hand shows a fundamental misapprehension of the law and logic.

You'll note that my reply specifically acknowledged that I don't know who had access but suggested the circumstances which could lead you to a reasonable, though not certain, conclusion. Given that in any civil court the question is on the balance of probability, a reasonable inference may suffice absent 100% CCTV verified, AFP-witnessed broad-daylight red-handed cold hard fact, which seems to be your demand?

I also avoided drawing concrete conclusions based on what we have been told and provided suggestions cherry could take which were to my mind both appropriate and non confrontational.

Cheers, and to cherry - good luck and keep calm. You'll sort it out.

[project.r.racing]

PRRs you should get out a little more or perhaps even do a bit more reading or tuning into societies expectations of what is acceptable behaviour.. Making accusations without real proof after someone has denied responsibility can readily become harassment and that can have real consequences. Stuwie does not even understand that circumstantial evidence is something that is not proven. We certainly don't know who has access to the car or cars - many of us have other members of the household or friends that drive our cars. We have not had any proof of anything including a very inappropriate title for a post and comments that really were uncalled for.

do you always argue for the sake of arguing? Is it acceptable behaviour in society to damage someones car and pretend you didn't? If one didn't realize you did the damage, pretend like it could have never been you?

I'll draw you to the fact that the highlighted area of your post is talking in pretense. I also suggested that ongoing visits to the person could be harassment. So you are just saying the same thing.

For the matter of whom had access to the car/s. It does not matter. The old bloke is the owner of the car and is responsible for knowing whom is operating his car. If the car is in an accident, then he as the owner should still provide the details of any users of the car that day before if his car was involved.

And before you blow another circuit about accusations without proof (if you understand the difference between proof and evidence), note the many "ifs" in my post and many others posting within this thread.

[bootz]

The thief?

Long gone, but the bill still needs to be paid.

[speed]

Think we all need a positive distraction. The last one is even mazda related

http://thethrottle.com/2011/08/11/i-nee ... 1_500wtmk/

http://thethrottle.com/2011/08/11/i-nee ... e-002wtmk/

http://thethrottle.com/2011/08/11/i-nee ... rvicewtmk/





Sent from my GT-I9506 using Tapatalk

[Mr Morlock]

Cherry remarked
"And again Morlock to say that someone's ability to drive should be their families decision is absolutely ludicrous!
.. thats not what I said -and its not the same as . " If a person is getting toward the end of their driving capacities it becomes as issue for families to address"

Cherry could take Odds advice and let us know how he gets on.