A***hole neighbour hit my car

[david_syd_au]

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

[Mr Morlock]

Cherry is clearly totally blind to his own language and the equally unconvincing defence of it. Most of us would be very uncomfortable with a neighbour whatever age who "confronts" us or harbors thoughts of knocking someone out if they were younger because there car had a scratch on it. The best thing for this subject would be to delete it all.

[Vat]

Feel your pain. Mrs was involved in a car park touch where the other party verbally admitted fault at the time (she reversed out first, spotted him then back out via the camera and was trying to get back into her spot to avoid him) and told a different story when the insurance company rang. Couldn't prove anything, car parks default to 50/50.

[cherrymx5]

It's a shame that there is no better way to deal with these sorts of things.. Relying on people's honesty these days doesn't seem to be any use. Ah well there is always karma


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cherrymx5]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1green5]

My neighbour, charming old fart that he is obviously has dementia, because he was parked behind me and scraped my car with his, leaving a little white paint present..

(wish he was younger so I could have knocked him out)

(Should I slash his tyres?)

You think you're the first person who have something like this happen to them?
Is your car so precious?
How bad is the damage?

..scraped my car with his, leaving a little white paint present..

You're so sure he "obviously has dementia" then that pretty much dictates how a mature person should react, behave and handle the situation in an appropriate way.

Are you also going to shout at or hit a 5 year old child if they damaged your car whilst playing nearby?

Being "enthusiasts" not only refers to a love and appreciation of cars, it also means having a level head, even temper, and being a socially well-adjusted adult, otherwise, does the colloquial term "bogan" hold any meaning to you?

What kind of a reaction would the bogan stereotype have if they were in your shoes.....?

I'm sure this is not the first time and won't the last time you've been told this: Grow up

[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.