A***hole neighbour hit my car

[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

[cherrymx5]

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

Um hold on her buddy, hit someone's car leave a note. Simple.

Accountability, avoiding that is the same as theft.. I have to pay for something someone else broke.

Would you defend a thief? And that analogy is perfectly valid given the tangent that you have taken my quotes on



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cherrymx5]

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" .

I have heard from another neighbor since whom has suffered the same thing that he is in his nineties.

And again Morlock to say that someone's ability to drive should be their families decision is absolutely ludicrous!

Why don't dads just test their children's driving proficiency and we could do away with any sort of licence at all?

Don't you read what you have written?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cherrymx5]

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.

In the court of Morlock, all walk free and none are guilty..
Probably unless it happens to him


Sent from my iPhone 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.

[project.r.racing]

The thief?

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

Since it must be a similar situation to the one cherry has described. Otherwise it would be totally irrelevant.

I would suggest since you know whom the thief is and you have evidence. Walk to his apartment in your apartment complex and request him to admit it and him to pay it.

[cherrymx5]

Regardless the police telling me I had no chance to claim ended it really.. Car is fixed now..

Bloody old blind fart


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk