Probably a long shot but…
Someone’s put in a false counter claim against my mum which I’m fairly sure from the damage can be proven is not true but I’m wondering what happens in this instance, will the two companies be reasonable or because there’s no witnesses will their company reject the claim?
I mean insurance companies are basically built around not paying out so I’d say this will work it’s way out okay if there is any evidence at all to show it’s bollocks.
Used to, yeah but only in customer services. If it is easily probable that it’s bollocks then get as much evidence as you can and it should be alright. But if it looks to the companies involved that it’ll go legal and cost them money to fight it then they’ll probably cut their losses and they’ll agree to pay half each. It’ll fuck the no claims of both parties and affect both premiums. Even with protected no claims protection it’ll increase the projected risk of the drivers.
Basically what’s happened is that a woman went into the back of my mum at a roundabout. Big thump but because it was square on no visual damage (dents) to either car. Woman admitted fault immediately and then again several times by phone. Later it became apparent that the collision had broken the boot clasp and a mechanic has said the crash bar has been broken. Turns out the woman was driving a company car and her boss has filed a counter claim saying that my mum pulled away and across her and it was therefore my fault. My logic is that if that had been the case then the damage would have been very different, I.e the woman would’ve hit my mums car at an angle. Anyway, I guess what I’m wondering is will both companies realise this and accept that it couldn’t have been my mums fault, or does logic not come into it.
I’d like to think the insurance company would see it like that, yeah. I was always told that no matter what the person in front does if someone runs into the back of them, then it’s always the fault of the person behind cause they should leave enough space.
If all the damage to your mum’s car is on the rear then I can’t see how their story is going to fly.
The in-laws got me one of those dash cams that records the front and rear for Christmas. And while it’s a bit naff/Brexit/Tory it does make me feel pretty chill about the state of the other drivers I encounter daily.
Yeah I could probably do with one of those cams tbh. Fingers crossed and you right and it goes through ok. My dads already been on to the woman calling her a disgrace etc, poor woman it’s not really her fault!
I have nothing to add other than I hope the person who has filed the spurious claim gets seriously karma’d; this kind of thing causes so much stress and to not just stick your hands up and accept blame when it’s entirely your fault is a fucking chump move.
In my experience, very few firms will attempt to defend when their driver has gone square into the back of another. In almost all cases it’s considered the fault of the driver who went into the back of the other. But insurance be crazy sometimes and in the odd case screwy decisions are made, but that’s rare.
Turns out good old aviva have decided that the other claim was bogus and are not contesting it now. 
I have a bit of experience in the field. Insurance companies are adverse to spending money so you need to give them as much detail as possible (even drawings or pictures of the location) and be very suborn. As if it seems like it will cost them less money to pay or for each person to take responsibility for there own damage they will take that route.
Also worth checking if either car had a GPS tracker, some company cars do and some insurance policies require it. If so it could verify the time and place of the accident which maybe useful in proving responsibility.