So, X has now been invited to respond to a Tribunals Service money claim. On reading the claim, Y realised that the statement from the claimant is a pack of lies. The claimant (let's call him '****') left a minor road and piled into the side of X's car (actually Y owns the car but it isn't relevant) on an A road. But ****'s statement claims it was the other way round. In order to account for the damage to the left side of X's car, **** has invented a scenario where X was signaling left but turned right, pulling out in from of ****'s car as the **** turned right, into the minor road. Unfortunately (or fortunately) X has photographic evidence of where the cars ended up. With a broken front axle and a front left wheel knocked 20 degrees out of true it would have been impossible for X to get the car where it ended up, had the ****'s lies about the incident been true. It was impossible to steer X's car let alone do the necessary 3 point turn.
Anyway, X and Y are looking forward to the court case, the little misunderstanding about X not being insured to drive Y's car notwithstanding. Update on that, Y's insurance will let anyone drive his car, except (in small print) - the spouse. Even though X and Y are not married, the insurer sees Y as a spouse. X and Y feel they can blag their way past that in the court. Y and Y have a 20 page 'storyboard' with photos and diagrams. It was the preparation of this that has kept Y off NSC today, so he tells me.
Anyway, X and Y are looking forward to the court case, the little misunderstanding about X not being insured to drive Y's car notwithstanding. Update on that, Y's insurance will let anyone drive his car, except (in small print) - the spouse. Even though X and Y are not married, the insurer sees Y as a spouse. X and Y feel they can blag their way past that in the court. Y and Y have a 20 page 'storyboard' with photos and diagrams. It was the preparation of this that has kept Y off NSC today, so he tells me.
