Yeah, this thread has been getting confusing. I’ve went over the whole thread again and here’s my observations and comments. Some quotes are bits and pieces pulled from different posts.
Quote:
|
Tat2 ... my neighbor across the street backed into me while I was already in the street. … My street is N and S, I was facing North getting ready to put it in drive when he backed out of his driveway (which is directly across the street from my driveway) and he hit me.
|
Correct me if I’m wrong here Tat2 but it sounds like you had just backed into the street right before the other guy backed out and hit you. If that’s the case then the cop probably didn’t issue any tickets because he didn’t see it happen and he wasn’t clear on who was at fault.
Quote:
|
Tat2 …. He told me he didn't have insurance. The plates that he had on at the time of the accident were dealership plates which were owned by a small dealership here in town. He works there and was supposed to be trading off his car for this blazer (the one that hit me) but no papers were drawn up or finalized at that time.
|
I don’t find it odd that papers weren’t drawn up yet.
The insurance thing is really the stickler here because nobody wants to cough up the $1600 to fix Tat2’s car. If a person has a car with insurance and buys another car the next car is covered for a short time automatically. Without the papers being drawn up it’s still the dealer’s car and the dealer is responsible. More on this later.
Quote:
|
Tat2 … I've seen 3 different plates on his vehicle 2 of them being expired…. they have 2 vehicles in the driveway w/ no plates…. I showed her the picture I had w/ 2 vehicles not having tags… I've seen 2 different cars there both w/ 30 days tags…
|
While the other cars were not involved in the accident all this tag business on several cars is a flag that this guy isn’t running legal on most if not all of his cars.
Including the one he hit Tat2 with. Quote:
|
Tat2 … The owner of dealership claims this guy was trading his vehicle for this blazer that hit me, but no papers had been drawn up yet. … as for the dealership, she said she was advised to file theft charges against the driver… the owner of the dealership doesn't want to fix my car because they feel he shouldn't have been driving around on those dealership tags (she the owner said that was his blazer and he was responsible for getting his own plates and insurance) …
|
OK, hold on here. This is a big time run around by the dealer. She can't keep her stories straight. First the guy was trading for the Blazer and then it’s his Blazer? Which is it? It doesn’t matter if he bought the car later, it matters who owned the car at the time of the accident. As for the advice the dealer got about claiming the car was stolen that sounds like advice about how to weasel out of responsibility for the damage.
In summary, this guy is pulling shady crap with several cars and the dealer is helping him with D plates and 30 day permits. It sounds like they both are doing things that would be more than just a little embarrassing. Again, I think someone needs to lean on this dealer real hard. The punk that hit you likely has little to lose but the dealer has a dealership to lose. Most crooks are stupid and I think that dealer would have been smart to cut you a check for $2000 to cover your $1600 damage and your inconvenience with a lot of butt kissing and apologies with the hope that you would go away and not screw with them.