Hi,
In July of last year I was was traveling down a 20mph road and indicated to turn right, I was being closely followed by a van. I checked my mirrors and turned my car was in the right hand lane when the van drove into my drivers door at speed. I couldn't actually get out of the car as my door was too damaged but my partner did. I was learning at the time (test booked and passed 8 weeks later). He stated that I didn't indicate, however as my partner pointed out my indicater was still on. He then stated my positioning was wrong and I pulled to the left (no turning to the left). His insurer state that it should be 50/50 liability. My legal representative is Slater Gorden who I am informed are in financial difficulty. They are pressing me to accept the offer or if I go to court I could loose and incur costs as they do not support me going to court. I spoke to my family solicitor who is in agreement (though an informal opinion) that I am not a fault. I feel like I am not being represented properly and feel I am being forced into a decision I am not happy with.
I have sent photos of the damage and the junction, which is wide enough for two vehicles and he could have been used to avert te accident.
With being a new driver (later in life) I have lost my car, now paying PCP and to add insult to this I will now have an at fault claim if I agree to this. Can anyone offer any advice?
Thanks
Laura
Edited by Lvm35 on 11/03/2016 at 10:19
|
|
How have you 'lost your car, now paying PCP' ?
Usually insurance companies deal with these sorts of matters. They decide who is responsible, and settle the claims.
Unless, of course, you were not Comprehensively insured. In which case you took a gamble and it didn't pay off.
|
I did have comprehensive insurance however until the above is settled these cost can't be recovered.
The insurance company support a 50/50 split.
|
|
I do not understand WHY what seems to be a simple accident has been dragging on since July last year - 8 months now.
You have said the insurance company view it as 50-50, or 'knock for knock'. So I assume it is you who is being the obstacle in the case, and refusing to settle.
If that is the case, then the only person responsible for it dragging on so long, and you being without your car, is you.
If there is another reason why it is taking the thick end of a year, then please enlighten me.
|
Not at all, I've sent all paperwork back promptly. There was an error on one of the reports that had to be amended that took them months to rectify. The insurance company was then taken over and my case handeler changed, I was then informed (4 weeks ago) that the 3rd parties version of events were different to mine and was sent a copy of the letter that should have been issued to me months previously.
The timescale is frustrating and I can see how you have formed your assumptions however it isn't through me dragging matters out,
|
|
A few years ago I had a reasonably similar situation. Fortunately in the traffic behind me was an off duty traffic officer who saw my signals ( driver who hit me said he hadn't seen) and the police were called. Other driver given a driver improvement course.
Even then the solicitors, who were very slow, said that I had a 'good chance of success'. I told them them was a feeble comment and I expected definite - which it was.
Unfortunately for you, you don't appear to have an independent witness : obviously passenger doesn't count. In this case, unless there is other evidence, it is just two contradictory views. These end up, understandably in my view, as 50-50 cases. Sorry, it seems unfair, but how else could insurance settle it ?
|
|
If the van was overtaking you, quote Highway Code Rule 167: "DO NOT overtake approaching or at a road junction" which means the van driver was at fault, even the thickest insurance company should admit that.
|
|
Yes : that's what happened to me. If OP can prove by vehicle damage that is what must have happened then, as you say it, should be admitted.
The guy who hit me was jumping around with 'never saw your indicators, mate' The police said that there were independent witnesses I did signal so I was ' in the clear' . So that might just muddly the waters a little. Independent withnesses often seem to be crucial.
|
|
|
|
Read the OP's post carefully it's not clear but it does state 'I was in the right hand land when the van hit' This could mean a number of things. I suspect the insurance company decided on 50-50 as the was more than 1 lane and it happen in lane 2. Speed and the fact the indicator are unlikely to have taken much part in the conclusion, it's a bit he said, I said and no witness or camera.
I suspect 50-50 is as good as it going to get unless you can bring something new to the table.
|
Other than a recording of the road I've sent everything I can.
Thanks for reading and responding, it's nice to have some unbiased opinions.
|
Other than a recording of the road I've sent everything I can. Thanks for reading and responding, it's nice to have some unbiased opinions.
Hello Lvm, sorry to read of your problem. It does seem you have been responsible in your actions so far. However once the legal beagles get involved then the whole procedure turns into a rigmarole, probably because they can charge by the hour. I had this with Irwin Mitchell on Legal Cover and they were a nightmare. Going over everything time and again, dragging their heels, blaming the other party etc etc. Eventually after an ultimatum they came up with a settlement, which I told them to put where the sun doesn't shine!. Eventually, because I played hard ball, because I was sure I was right I got the settlement I wanted. All they wanted was to cut a deal and collect their fee. I believed that in the County Court(Small Claims Court) I would have easily won on evidence, photographs and common sense. The other driver was lying like a doormat, and quite easy to see through. My advice is stick at it. Write and tell them 'time is of the essence' and you expect a full settlement within 21 days, otherwise you wish to start court proceeding against the other party. Once you have a court date, sit back and watch the other party squirm as they up the settlement and eventually cave in a couple of days before the hearing. Brinkmanship is their only tool. Best of luck and stick at it. Remember, it is YOU who has to make this happen.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
|
|
Apparently they are basing their decision on settled case law and even though I put forward this argument it's still his word against mine.
I'll keep you all updated though.
|
|
|
|
Thanks Scott, it does kind of feel hopeless. If only I had a witness!
I was hoping the position of my car and where he impacted would be taken into account as I was almost pulling into the junction at the time but fundamentally it does come down to his word against mine.
Thanks for taking time out your day though.
|
|
Well unless you get the case law that they are basing the argument on and read it, you will not have enough understanding to give reasons why it does not apply.
You would need some case law that supports your view.
|
|
Sorrie v Robertson. 1944 SC(J)95.
The defendant in this case was driving his motor lorry at a moderate speed along the main street of a small town, some 50 yards behind was a motorcyclist travelling in the same direction. Wishing to enter a garage, on his offside, he, some 50 yards from the point he would turn right, extended his right arm as a signal to the motorcyclist, whom he could see in his mirror. The cyclist failed to see his signal and maintained his speed.
The defendant withdrew his arm and concentrated on making the turn, but by then the motorcyclist was overtaking and the vehicles collided. The defendant was convicted in the magistrates' court and appealed unsuccessfully against his conviction, the court holding that he had a duty to make sure his signal had been seen by the rider of the vehicle following.
I think you will find this reasoning is within the Highway Code.
dvd
|
|
I think the fact that hand signals were the norm in 1944 and the fact we now have indicators, (which remarkably continue to flash even when you have both hands on the steering wheel, i.e. unlike a hand signal) rubbishes your take on something that happened in 2015 DVD?
|
|
What it says Nick and very pertinent is the fact that despite giving a signal before actually just before making the turn one checks to make sure it is safe to do so, i.e. nowt in the mirror coming down your offside.
dvd
|
|
Far too many people assume that because the manover is signaled - that gives them carte blanche to actually carry out the manover, and other road users will make way.
True one should not overtake at a junction, but anyone who has been driving for years will have seen it done, lots of times.
|
Far too many people assume that because the manover is signaled - that gives them carte blanche to actually carry out the manover, and other road users will make way.
When I lived in Sheffield in the early Sixties, the Corporation buses were notorious for this trick, I learnt to be prepared accordingly. Several instances of this today on the M6/M61/M62 by cars changing lanes, but fortunately anticipated and none needed heavy braking.
|
|
DVD has made a valid point. I would diverge from this however by considering two other relevant points. Firstly, the difference between a hand signal, which is fairly brief and a direction indicator is substantive. The traffic indicator is continuous and therefore much more visible to other drivers. Secondly, once committed to the manouvre i.e to turn right, surely the focus is on road positioning and oncoming traffic. I see it would be good practice to look into the side mirror to check. However a lapse of good practice does not neccessarily mean responsibility is yours. If the Highway Code is brought into the debate then surely the following driver not only failed to react to the signal, but also ignored it and proceeded to overtake at what presumably is a genuine right turn off the highway. This also begs the question of how do we ascertain if the following driver has noted your signal?? Even in court common sense has some part to play. I would think in general that anyone of us experiencing being overtaken when signalling to turn right, would feel the overtaking driver was completely outside the Highway Code with this unexpected and dangerous behaviour.
I repeat to the original OP, stick to your guns. Road positioning is very important in assessing any fault from a collision. The fact also your indicator was still on means you made every possible effort to warn the following driver of your intentions. Keep at it.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
As you say this is not a small claims court application. I would take the 3rd party directly to court claiming the replacement value.
Take a few example Vans for sale that are a near match to what you had. You should get legal advice to form a proper claim. Most likely thier insurance will settle before going to court.
Slater Gorden are clearly just a broker and not a very good one at that. Maybe look at classic car insurance in the feature and get a value written into the policy.
|
Slater Gorden are clearly just a broker and not a very good one at that. Maybe look at classic car insurance in the feature and get a value written into the policy.
Slater Gordon are a transnational law firm (originally Australian) rather than an insurance broker. They've been engaged in aggressive expansion in UK buying up a number of long etablished firms, including Russel Jones and Walker, Panone and Leo Abse & Cohen.
Recently in some turmoil following major losses:
www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/slater-and-gordon-le...e
|
|
I agree Bromptonaut, these legal firms are generally not your friend, although I know of a few exceptions. All they want is to drag the case out as long as they dare, then cut a deal whether it suits you or not, then claim their fees. The origonal OP must fight for his rights on this occasion, do his homework and issue clear instructions to the solicitors.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
|
