Almost a year ago, I was driving past a stationary bus at a bus stop, situated opposite a t-junction. A man in a van pulled out of the the t-j and drove straight into the side of my car.(He said the bus driver waved him through). My car was written off.
His ins.co. have employed every delaying tactic going. Not answering letters from my ins.co and claiming it was 50:50 liability because I was "overtaking" next to a junction. Long term users on this site may recall my post months ago, asking "should I accept 50:50 liability?". Everyone who replied said "NO", it is his responsibility to make sure the road is clear.
My ins.co. have been worse than useless, not keeping me informed, asking me to go to the accident spot, an hour's drive away, to take photos, advising me to accept the 50:50 liability but not saying why until I phoned to ask. Turned out they hadn't read my account of the accident properly! Their attitude has nearly always been that I am in the wrong and they are grudgingly doing me a favour. I also don't believe they have done nearly enough to pursue a payout from the other ins.co.
I am taking my ins.co. to the Ombudsman and following the correct procedure by writing to them first. I would also like to pursue compensation from the other ins.co. My questions are:
1)My ins.co. have asked for £10 before they release copies of correspondence between them and the other ins.co. Cheek! I am unbelievably short of money at the moment, made worse by the high premiums I am paying until this is resolved. I am not in the mood to give them any more money.Can they do this?
2)Should I push my ins.co. to claim compensation for distress, time spent, extra costs etc even though I am taking them to the Ombudsman?! When I mentioned being reimbursed for expenses the woman on the phone demanded:"Do you have receipts?". No I don't but I am very much out of pocket.
3)The Ombudsman advised taking the other ins.co. to court privately but I don't have the money to do that. Could I use the small claims court? Or a no win-no fee solicitor even though I wasn't injured?
4)Finally, is it absolutely water-tight that I am in no way to blame? Is the "pulling onto a main road" rule like the "rear end shunt" rule? ie, automatically to blame and no excuses?
I'm sorry this is such a long post. It's a long, shambolic saga! This is all causing so much distress, I feel sick every time a letter comes from my ins.co. I am drowning in it all, and would be very grateful if anyone could offer constructive suggestions.
Many thanks
Stephanie
|
Here is the previous thread tinyurl.com/c8me3
Keep 'em constructive, as Stephsteph requests.
Thanks
smokie, BR Moderator
|
Steph - Good constructive advice was given in the original thread.
Did you have legal expenses insurance with your insurance .
If so use them.
If not find a no win - no fee solicitor if possible to take on your case.
If no one of the no win - no fee boys will take it then you will have to either pay a solicitor for a letter to the other party or you issue a claim in the small claims court. Both these methods will involve a little outlay but you really have to believe that you will win and make sure that you claim all your expenses back.
Unfortunately it appears to me that you are being given the runaround , you are being very indecisive and in my opinion you are in need of legal assistance.The longer you let it drag on the more difficult you are making it for yourself.
Start fighting back - Now.
|
Yes helicopter, I do have legal expenses in my insurance. Yes, good advice was given in the original thread concerning apportioning blame for the accident.
My post this time mainly concerns the other driver's ins.co. Whether to push my own ins.co. to do more or whether to pursue it independently. If so how? It sounds as if you are advising me to pursue it independently. I can not lose any more money over this so I need to know I have a pretty much water tight case.
This is not indecisiveness. I'm happy to put a rocket under the lot of them, I just need to be sure my next move is going to yield results.
Stephanie
|
|
|
|
4/ Yes. Its an absolute rule. If you cross stop or give way markers and hit something you didnt abide by the obligatory instructions and to quote
"Ones driving fell below a standard normally considered acceptable" and you will get at the minimum a Careless Driving (driving without due care and attention) charge.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
Thanks, Tour Van Man, is that a quote from the Highway Code?
|
I've had the misfortune to be knocked off both a bicycle and a moped by car drivers who pulled out across give way lines at junctions and in both cases - the drivers were prosecuted for careless driving (for failing to observe a give way sign).
It's not an offence to overtake a stationary bus under normal circumstances, pulling out with giving way definitely is - stick to your guns and chase your insurance company, it's their duty to resolve this in your favour as their client.
|
>>stick to your guns and chase your insurance company, it's their duty to resolve this in your favour as their client.
I understand your point, but I'm afriad that isn't true.
|
|
|
|
No thats a quote from the police manual when deciding to press a charge for doing precisely what your driver did.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
|
|
your original post has this: "I took all the usual precautions, checked blind spot, signalled, etc and was alongside the bus when the other driver drove into me. His insurance company have offered half the claim, saying I shouldn't have overtaken next to a junction. Ok, my mistake ... EXCEPT the bus stop was directly opposite the T-junction."
It seems to me you were approaching this junction with your right-hand indicators on. As you were intending to be driving straight on you should have been mindful of the apparent conflict of indication of your intentions and been aware that someone at the junction might interpret your actions differently (perhaps such as the driver who hit you or the bus driver who maybe thought you really were turning right). If I was this other driver that's the line I'd be taking too ie going for 50:50 as a minimum as both could be construed as being at fault. Or indeed if I had a really good lawyer you'd be carrying full blame for indicating right and then going straight on.
|
Not so - the highway code specifically states:
"watch out for signals given by other road users and proceed only when you are satisfied that it is safe"
I'd argue strongly that the van driver ignored the highway code and the accident occurred as a result of this, in real terms the fact that the van drove into the side of the vehicle would suggest that he wouldn't have seen the indicator in any case.
|
|
unless the van driver did this deliberately then I'd guess he was satisfied it was safe - until he had a new bonnet mascot that is......
|
|
|
|
|
Almost a year ago, I was driving past a stationary bus at a bus stop, situated opposite a t-junction. A man in a van pulled out of the the t-j and drove straight into the side of my car.
The trouble is you could use those facts and explain the incident as either your fault or his. I'm not saying that it is your fault, simply that it is tough to proceed unless you have a witness who actually saw the accident happen.
Taking the facts as you represent them, then it would be his fault. It is not relevant whether or not the bus driver waved him out - not to either of you.
On the subject of which, does the bus driver have nothing to say from a witness point of view ? If you don't know, then you should try and find out since that would swing it. Although if he did wave the other party through, he'll probably not be willing to say that he was wrong and would be mroe likely to say it was your mistake.
I don't think you're going to get far with the ombudsman, since the fact that your insurance company think you're in the wrong, or that the other insurance company think you're in the wrong, is nto something that the ombudsman will care about. And it doesn't seem that either the deicsions or the service have been bad enough to attract his wrath. Still, you never know.
You should also know that your motor insurer is under no duty to pursue the other party. That would be your duty. Its also not particularly relevant since without injury they'll all pay their own losses anyway. You shouldn't care about that stuff.
What you should care about are your uninsured losses. Recovery of those will ensure resinstatement of your NCD irrespective of what the incident has or has not cost your motor insurer.
You say you have an uninsured loss recovery service. It is nto clear if that is offered by your motor insurer or someone else. Please do not confuse your broker with your insurer.
Some of those are merely an admin service and a very few are a little more aggressive. From what you say you'd probably either lose in court or it would remain undecided.
So where you need to be is intimidating people. Firstly have your uninsured loss recovery service go after the other person in the accident, not his insurance company. That may put pressure on him causing him to put pressure on his insurer. Insurance companies are unemotional and more than happy to pay to make things go away. If it gets too difficult or too expensive to deal with, they will pay.
Secondly eithe rthey or you need to bring up the subject of court proceedings with the other party. You don't need to go to court, its just neccessary that the other party thinks you will.
However, if I had been in the van, and you had no independant witness, then you wouldn't get a penny out of me.
The specific advice would be "don't blink first, and you might just win".
To your specific questions;
1) Yes. Provided it is a reaosnable amount for admin costs.
2) Upto you. However a snowball would stand slightly mroe chance in hell. Youy can, however, pursue the other party for such costs.
3) Up to you. I don't think taking them to court would work, but threatening to do so might. I don't know how much your damage is, so I don't know if you can use the SCC, but I would expect you could.
4) No. Its not even as water-tight as a sieve. The issue is that facts can be interpreted a number of ways.
|
Thanks everyone - I've read it all and it seems clearer now. To address a few points raised:
Normd - I had stopped behind the bus, indicated, then pulled out. The indicators had clicked off by the time I was alongside the bus and in front of the van, and even if I had been turning right into the same road, it wouldn't have been safe for him to pull out because I was right in front of him. He simply didn't see me.
Also he would have had to drive on the right hand side of the road to bypass the bus at the same time as pulling out of a sharp bend. Sheer stupidity on a narrow, winding road.
FM2R - No, it's not an insurance broker, in fact it's a legal services company, dealing with it on behalf of my ins.co. because I didn't have fully comp. They really have been dreadful, as I said, too convoluted to go into here.
They are no longer agreeing with the other party that it's half my fault, they had not read my account of the accident properly, they thought I was actually overtaking a moving vehicle next to a junction.
The intimidation suggestion is probably the one to follow, especially with the quote TVM provided. I have considered contacting the other driver directly but I'm not sure whether he'd be aggressive with me. He initially tried to make out it was my fault but then calmed down and said "sorry luv". Need to sleep on it and get the sword out in the morning.
Thanks everyone
Stephanie
|
steph,
Are you a member of a trades union/staff or professional association which would give you (free)legal help or could write the appropriate letters (or threats!)?
Good luck in your quest
--
Phil
|
|
|
Rule 143 states, inter alia,
'Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
- approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road...'
This may as you suggest be what led to the insurers/legal services co taking the view they did. The fact that the bus was not moving seems relevant to me and unless in an especially difficult spot might make it reasonable for you to pass the bus. Plus which, rule 143 is not in itself a legal requirement. Seems reasonable to push your case.
|
Hi Phil - no I'm not a member of any TU, I'm self employed.
Hi Manatee, yes, rule 143 is what the other insurers quoted. That's why I'm so exasperated with my ins.co. If they'd read my account of it properly, they'd have known I was driving round a stationary vehicle and the road ahead was completely clear.
Thanks
Stephanie
|
|
|
|
|
|
