Fortnight ago tomorrow my wife was driving through this junction when someone hit her.
tinyurl.com/yf25ehu
She was driving right to left down the single carriageway road in the straight-on lane when she was hit in the offside by a car turning right into her lane travelling top-to-bottom out of the dual carriageway through a stationary queue of cars in the right hand turn lane waiting to turn into the dual carriageway.
Quite straightforward accident you would think, wife in main road, other car turning right through give way signs into main road hits wife in side.
Other driver says someone in the queue waiting to turn right 'flashed me through'. Still straight forward as that, as we all know, means sweet FA. Wife even has independent witness at scene saying to other driver, 'so what?'
When we reported it to the insurers even they straightaway said 'No problem, obviously other driver's fault, hire car on way, will pick yours up tomorrow.' Easy.
Now, up to now I've been pretty laid back about the whole thing considering that said damaged vehicle is the first new car I've ever owned, is mine, bought with my own money, is 14 weeks old and I had to wait nearly as long for delivery and has not so much as had a bird relieve itself on it to date. I have taken the attitude, as always, that it is, when all said and done, a bit of bent metal and the important thing was that no-one was hurt.
Now comes the rant, despite all the above, damage evidence, witness willing to give statement to court, insurance co. onside, road markings, et al, I have now been informed that the other party is now refusing to accept ANY liability for the accident whatsoever and has told her company she is not willing to settle if she has to take any part of the blame; all this based purely on the argument that she was 'flashed out' so it can't possibly be her fault!
We now have to go through all the form filling, diagrams, witness statements, etc.
I know that at the end of the day we are still going to win the argument: BUT, IF YOU KNOW YOU ARE IN THE WRONG AND EVERYONE IS TELLING YOU SO, WHY DON'T YOU JUST HOLD YOUR HANDS UP AND ACCEPT THE FACT - YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!! and let us all get on with the rest of our lives.
Thanks for that, feel a lot better now..........
|
|
Look on the bright side, she has insurance.
|
True, ON, true.
The last two didn't, but I'm not going to go there, the blood pressure has been high enough today already..........
|
last thing anybody wants is insurance hassles and all it involves
theres many a time i could wipe out an ignoramusk but the paperwork involved always makes me let them get away with bad driving just so i can get on with my life while muttering very very loudly to myself.................nurse.....
|
|
|
she doesent know she is in the wrong She thinks she is right. Its up to her insrance company to convince her otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flashed her through? flashing means you are going through and is not an invitation for another to proceed, end of story in my opinion.
|
On the subject of flashing..
I have often wondered what would happen if you flashed the police to indicate that you were letting them in. My understanding is that technically you are not supposed to flash to let people in.
Would they be appreciative or would they pull you over for a breach of the rules, or would it just depend on what mood they are in?
|
Its not a "rule" either way merely guidance It carries no offence so they cant do you for a "breach"
|
Its not a "rule" either way merely guidance It carries no offence so they cant do you for a "breach"
Ah yes, I see here
www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycod...9
under section 110 that it doesn't have any associated laws (unlike, say, section 109)
Thanks
|
|
|
|
"I have often wondered what would happen if you flashed the police to indicate that you were letting them in"
I always flash the rozzers and let them in. I'd rather have them in front, scrutinizing the car in front of them than behind me, eyeballing me. It's like going through customs, even though you know you don't have a kilo of heroin cellotaped to your thighs, you can't help patting yourself down as you get closer to the desk. Or is it just me...?
|
your thighs you can't help patting yourself down as you get closer to the desk. Or is it just me...?
Yes. Must be the spliff you are carrying in there,
|
"Must be the spliff you are carrying in there"
Or am I just pleased to see you?
|
Or am I just pleased to see you?
Some doobie that must be BBD...
|
"Some doobie that must be BBD..."
In Manchester you may well be invited to "have a tug on that"
but that's probably an entendre too far...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flashed her through ...
What a half-witted attempt at a defence. But it does help to remind the rest of us that if we flash another driver, just make sure that no-one else can possibly see the flash and misinterpret your signal.
|
|
|
|
|
There, there, it's nearly time for a little glass of sherry, dinner, and then perhaps a pint or two, not too cold, at the pub.
|
a pint or two, not too cold, at the pub.
Heh heh... warm beer. One could almost mistake you for an English person Fothers.
I once read an analysis of British beer preferences by an American psychologist. He concluded that to us, beer is a sort of soup-like foodstuff.
I have a vision of Homer Simpson saying: 'Piping hot lager... mmmmmm!'
|
|
|
|
The type of incident was different but the blame situation and the way the insurance company handled it is similar to my daughters recent experience.
After the incident the other party was even apologising, the insurance company said no problem, until the other party suddenly changed their stance and would accept no part of the blame and my daughters insurer capitulated. I have seen other similar to this on here and reckon that it amounts to some sort of scam on the part of the insurers but can't figure out what it is. I suppose that for smaller incidents they may get away with having pay out if the insured gets it done themselves?
FTF
|
The other party suddenly changed their stance ..
This could also be a deliberate performance by the guilty party to avoid a confrontation at the scene but (if there are no awkward witnesses) planning to relate a different story to their insurers. All to avoid losing some NCD, probably.
|
|
|
|
I have now been informed that the other party is now refusing to accept ANY liability >>
Third party is doing exactly what most [if not all] insurance companies advise their policyholders to do. Quote from one policy:
" ... If you're involved in an accident, do not admit liability. ... ">>
|
Get the car repaired under your own insurance then get a solicitor to issue a Court Summons for the 3rd party and copy their insurance.
This happened to me ages ago - admission of guilt - then they were innocent. 23 months later and 12 hours b4 the court appearance they suddenly remembered they were to blame (Perjury & Sphincter issues)
Good luck!
|
Thanks all for your kind words.
Have no fear she will not win this one.
As FB says she WILL get her day in court to try and explain it away, if she can, if she persists on insulting me by continuing this stupid charade.
There is absolutely no way I am rolling over on this one; I was brought up to own up if I am in the wrong and take the consequences so by my code she will do the same willingly or no.
She has picked on the wrong guy to mess with I'm afraid.
One of the two cases I alluded to earlier where a third party was uninsured involved my car being written off following him driving into the back of my wife while she was stationary at a red light, he was looking at a pretty girl on the other side of the road. Classic, I know, but true! He was joy-riding around town in his mates' car while said mate was working in London, so was not only uninsured but TWOCing as well. He did a runner and disappeared and insurance company gave up however I didn't and got the legal insurance people working on it. The police also finally gave up on it two years down the line but I had a 'friend' who was a private investigator, he found the guys whereabouts in about 4 hours and passed the details to the BiB. Resulted in the guy being hauled out of bed very early one morning and having his day in court shortly followed by mine. Finally got all sorted and even got my excess and NCD back but it was one week short of 4 years before it was all completely sorted.
So, if this 'lady' thinks she's walking away from this she had better start thinking again.......
|
Day ends well anyway, just had call to say my car is now fixed and I can pick it up tomorrow, hooray!!!!!
Just have to get through a sleepless night worrying about whether they've done a good job, now.......
I'm not normally a pessimist, you know.
|
|
|
|
I hope you feel better for the rant Cockle, don't blame you mind.
My mate was hit from behind by a woman yesterday, she pulled around him and then proceeded to offer quite disgusting abuse...he thought she was posh, i had to disabuse him of how he had previously though a better class of lady behaved.
Anyway she didn't give him full details but drove off, he's since reported to cover his own back side, but i've told him to expect all sorts of comeback when this 'posh' gets back to her home and comes up with another version of events.
Trouble is no damage to his towbar'd car but damage to her front end.
I agree with the OP over admitting fault or responsibility and it's a horrible state of affairs, i suppose these types have leaned by example from recent leaders...WMD anyone?
|
As has already been said think yourself lucky the other driver had insurance, a very similar thing happened to my sister when a car pulled straight out into the side off us we all got out and i said to the chap (after he had finished saying sorry mate didnt see you) please tell me you have insurance to which he replied no mate sorry then him and his misses just walked off.
In the end my sister was about £300 out off pocket once the car was sorted and had to beg a spare car for the odd trip as her insurance didnt suply a courtesy car.
|
This thread has me thinking more and more about investing in an in-car recording device. Just think of the aggro it would save by being able to show a few minutes of footage to an insurance assessor or in court.
Out of interest if we did a quick straw poll, how many forrumers have had experience of a no-fault crash where the other party tried to deny liability and it ended up in court or nearly in court?
|
>>Out of interest if we did a quick straw poll, how many forrumers have had experience of a no-fault crash where the other party tried to deny liability
YO!
A photo saved the day.
|
>>Out of interest if we did a quick straw poll how many forrumers have had experience of a no-fault crash where the other party tried to deny liability
Here too, not me but DiL had one leaving a roundabout, once they'd parted company the story changed, took a long time to sort out.
To show there are still good people about swmbo and an elderly chap had a bump in a car park both reversing, could have been both partly at fault but swmbo felt she was more so.
She explained to the chap that if he got two quotes she'd pay him up, he duly did no doubt fully expecting a no show.
The letter received from him thanking her for the cheque in his shaky handwriting was quite moving.
I think it's called honour.
|
|
|
>A photo saved the day.
My son had a no-faulter leaving work. A line of standing traffic let him out to turn right and a woman hit him side on, She was driving on a hatched area trying to pass the queue and turn right later. She'd gone from the scene when I got there, relatives had taken her to hospital' Wre had no idea who she was.
We later got a solicitors letter claiming whiplash, etc. I had taken photos of the hatchings and debris and we had an independant witness, the lady who had let him out.
I told the solicitors she was committing an offence by driving there and asked for her details.
They refused to give them, quoting client confidentiality.
I told them, in that case, I was going to the police as she had not given her details at the scene or as soon as practicable as required by law....They soon gave me the details and we had a full claim against her insurance.
Photos very important...that accident scene was dug up shortly afterwards for new tram lines.
Ted
|
Someone posted a piece of legislation here a short while ago.
The insurance companies now have to deal with the claim whether their customer reports to them or not.
Following on from that then providing the facts are straight forward in your favour then you have a sound claim.
They may wriggle a bit but her version of events must be interesting and the flashing light scenario is a no brainer. It just ain't no defence.
Edited by Fullchat on 13/11/2009 at 00:29
|
|
|
|
|
This thread has me thinking more and more about investing in an in-car recording device.
Example of usefulness discussed here:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=79206
The device that took it is £200:
www.roadhawk.co.uk/roadhawk-RH-1.htm
eBuyer are also doing something similar (AFAIK) for £230:
www.ebuyer.com/product/171944
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When my car has suffered accident damage in the past I haven't given a single thought as to whose fault it may or may not have been. I just exchanged such details as are required by law and then handed the matter over to my insurer and left it to them to sort out ~ it's what I pay them for. I don't believe in having a dog and barking myself.
|
L'escargot has got this right, just give your version of events as clearly and as accurately as you can, if your company come back to you looking for a "knock for knock" solution refute the claim.
Don't give yourself ulcers worrying unnecessarily
|
|
|
|
|
Twice my sister has been involved in major driving accidents where the other party has accepted their obvious fault at the time, only later to then deny it. On both occassions my sister has taken them to court. Where her barrister has duly torn them to shreds and they received a big telling off from the judge for wasting the courts time.
|
To answer the question, because drivers are explicitly advised by their insurance companies never to admit liability.
It would be interesting to know what would happen if someone DID admit liability, and stuck to it. Would that:
a) invalidate their insurance?
b) commit their insurance company to a payout they would otherwise have fought?
c) not make the slightest difference, because the insurance company would look only at the evidence, not personal opinions ?
|
To answer the question because drivers are explicitly advised by their insurance companies never to admit liability.
I don't think anyone expects a signed confession at the roadside.
It's the blatant lying that gets put dowm on the claim form once *some* get home and miraculously find their 3 cousins were all in the car with them at the time of the accident and their best mates happened to witness the prang from a passing bus.
|
|
|
|
|
What I don't understand is why people pay insurance premiums to indemnify themselves against accident damage and then get involved in trying to extricate themselves out of the mess that usually follows a road traffic accident. Surely the idea is that you pay your premium so as to get the expert services of your insurer to sort out all the problems.
|
Good point but people have fears of fighting to keep their NCB and want the process to run as smoothly as possible, There is a perception that insurance companies throw the towel in too quickly.
|
|
|
I agree with you L'esc but then i think you and i and no doubt some others here prefer to pay slightly over the odds and get the security of or maybe the secure feeling of more old fashioned insurance companies.
I too wouldn't worry unduly over an accident because i have trust (its two way too) in my insurance company and their judgement, i imagine we'd be feeling different taking the very cheapest from the net and being at the mercy of some unknown call centre.
|
The point of the original post was that a seemingly straightforward case is now not so simple because the third party is not admitting liability.
For the price of a couple of new tyres you could have installed a simple recording device which could save so much aggravation and stress and if you declared you had such a device at the scene, the third party may be a bit more reluctant to try anything on and blame you at a later date.
You may well have the luxury of the best insurers in the world and I agree you will pay them to do their best when dealing with a claim but if the third party denies blame then it's going to drag everything on and on, possibly right up to a court hearing. If that doesn't stress you out then you've gotta be some kind of emotionless robot.
Edited by Mick Snutz on 13/11/2009 at 23:04
|
............ if the third party denies blame then it's going to drag everything on and on ..............
On the few occasions that I've had to make a claim my insurer has seen to everything once I'd filled in the claim form. No stress on me whatsoever.
|
|
|
The point of the original post was that a seemingly straightforward case is now not so simple because the third party is not admitting liability.
You may well have the luxury of the best insurers in the world and I agree you will pay them to do their best when dealing with a claim but if the third party denies blame then it's going to drag everything on and on possibly right up to a court hearing. If that doesn't stress you out then you've gotta be some kind of emotionless robot.
That's it in a nutshell really, Mick.
It is straightforward and my insurers may turn out to be the best but they are supposed to be MY insurers and I would have thought act in my best interest, perhaps naively, but the whole thing is really about how quickly and, therefore cheaply, they can settle the claim. I accept that they are a business, after all's said and done. Therefore any doubt thrown in is now making it more expensive by the day and thus more likely for them to cut their losses and settle for the best they can get without expending too much time and effort.
You see, I find it a little disturbing when you see on the claim form the following:-
'If there are no independent witnesses to this incident and both drivers provide evidence, a 50/50 settlement is a likely outcome. This settlement would allow us to recover 50% of any costs we mutually incur and settle 50% of any claim from the other driver.'
That looks to me like they're looking for a cheap way out from the beginning
I read that to mean I would get whacked on my NCD for being half to blame and would have to cough half my excess and any uninsured losses, meanwhile third party who could possibly only have TPFT would also get 50% paid by my insurers but would have to pay her excess so she still gets something out of it to ameliorate her loss. I'm not an insurance expert by any means so I'm probably wrong.
Fortunately I have zero excess and protected NCD so the overall cost to me will be negligible, obviously apart from my increase as a risk next year which will be reflected in the topline premium before NCD.
I'm sure that the blame will be apportioned correctly but things might have been stickier if there hadn't been a witness and the other party had 'dressed things up' a little more, if you understand me, possibly saying that it was my wife who flashed her out, for instance. Now that would negate my witness who was behind my wife therefore couldn't say yea or nay to that, not being able to see my wife's headlights and would also cast doubts on my wife's version of events; thus a 50/50 becomes very attractive to avoid costly litigation.....
|
|
|
|
|
why people pay insurance premiums to indemnify themselves against accident damage and then get involved in trying to extricate themselves out of the mess >>
The Financial Ombudsman Service says that 39 per cent of the complaints it has received over the past seven months relate to insurance products.
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ar09/a...3
Surely the idea is that you pay your premium so as to get the expert services of your insurer to sort out all the problems. >>
If only they lived up to their side of the contract. The Insurer is only interested in making a profit for thier owners/sharehodlers. Dealing with policyholders claims is just a nuisance and necessary evil in the equation.
|
so i borrowed a work van to nip 1.5 miles to collect some hardware at lunch time one day
i parked outside on the hard shoulder
Went in to the counter
a bit of the usual banter
a mate comes in and says , you better get out there someone has reversed into your van
ho ho ho etc etc etc
but No ------they had
The offending driver came forward and confessed
Except it was not his veh he was driving
he was moving a third party truck that was blocking his access
no damage to it fortunately.
Sweating blood I was, this could get very messy
so we agreed that he was driving his truck and that they would stand the insurance
And by golly they did
So there are a few decent drivers out there
|
|
|
If only they lived up to their side of the contract.
My insurer, Co-operative Insurance, has always provided the very best of service.
|
My insurer Co-operative Insurance has always provided the very best of service.
Agreed i had very good service from them, changed to NFU when i bought my first 4x4 and have stayed since, again first class, competent local offices offering mutual trust as experienced with a home ins claim couple of years ago.
|
|
|
My insurer, Co-operative Insurance, has always provided the very best of service. >>
As I said, Insurers work for their owners/shareholders.
AFAIK, the Co-op is not a capitalist company. Is it not communist, sorry, co-operative? ;-)
|
I've recently bought a micro DV camera from fleabay, cost was around £22 including postage and 8Gb micro SD card. Apparently can record around 2hrs of video on a charge. The technology is there for cars to have a built in video recorder at very low cost.
|
|
and if more cars had a recording device fitted, perhaps the police wouldn't have to shut motorways for so long gathering evidence because a lot of it would be stored on the various vehicles' cameras.
|
...The technology is there for cars to have a built in video recorder at very low cost...
I was looking at a new service bus the other day.
It has either six or seven cameras, three or four inside and three more outside, looking front and back.
The bus was being prepared for one of the major operators and I was told the internal cameras were there mostly to defend false injury claims from passengers.
Routine scenario is bus stops quickly, half of those on board claim whiplash, until they are shown the footage of themselves sitting comfortably throughout.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
