Car Accident Eventually Sorted !

Mr Bump

Mr Bump

From under the bridge
Messages
9,622
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Well almost a year to the day the guy that rear ended me on the M62 has eventually coffed up he did it.
Only when a 3rd party that i just happened to grab a mobile number from at the scene backed my story did Afkeel the UBER driver fess up.

I don't think without the 3rd party guy this would have ever been resolved, just goes to show.
 
That's good you got the result, Paul but as he rear ended you how was has it taken so long?

I thought that if you rear end someone it is an indication that you were to blame because you were driving to close and/or not paying attention, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Did the other driver try to claim it was your fault?

Dave
 
Tringa said:
Did the other driver try to claim it was your fault?
Click to expand...

My daughter was involved in a head on with security van, it wasn't her fault, police report said
it wasn't, the other driver tried to accuse her of speeding, which on that particular bit of road
is nigh on impossible, it's very narrow with big arrows showing priority in her direction, she was almost
through the restriction

Luckily no one was injured but the no claim, no blame lot got involved and
it took 2 years for them to drop the case, in which time she lost the NCB on her policy.
which she did get back.
 
Indeed, the old ways of simple resolution are gone. A colleague a while back was waiting at a junction to join an A road; a car coming fast down the A road decided last minute to take the turning off, and drove right into the side of my colleagues car. Thankfully no physical injury although many nightmares subsequently. Despite it being very obvious what happened with lots of photos by my colleague and the police report, the various claims management companies and lawyers fought over it for 18 months and it ended up as knock-for-knock! That never would have happened before solicitors were allowed (by the Tories I think) to advertise, and thus no win no fee came in.
 
A skip truck pulled out on my wife many years ago and maintained that my wife had actually tried to overtake him. We had photo's from the scene that my wife took, we then went back, took photos of the road and used a digital map image to show the road layout. Seeing as this was at just after 3.30 when my wife was picking our son up from school, we also took images of 3 days in a row of all the traffic that builds up as it's between 2 schools.

Armed with that information we sent it all to the insurance company, with a copy and covering letter to the skip firm stating we were potentially looking at a civil case. They capitulated within 2 or 3 days, and my wife was paid out in full. We had a letter from the skip firm saying they had sacked the driver too....
 
And this is where dashcams come into their own . . .
On a (slightly) related topic, a few years ago a reversing 18 ton delivery lorry caught the side of my C class, wrote it off. Predictably, the only damage to the lorry was some of my paint transferred to his. The driver flatly denied that he had touched it and claimed that the paint had been there for months, nothing to do with him.

My insurers were as good as gold but said that it would have to be dealt with on a knock for knock basis, which meant that my NCB would be affected, which in effect meant that it would cost me future money but, as this happened outside my studio, which for security reasons had good CCTV coverage, I was able to send them the footage and the other driver's insurance paid up instead - result..

There was another result too - the driver was sacked for lying about it.
 
How the heck voul
Lindsay56 said:
Indeed, the old ways of simple resolution are gone. A colleague a while back was waiting at a junction to join an A road; a car coming fast down the A road decided last minute to take the turning off, and drove right into the side of my colleagues car. Thankfully no physical injury although many nightmares subsequently. Despite it being very obvious what happened with lots of photos by my colleague and the police report, the various claims management companies and lawyers fought over it for 18 months and it ended up as knock-for-knock! That never would have happened before solicitors were allowed (by the Tories I think) to advertise, and thus no win no fee came in.
Click to expand...

How the heck could that have been 'knock for knock'???
 
Tringa said:
That's good you got the result, Paul but as he rear ended you how was has it taken so long?

I thought that if you rear end someone it is an indication that you were to blame because you were driving to close and/or not paying attention, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Did the other driver try to claim it was your fault?

Dave
Click to expand...

He tried to make out mate that I had hit the car in front first and then he had run into me as I stopped abruptly.
What happened is he shunted me and i then got pushed into the car in front, the guy in front was always happy it was the TAXI that hit me first but it took a while for all 3 insurance companies to finally nail him down as he constantly evaded and dodged.
 
Box Brownie said:
How the heck voul


How the heck could that have been 'knock for knock'???
Click to expand...
How could it not have been knock for knock?

It's just simple, basic economics. It costs many thousands to take a case to Court, with no certainty of winning because the courts are about the law and not about actual justice. Solicitors acting on a no win no fee basis can write a few letters, just copy and paste jobs, and insurance companies - who of course are interested in running a successful business and not about justice - prefer to pay out rather than fight in court.

There are a few wealthy people who may be prepared to put principles before cash and go to court but when we insure our cars we hand responsibility over to our insurers, who have the sense to put cash before principles.
 
On a slightly related note, I got an official looking letter the other day,
in one of those window envelopes, the the address was correct but the name was obscured,
But obviously I opened it. It was a solicitors letter ..

It appears that someone ( who I have no knowledge of) hit another car several miles ( about 40) from here
just over 3 years ago and they were trying to settle the claim.
I just re-sealed it with a not known, please return.

The address may have been an error or someone gave a false address, who knows? ... No bailiffs as yet :D
I thought the statute on this type of thing ran out after 3 years?
I could be wrong of course...
 
Garry Edwards said:
How could it not have been knock for knock?

It's just simple, basic economics. It costs many thousands to take a case to Court, with no certainty of winning because the courts are about the law and not about actual justice. Solicitors acting on a no win no fee basis can write a few letters, just copy and paste jobs, and insurance companies - who of course are interested in running a successful business and not about justice - prefer to pay out rather than fight in court.

There are a few wealthy people who may be prepared to put principles before cash and go to court but when we insure our cars we hand responsibility over to our insurers, who have the sense to put cash before principles.
Click to expand...

Ok, point taken.

However, it was my understanding that 'knock for knock' was a default position when there was no clear & obvious single party at fault. In the case that @Lindsay56 describes the colleague was stationary in a side road and the offending car was driven into the side of the stationary car......on ehat basis is the none moving car 50% to blame for the accident???
 
15 minutes after I picked up my wife's new car (2nd hand Fiesta) with her in the passenger seat we got hit from behind on a roundabout as I had to stop suddenly after being chopped off by the SUV in front going left from lane 3 to lane 1 (big roundabout). We got paid out quite quickly but now we have the ambulance chasers constantly calling us. We aren't going to claim whiplash etc as we were unhurt really, shame there isn't some way out of this predatory claims business.
 
Exactly as @Box Brownie says, knock for knock used to be where there was no obvious side on whom to put the whole blame. now it's a case of whatever is cheaper for the insurance company, but customer NCB plays no part in the cost calculation as far as that's concerned.
 
Lindsay56 said:
Exactly as @Box Brownie says, knock for knock used to be where there was no obvious side on whom to put the whole blame. now it's a case of whatever is cheaper for the insurance company, but customer NCB plays no part in the cost calculation as far as that's concerned.
Click to expand...

Purely FWIW

I have in a sense a vested interest as follows:-

I had a bump earlier last year ~ this was a situation of me and the other party reversing into each other in a small local shop car park.
All reported AOK to insurers and mine said "is there CCTV to show how you and the other party were moving...." I asked at the shop and there was but DP protocols meant that I had to apply to the HQ of the company this I duly did within approx10 days of the incident. The form allows the shop HQ 40 days to check the records and reply............................fast forward to day 41 and I get a letter to tell me that my request could not be met because the time had elapsed and the recording was no longer available. I took issue with them about when they got my request and how long they had taken meaning it had expired!!!

NB when I initially spoke to my insurer the contact said please be aware that the CCTV may show that you were the "at fault party...." I told he I fully accept that if that was proved!

In about October last year I asked my insurer whether it was all resolved? They said the third party's insurer was being non responsive to their communications :( and to ask them again in a couple of months. Well, life goes and I forgot about it (please bear in mind both vehicles had been repaired long ago)......in Jan this year I phoned for an update and was told the third party insurer was not replying to my insurers submission that the matter be closed with a knock for knock agreement (Note~ if this is agreed I would get 50% of my excess re-paid).

In this non communicative situation, which I gather is non uncommon with that other insurer, they take the step of passing the case to their solicitors and I have with no financial risk [I have this in writing] I sign off on them taking court action against the 3rd party. I sent forms back and have yet to hear anything further..................it sounds to me like this has become an impasse but find it odd that on the face of it it is, it appears, an unresolved case??? I will phone my insurer sometime and see if they have any update???

PS again for the record there was no definitive CCTV evidence to show who was to blame to a 50/50 IMO would be the most logical outcome.
 
Interesting. I had a someone reverse from a driveway into my parked car some while back. Thankfully that person put a note on my windscreen taking full responsibility and giving contact details. I phoned him, decent chap very apologetic, said go through insurance as it was his company car. I did, he did, my insurance (Admiral) passed it to a claims management company who took all the info from me again, I waited. Chased them after 4 weeks - other party insurer not responding. Same again again month later. Same again a month later. So I phoned Admiral and complained, they called the other insurer and had all the info confirmed straight away, so they told me they would take it back from the claims mgmt company. Within a week, my car was off to be repaired, very well indeed, and case closed two weeks later.
So, make sure it's not a claims mis-management company that is causing the holdup.
 
Tringa said:
I thought that if you rear end someone it is an indication that you were to blame because you were driving to close and/or not paying attention, but perhaps I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

More or less. Unless you claim that the other vehicle was reversing. This occasionally happens (older driver, automatic car....) and is really hard to prove either way.

Mr Bump said:
He tried to make out mate that I had hit the car in front first and then he had run into me as I stopped abruptly.
Click to expand...

Yeah tricky one. What he's really been arguing about is the the damage to the other vehicle. If you had hit the vehicle in front he would still have been responsible for your rear damage (because it's his obligation to avoid any impact with things in front of him). But if he shunted you he's responsible for front and rear damage AND the vehicle in front. Two whiplash claims and 2 vehicles to repair (well, 3).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top