Car insurance settled claim against driver without communication

[Marcel]

I know they have the right to settle a claim brought by a third party, without consulting the insured.
Basically a friend of mine had a bump earlier this year. Turning right at a four way light controlled junction.
Was on the brow of a hill with some limited visibility. Insured waited for traffic coming from ahead to be clear (as much as she could see due to the brow of hill).
Set off....car came from opposite direction and they collided. Friend (and passenger) insists driver must have been speeding to approach into visibility so quickly. No time to react.

Anyway, friend reported to insurer over the phone. Was told not to bother claiming about her own car (an 05 Ford Ka) due to value, will probably be written off.
Friend rang insurers a few more times asking for updates since....and was told no updates yet, claim still pending.

Gets renewal through this week. Insurers settled claim ages ago, determined friend at fault with type "Personal Injury" to the tune of 8,500.
This has obviously killed her renewal quote. It's now £3500.

My query isn't about the renewal quote, or the fact they settled without her permission (as is their right). It's regarding the fact they have had absolutely no written statement from her. Nothing. Just that one phone call just after the accident where she reported it. The fact they settled on extremely scant evidence and seemingly haven't even attempted to contact her for a proper statement or for further information.

Would the FCA entertain a complaint about the complete lack of communiction?

 

[Box Brownie]

Interesting!

From my limited understanding/view, because she actually had not made a claim (for her own car), her insurers were simply(?) acting to settle the third parties claim.So in effect her insurers were not under any obligation to keep her informed! If she had made a claim they surely would have been obliged as acting on her behalf to 'keep her in the loop'

 

[admirable]

Doesn't sound right to me? I'd be raging!

 

[Mozthecat]

I would be tempted to put in a GDPR based data subject access request to see what their records show as her version of the incident, rather than her version. If they have misinterpreted/misrecorded the details of the phone call it could get interesting as disadvantaging her. May take a while for the request to be processed mind.

 

[Gremlin]

Why didn't she claim for her car, despite it being written off ?
Was her excess on the policy more then the value of her car ?

Had a similar thing happen with one of my kids a few years back, third party claimed she was speeding
in her peugeot 106 and hit him doing around 60mph, not real damage to her car
Odd that as she had just pulled off from a friend's house and even my volvo 2.5 couldn't accelerate that fast
He dropped the insurance claim and decided to ask her to pay, which we refused and told him to go back to the insurance company
I suspect that they wanted to right it off as it was and older BMW

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I got into this a little because of a similar incident when someone collided with me. The insurers insisted on accepting the claim even though a traffic officer had said, on the face of it, the other driver was to blame. Having done work for a major car insurer in the past I contacted the claims manager there and asked why? His explanation was that unless there's some evidence of fraud it's much cheaper for the company to pay up than to fight it. As I have a protected NCB there was little reason for me to make a fuss. On the other hand it does leave a sour taste behind.

 

[Box Brownie]

PS

The way you outline the accident, surely both vehicles were immobilised at the scene and if the other party were injured, what about the police & ambulance reports?

If all the other parties 'claim' came after the event i.e. without independent witnesses and police attendance report then I would be challenging my insurers to provide me with some evidence of their due diligence as to what specific independent witnessed evidence they used to apportion blame 100%

By way of reference ~ an accident I had in i think 2017, it turned out the other parties insurer were avoiding and ignoring a 50/50 settlement...... apparently blaming me! I told my insurance I had made every effort to get any evidence available (CCTV but it had been wiped ) I pointed out to my insurers that I expected them to push back. Suffice to say it settled 50/50 months later than it should have been. Note ~ it turns out the other party insurer have history in regard to such behaviour.

Oh, meant to say ~ to kick it into touch with the instructions of my insurer I had to sign off on taking the other party to court! Though even after that action it still took months to get sorted

 

[onomatopoeia]

My one experience of the process where I was at fault, my insurer telephoned me when it got to settlement and asked me to confirm I accepted the fault. They didn't just accept it on my behalf without asking me, even though the fault was clearly mine.

 

[gman]

His explanation was that unless there's some evidence of fraud it's much cheaper for the company to pay up than to fight it.

This does my head in, may be cheaper for them but can be damn expensive for you! To me it's just lazy because they can pass the costs onto premiums.

 

[Cockney]

This is related only in that its the same principal ( viz who is affected by another's actions.)
We we're selling a house some years ago. The buyers had a survey done. The surveyor came to visit and said everything was fine. However we were told by the estate agent that the surveyor report said the gable end was bulging and needed wall ties. It clearly wasn't but report could have scuppered the sale. Fortunately our buyer came to check, threatened to sue the surveyor and the sale went ahead.
The surveyor was attached to the building society, who refused to discuss it with us, although it was our house they were wrongly assessing, as we were not the customer.
Our buyer used a different building society.

 

[JonathanRyan]

Where's the damage? That's literally all you need to establish liability in most motor accidents. Insurers only rely on what can be proved and speed can't be proved without expensive forensics. I'm afraid a friend saying "they must have been speeding" ain't going to cut it.

This does my head in, may be cheaper for them but can be damn expensive for you! To me it's just lazy because they can pass the costs onto premiums.

Honestly, I don't understand this. Premium has gone up to £3500 and the insurers have paid out £8500 + repairs. How is that "cheaper for them"?

If you really want to complain then it's the FOS not the FCA who would oversee the complaint. And you need to give the insurance company a chance to issue a "final response" before doing so. They have a "reasonable time" in which to do this and may actually be quite helpful. FOS complaints cost insurers a lot of money.

 

[nilagin]

Honestly, I don't understand this. Premium has gone up to £3500 and the insurers have paid out £8500 + repairs. How is that "cheaper for them"?

If they have just rolled over and paid out, they have saved themselves the extra expense of fighting the claim.

 

[nilagin]

From the damage sustained by the two vehicles, insurance companies employ engineers who should be able to ascertain whether a vehicle was speeding

 

[Raymond Lin]

From the damage sustained by the two vehicles, insurance companies employ engineers who should be able to ascertain whether a vehicle was speeding

To get a report like that, they would need to employ an accident reconstruction expert which would go into thousands.

In the grand scheme of things £8500 in personal injury for the claimant is pocket change, it's on the very low end of the scale and they pay those out like confetti in order to get their case load off. The fact is that liability has already been admitted and all they were doing was then negotiate value. At this point there really isn't any point contacting the insured for further information and drag it out further. The insured could go on about "they were speeding" but that isn't really proof, it's just their version of events, and as i said, if they are not going to spend time investigating it, and if the police report don't say anything about it, or may be it did, may be it had an adverse effect on the claim and it was originally claimed at £16k...and they settled at £8500. Either way. They don't like to drag on small claims like this. It is not economical for them to do so.

 

[gman]

Honestly, I don't understand this. Premium has gone up to £3500 and the insurers have paid out £8500 + repairs. How is that "cheaper for them"?

As Nigel says they avoid all the legal costs involved plus it's not just their premium which the insurance company can recoup costs from, it can be across the board. So essentially we can all end up suffering.

My view is that if the insurance companies were more proactive and vigorous with their investigations, and also went after those who are proven to have lied much harder, then the long term effects would be much better as it would surely discourage dishonesty.

 

[Raymond Lin]

As Nigel says they avoid all the legal costs involved plus it's not just their premium which the insurance company can recoup costs from, it can be across the board. So essentially we can all end up suffering.

My view is that if the insurance companies were more proactive and vigorous with their investigations, and also went after those who are proven to have lied much harder, then the long term effects would be much better as it would surely discourage dishonesty.

They do, my last employer has an entire department of like 100 people, I forgot the official name, but we call them fraud squad. Essentially people track claimant’s activities online, they would see what holiday photos you have taken, compared to time of accident etc as a start. When you have experience in insurance claims, there are certain red flags that triggers alarm bells and it will get sent to the intel department to run through.

For larger claims, they would hire investigators, video surveillance, wait outside their house for days with a camera, follow them to go shopping, catch to hold a bag say on their “bad hand”.

There is a whole industry in this.

 

[nilagin]

The fact is that liability has already been admitted and all they were doing was then negotiate value.

From the OP, there was no admission of liability other than the insurance company on the drivers behalf when they hadn't been given a full account of the incident and also advised not to bother claiming for their own vehicle because it wasn't worth much. The policy holder will have already lost their excess and NCB so the insurance company has saved themselves even more money by not paying out on the value of the car.

 

[Raymond Lin]

From the OP, there was no admission of liability other than the insurance company on the drivers behalf when they hadn't been given a full account of the incident and also advised not to bother claiming for their own vehicle because it wasn't worth much. The policy holder will have already lost their excess and NCB so the insurance company has saved themselves even more money by not paying out on the value of the car.

That is enough. The minute the claimant got the admission from the insurance company, the claim proceeds to value.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Not to mention for small claims like these they have moved onto fixed fee, meaning they lawyers don't get more money the more time they work on it so it's is an entire volume base work. There is no merit in them dragging it on longer than it is necessary. They look at what the evidence are avalaible, chances of successes versus cost implications if goes to trial.

They are not going to pay £20,000 in barrister cost to fight £8500 claim.

 

[Box Brownie]

I know they have the right to settle a claim brought by a third party, without consulting the insured.
Basically a friend of mine had a bump earlier this year. Turning right at a four way light controlled junction.
Was on the brow of a hill with some limited visibility. Insured waited for traffic coming from ahead to be clear (as much as she could see due to the brow of hill).
Set off....car came from opposite direction and they collided. Friend (and passenger) insists driver must have been speeding to approach into visibility so quickly. No time to react.

Anyway, friend reported to insurer over the phone. Was told not to bother claiming about her own car (an 05 Ford Ka) due to value, will probably be written off.
Friend rang insurers a few more times asking for updates since....and was told no updates yet, claim still pending.

Gets renewal through this week. Insurers settled claim ages ago, determined friend at fault with type "Personal Injury" to the tune of 8,500.
This has obviously killed her renewal quote. It's now £3500.

My query isn't about the renewal quote, or the fact they settled without her permission (as is their right). It's regarding the fact they have had absolutely no written statement from her. Nothing. Just that one phone call just after the accident where she reported it. The fact they settled on extremely scant evidence and seemingly haven't even attempted to contact her for a proper statement or for further information.

Would the FCA entertain a complaint about the complete lack of communiction?

The bit I made bold upon re-reading it made me think some more of the outline you posted, though of course can only be surmise and supposition!

• Some such, restricted view (or indeed very busy junctions), 4 way light controlled junctions are configured to allow those turning right to have their own part of the "light cycle" i.e. the oncoming traffic will be on a RED.
• The restricted visiblity will vary by circumstances and here I am surmising that she had pulled forward as far as possible to improve her sight line as well being as obvious as possible to oncoming traffic (NB I have seen all too many driver that don't pull forward/position themselves properly at any junction let alone one with visibility issues!!!
  
  Now, the Highcode Code used to say that you should drive at a speed where you could brake as needed should an obstruction present itself! So the question that I ask myself was ~ who would have been to blame for the accident if the other driver came over the brow and had rear ended the other car (your friend?)........because he was going to fast for the conditions?

There are more questions than answers in respect of the accident details and its insurance outcome but one fundamental still stands out:-

Did her insurers by effectively telling her not to bother to claim put her in a disadvantaged position in regard to the third parties claim against her?

• By them only noting it as record of the incident rather than an 'insureds claim'
• As such, not obtaining a full & comprehensive report from her..................they only had the other parties report to address the claim?
• Was the above tempered by any first attenders (that she would have been unaware of because she did not claim) reports?
• Was she given the opportunity to state her assertion that she was not at fault?
• AFAIK most (all?) insurers assign a 'claim handler' who is the first point of contact with all chasing phone calls...............if no handler assigned the general call centre AFAIK is unlikely to have access to the ongoing claim details!

 

[gman]

They do, my last employer has an entire department of like 100 people, I forgot the official name, but we call them fraud squad. Essentially people track claimant’s activities online, they would see what holiday photos you have taken, compared to time of accident etc as a start. When you have experience in insurance claims, there are certain red flags that triggers alarm bells and it will get sent to the intel department to run through.

For larger claims, they would hire investigators, video surveillance, wait outside their house for days with a camera, follow them to go shopping, catch to hold a bag say on their “bad hand”.

There is a whole industry in this.

For claims you make yourself against your own insurance I agree, but in my experience working with various brokers through business they hardly bother their backside when there's another party involved and it's the other party who is lying, even when you provide video evidence to back it up.

 

[nilagin]

That is enough. The minute the claimant got the admission from the insurance company, the claim proceeds to value.

Not to mention for small claims like these they have moved onto fixed fee, meaning they lawyers don't get more money the more time they work on it so it's is an entire volume base work. There is no merit in them dragging it on longer than it is necessary. They look at what the evidence are avalaible, chances of successes versus cost implications if goes to trial.

They are not going to pay £20,000 in barrister cost to fight £8500 claim.

Perhaps you have missed the bit about the person only having notified their insurance company of having been I evolved in an accident and not having given a formal statement regarding a claim.
An insurance company does not have the right to settle without the proper procedures being followed.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Perhaps you have missed the bit about the person only having notified their insurance company of having been I evolved in an accident and not having given a formal statement regarding a claim.
An insurance company does not have the right to settle without the proper procedures being followed.

If they can't contact their insured, they are not going to sit there and wait and wait and wait. Once the claimant submit a Notice of Claim, they have to respond, the clock starts ticking.

So whilst the insurance company have to notify the defendant of the claim, they are still going to move forward if the defendant is not responding. Plus, if there was a statement to the police, that itself is evidence, it certainly is evidence of what happened. Not every case they need to take a formal statement.

I rear ended someone a few years ago in a minor accident, the ONLY contact I made was to report it, and then email in the photos I took. I did not contact or hear from them again ever since.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

As Nigel says they avoid all the legal costs involved plus it's not just their premium which the insurance company can recoup costs from, it can be across the board. So essentially we can all end up suffering.

My view is that if the insurance companies were more proactive and vigorous with their investigations, and also went after those who are proven to have lied much harder, then the long term effects would be much better as it would surely discourage dishonesty.

Some insurance companies do, I used to work for Aviva, and they would quite aggressively pursue fraudulent claimants. They should all, but some choose to just settle the claims as quickly as possible.

 

[JonathanRyan]

If they have just rolled over and paid out, they have saved themselves the extra expense of fighting the claim.

And as you rightly say, their money is essentially your money (since insurers gain their income from premiums any extra expense = higher premium.)

I'm sure somebody with a really shiny abacus will have spun the numbers on this. But if as I suspect the OP's friend has offside damage and the third party has front damage then unless the 3rd party was doing something provably illegal (such as jumping a red light with independent witnesses) then that's the game right there.

who would have been to blame for the accident if the other driver came over the brow and had rear ended the other car (your friend?)........because he was going to fast for the conditions?

Oh that's an easy one. Third party all day long. As evidenced by the damage to the front of the vehicle and rear of the friend's.

 

[Marcel]

Thanks for all your replies everyone.
We went through her emails the other day and there were two emails pertaining to the accident.

The first was notification that the black box had recorded a collision and could she contact them with more information.
The second was a day later (Im not sure if it was before or after she spoke to her insurers), stating that (I paraphrase)...."Due to the information we have, we think we will have to settle this". (She didnt realise she had this email until the other day, she knows this bit is her fault).

Thanks for pointing out its the FOC not the FCA, got that bit wrong

The bit I disagree with is that they haven't had an admission of guilt from her, nor anything written or signed, yet they settled. There was no statement to the police either. (No emergency services attended).
I get that they will have crunched the numbers and decided it's cheaper to pay out.

 

[Marcel]

PS. The reason she didn't claim for her own car was because it was a 2005 Ford Ka worth pennies, and she's a new, young driver. Also when she phoned her insurance, the person who took the call said (again, I'm paraphrasing and it's all from memory etc), "There's no point in claiming for your own car, it's not worth it".

 

[scott199]

We have kind of the same going on, my daughter was in a kind of head on collision in a single track lane over the brow of a hill.
When reported we agreed 50/50 as no white lines, no obvious side of the road.
Happy with that and so on, months later, insurance renewal and on hers was listed something like “full-fault claim pending” or something like that (can’t remember exact words)

Anyway I contacted insurance, found out they had changed from 50/50 to full liability to my daughter, no contact, no letters, we thought it was sorted as 50/50, our insurance advised to settle 50/50 as no way of proving otherwise.

It turned out the other driver had an “independent” witness, even though our daughters statement and her friends in a car behind had both confirmed they were the only people/vehicles present. (We know the lane well as it’s a few miles from home and very rarely used because it’s very tight)

As with you I wasn’t best pleased and demanded they check the statement, I got statements from my daughter and friend, plus the 3 friends in the car behind her, but apparently useless as not independent, but after many phone calls and such they agreed to interview the “independent” witness

That was a year ago and I think still going on, but without that renewal they would have got away with it, we never would have known until another renewal.

It’s wrong they can just up and decide this stuff without all the facts.

 

[nilagin]

If they can't contact their insured, they are not going to sit there and wait and wait and wait. Once the claimant submit a Notice of Claim, they have to respond, the clock starts ticking.

So whilst the insurance company have to notify the defendant of the claim, they are still going to move forward if the defendant is not responding. Plus, if there was a statement to the police, that itself is evidence, it certainly is evidence of what happened. Not every case they need to take a formal statement.

I rear ended someone a few years ago in a minor accident, the ONLY contact I made was to report it, and then email in the photos I took. I did not contact or hear from them again ever since.

I think you need to reread the original post. They kept contacting the insurance company and being told there was no progress. It wasn't until the renewal came through it was found that the claim had already been settled. Odd how the insurance company was ok following up the claim from the other motorist but not with their own client.

 

[Mr Badger]

This is where a dashcam comes in handy. I had a near miss one night last winter over a narrow bridge that's on a 40 degree bend and is a 'one car at a time' job unless you're going very slowly. As this is on a national speed limit (60mph) country lane I have to use regularly, I always slow down to an appropriate speed when approaching this spot so I can stop if necessary.

All the locals treat this pinch-point the same, with the usual and sensible 'first there has right of way' approach. I'd just started crossing it when a small hatchback appeared from round the corner doing around 50mph without slowing and decided not to give way (they probably couldn't have stopped in time anyway at that speed) and pass me in the middle of the bridge! How they missed my car I don't know, I was just waiting for the impact; there must have been less than a centimetre or so in it.

If they had gone down the side of my car it would have caused some very expensive damage, most likely two new doors, back wing and rear bumper. Without dashcam footage it would have been up to the insurance companies to determine liability and probably been settled 'knock for knock', or even in their favour if they had a 'witness'. With dashcam footage I think it's almost certain they'd have found the other driver at fault for driving without due care and attention. Physically, there'd only have been one winner, as I don't think there'd have been much left of the small hatchback after hitting a large 4x4; they'd probably have been picking bits of hatchback out of the opposite hedge-bank for the next few days... and possibly even bits of it's driver too.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I think you need to reread the original post. They kept contacting the insurance company and being told there was no progress. It wasn't until the renewal came through it was found that the claim had already been settled. Odd how the insurance company was ok following up the claim from the other motorist but not with their own client.

Unless you know the timeline between their call and the renewal?

It's not like they called on the 10th and the renewal came on the 11th is it? For all you know, they call once a month.

 

[nilagin]

Unless you know the timeline between their call and the renewal?

It's not like they called on the 10th and the renewal came on the 11th is it? For all you know, they call once a month.

Repeated calls are repeated calls regardless of timeline. You pay an insurance premium to cover the car and represent you. They are obligated to act on your behalf and in your best interests. Telling someone not to bother claiming on their own car because it will be written off is only acting in their own interest not their client. Telling them not to bother claiming for their 05 Ka, as it would be written off tells me one thing, the car is still roadworthy and hadn't sustained significant damage. I would be wanting to know what injuries would require a pay out of £8500. It all sounds to me like both parties insurance companies are the same or part of the same parent company and they have acted to reduce their own personal hit. I would just inform the FOS and let them be on the receiving end of a good shafting.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Repeated calls are repeated calls regardless of timeline. You pay an insurance premium to cover the car and represent you. They are obligated to act on your behalf and in your best interests. Telling someone not to bother claiming on their own car because it will be written off is only acting in their own interest not their client. Telling them not to bother claiming for their 05 Ka, as it would be written off tells me one thing, the car is still roadworthy and hadn't sustained significant damage. I would be wanting to know what injuries would require a pay out of £8500. It all sounds to me like both parties insurance companies are the same or part of the same parent company and they have acted to reduce their own personal hit. I would just inform the FOS and let them be on the receiving end of a good shafting.

Timeline make a difference, repeated once a year is not the same as repeated every day.

They are obligated to follow the law, everything else is moot is the reality, you can go on about "on your best interest", their best interest is to save money and make money. Do be fooled into this illusion that it is anything but.

 

[nilagin]

Timeline make a difference, repeated once a year is not the same as repeated every day.

They are obligated to follow the law, everything else is moot is the reality, you can go on about "on your best interest", their best interest is to save money and make money. Do be fooled into this illusion that it is anything but.

Once a year? You're just being stupid now.
Obligated to follow the law and regulations. That includes taking a formal account of the accident, not acting on just the fact their client has I formed them of the incident and then the claim they have recieved from the third party.
Your policy pays for representation. The insurance company has provided none, given bad advice as regards claiming for the clients own car and deserves to be screwed.
The way this company has acted is barely any better than fraudulent ghost policies.

 

[Gremlin]

I doubt there was anything suspicious about telling not to bother to claim for her car, being a young driver it may well have been worth less the excess on her policy so she would have got nothing.
She could of course have taken a private claim against the third party to recover the cost, which if successful would have cleared of all or part blame
The other thing to consider is we don't know how badly damaged it was, it may well have been minor and she could have got work done privately to carry on using it, which if it had been an economic right off would have incurred extra cost

 

[Raymond Lin]

Once a year? You're just being stupid now.
Obligated to follow the law and regulations. That includes taking a formal account of the accident, not acting on just the fact their client has I formed them of the incident and then the claim they have recieved from the third party.
Your policy pays for representation. The insurance company has provided none, given bad advice as regards claiming for the clients own car and deserves to be screwed.
The way this company has acted is barely any better than fraudulent ghost policies.

I am just making a point that "regularly" could be anything and my point, since you missed it...is how regular are these calls? I am not trying to be stupid, I am trying to make you understand in the real world, accurate time scale makes a difference.

You don't know anymore than I do, what we do know is they didn't know from his last call to the renewal. So if it was settled in between, how would he know? When my accident was settled (which I hope it has, it is like 7 years ago), I wasn't notified, honestly I don't care. All I am required to do is to report it, that is my job done, nobody got hurt in my accident and it's just metal (or plastic bumper) at the end of the day and it doesn't bother me one bit not hear back from them. Honestly I have typed more about my accident in this paragraph than I have given thought about it over 7 years.

As for formal accounts of the accident, he reported it, that includes what happened, unless he left something out on purpose on his call? Does a formal account has to be someone come to his house to do an interview? No, it does not. And these calls are recorded too.

I know how all this works, not every case gets representations, you don't actually have to have a solicitor to do these claims, the majority of these are handled by case handlers who are not lawyers. The whole thing is very procedural. Notice of Claim, Claim Form, File Defence, Part 36 Offers etc etc. It's basically a tick box exercise.

You are making a massive deal out of a tiny thing on their radar, claims like these, like £8500 and 99% not handled by a solicitor I can tell you that, even if the insurance company pass it to one of their law firms. It will be passed to one of the paralegals who just left law school but not completed their TC or a Legal Exec at most. Trust me in that this is peanuts, it's probably a £200 fixed fee case. Nobody died and if anything, very minor injury from the value.

 

[nilagin]

I doubt there was anything suspicious about telling not to bother to claim for her car, being a young driver it may well have been worth less the excess on her policy so she would have got nothing.
She could of course have taken a private claim against the third party to recover the cost, which if successful would have cleared of all or part blame
The other thing to consider is we don't know how badly damaged it was, it may well have been minor and she could have got work done privately to carry on using it, which if it had been an economic right off would have incurred extra cost

She has already paid the excess having had the claim gone against her. Getting a pay out on her own vehicle would have reduced the amount she would have paid out.

 

[nilagin]

I am just making a point that "regularly" could be anything and my point, since you missed it...is how regular are these calls? I am not trying to be stupid, I am trying to make you understand in the real world, accurate time scale makes a difference.

You don't know anymore than I do, what we do know is they didn't know from his last call to the renewal. So if it was settled in between, how would he know? When my accident was settled (which I hope it has, it is like 7 years ago), I wasn't notified, honestly I don't care. All I am required to do is to report it, that is my job done, nobody got hurt in my accident and it's just metal (or plastic bumper) at the end of the day and it doesn't bother me one bit not hear back from them. Honestly I have typed more about my accident in this paragraph than I have given thought about it over 7 years.

As for formal accounts of the accident, he reported it, that includes what happened, unless he left something out on purpose on his call? Does a formal account has to be someone come to his house to do an interview? No, it does not. And these calls are recorded too.

I know how all this works, not every case gets representations, you don't actually have to have a solicitor to do these claims, the majority of these are handled by case handlers who are not lawyers. The whole thing is very procedural. Notice of Claim, Claim Form, File Defence, Part 36 Offers etc etc. It's basically a tick box exercise.

You are making a massive deal out of a tiny thing on their radar, claims like these, like £8500 and 99% not handled by a solicitor I can tell you that, even if the insurance company pass it to one of their law firms. It will be passed to one of the paralegals who just left law school but not completed their TC or a Legal Exec at most. Trust me in that this is peanuts, it's probably a £200 fixed fee case. Nobody died and if anything, very minor injury from the value.

In almost 40yrs of driving I have been involved in a few accidents regardless of blame. In each case a claims form has been filled out and submitted by post, telephone or via internet / email. The questions asked and details you are required to give take more than just a few minutes to fill in.
The basic representation that an insurance company should supply has sweet fa to do with solicitors.
You claim you know how it works. Evidently you don't.

 

[Mr Bump]

I had an accident about 18 months ago, guy ran into me on m62 and tried to evade and dodge.
my insurance was all over him like a dog until it was resolved I put in very little, they did everything.
they even filled in and submitted court documents for me to sue him for out of pocket expenses.

the input from the insured seems minimum nowadays and process just kick in.

 

[Raymond Lin]

In almost 40yrs of driving I have been involved in a few accidents regardless of blame. In each case a claims form has been filled out and submitted by post, telephone or via internet / email. The questions asked and details you are required to give take more than just a few minutes to fill in.
The basic representation that an insurance company should supply has sweet fa to do with solicitors.
You claim you know how it works. Evidently you don't.

You have driven for 40 years and involved in a few accidents?

Okay, have you actually worked behind the scene? My previous employer is a panel solicitor for companies such as Zurich, Aviva, AXA, Tesco etc etc.

What you know as a driver is not what it is like in the office.