Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • billyghom
    • By billyghom 11th Jan 18, 11:20 AM
    • 29Posts
    • 0Thanks
    billyghom
    Hit by stolen car, found at fault, please help
    • #1
    • 11th Jan 18, 11:20 AM
    Hit by stolen car, found at fault, please help 11th Jan 18 at 11:20 AM
    Hi everyone,

    I was in a car accident with a stolen BMW which I have been found to be at fault by my insurance company. I would like advice on how to overturn the decision. I have tried my best to present the information of the incident as succinctly and clearly as possible.

    - I came out from a minor road into a major road (indicating right, alone in my car), because the BMW (on my right, nearest lane) was far away enough for me to do so.
    - I came out halfway and stopped and observed my left and waited for it clear so that I could go
    - Just as the last car on my left passed, I was hit by the BMW, while I was still stationary
    - the five occupants of the BMW came out of their vehicle and discarded onto the ground a large quantity of used nitrous oxide cannisters (also known as Cream Chargers, Hippy Crack, and Laughing Gas). The BMW interior was also littered with these used cannisters. These are used to get high (illegally)
    - I was physically attacked by the driver of the BMW (once we were both out of our vehicles after the collision), the attack was stopped by passing members of the public
    - I called the police, but they refused to attend as it was a car accident with no serious injuries and needed to be dealt with between the two parties involved, this was despite me telling them about the used cannister and attack (I did not know the car was stolen at this point)
    - The five occupants of the BMW fled the scene, abandoning their vehicle
    - I called the police a second time, and insisted they attend, as one or two of the BMW occupants kept returning and I did not feel safe (one of them returned to recover something from the boot of their vehicle before fleeing again)
    - The police arrived around 30 minutes after the collision and took statements, there was one witness but I am not confident how reliable he is as he was a homeless man, I told the police about the used nitrous oxide cannisters and physical attack (the cannisters were there for the police to see anyway)

    So my insurance company is finding me at fault on the basis that I came out from a minor road into a major road and the BMW had right of way. This is despite me being stationary when I was hit (my insurance company says I cannot prove this), the BMW being stolen with joyriders inside, and the used nitrous oxide cannisters (an illegal high) inside the BMW. A couple of things to note: 1.) my maneuver was not illegal and it is routinely done everyday on the roads and it was absolutely safe for me to begin the maneuver as the BMW was so far away on my right
    2.) the BMW does have insurance, but clearly the owner wasn't at the wheel on the night of the collision as it was reported stolen. It did not have MOT however (I learned this later after an online check). I cannot see my version of events being disputed by the other side as clearly they are in hiding from the police and are untraceable. The only people disputing my version of events is my insurance company.

    I have tried my best to present all the relevant information, but I may have missed something.

    Please help with any advice, I will be very grateful. I only have Third Party Fire and Theft cover, and will not get anything from my insurance company unless I can overturn the decision for fault.

    This seems really unfair that I get hit by joyriders getting high in a stolen car, and yet I am found to be at fault and receive nothing. The BMW driver most likely didn't even have a driving license. I struggle for money and suffer from depression, and my car meant a lot to me. It was one of the only things I had that bought me joy (it's been written off).

    The other party has not made a claim against my insurers.

    Thank you.
Page 2
    • billyghom
    • By billyghom 11th Jan 18, 12:03 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    billyghom
    Sorry, there's been too many replies to reply to you all, but thank you, and I will try to reply later.
    • billyghom
    • By billyghom 11th Jan 18, 12:04 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    billyghom
    If you only have third party, fire and theft then you won't get anything from your insurers full stop. Accidental damage to your car is not covered by your policy, regardless of whether it's your fault, someone else's fault or nobody's fault in particular.

    All you can do is pursue the other party's insurers for your costs - or the MIB if the driver of the other car cannot be identified. This will depend on proving that the other party was to blame for the accident - which means focussing on the specific acts of driving that caused the collision, not the fact that the car was stoled/uninsured/MOTless/full of laughing gas cannisters. If your insurance comes with legal expenses cover/Motor Legal Protection then your insurer will appoint a solicitor to help with the process IF they conclude that you have a reasonable chance of success. If it doesn't then you're on your own. You could try to find a claims management company to take on the case, but again they'll only be inetersted if they think there's a good chance of proving fault against the other party.

    It's easy to be wise after the event, but insuring TPFT is something that you should really only do if losing your car is a risk that you can afford to take.
    Originally posted by Aretnap
    Thank you, that's very useful .
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 11th Jan 18, 12:07 PM
    • 1,776 Posts
    • 1,610 Thanks
    Comms69
    Please remember, the BMW was really far away. They were clearly speeding, but I could not tell they were speeding at the time, because they were so far away. It's harder to judge the speed of something when it is far away.

    Thank you.
    Originally posted by billyghom
    But if they were speeding and that was clear, you shouldn't have been there. Otherwise you are just presuming they were.


    I sympathise with you, I really do. See it all the time, but i refuse to put myself in that position, for this reason.
    • billyghom
    • By billyghom 11th Jan 18, 12:14 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    billyghom
    But if they were speeding and that was clear, you shouldn't have been there. Otherwise you are just presuming they were.


    I sympathise with you, I really do. See it all the time, but i refuse to put myself in that position, for this reason.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    Sorry, it was not clear to me. I did say I could not tell that the BMW was speeding at the time because it was so far away. But I have no doubt they were speeding and did not see me, otherwise with how far away it was, the BMW had plenty of time to slow down or stop, it did neither. In fact, it probably would not have had to slow down or stop at all, if it wasn't speeding.

    Thank you.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 11th Jan 18, 12:22 PM
    • 1,776 Posts
    • 1,610 Thanks
    Comms69
    Sorry, it was not clear to me. I did say I could not tell that the BMW was speeding at the time because it was so far away. But I have no doubt they were speeding and did not see me, otherwise with how far away it was, the BMW had plenty of time to slow down or stop, it did neither. In fact, it probably would not have had to slow down or stop at all, if it wasn't speeding.

    Thank you.
    Originally posted by billyghom
    You said they were 'clearly' speeding. What I'm saying is, either that was clear, or you are presuming they were. It cant be both.


    You might have 'no doubt', but your insurers do have doubt.


    They may have had time to slow or stop, but ultimately you were blocking the carriageway.


    You have to accept some of the responsibility. The road was not clear, you decided to bully your way through, because the other would stop. They didn't.


    I think everyone sympathises with you, and be glad you are ok. But ultimately this is one of those things (its why you have insurance!) - otherwise you'd be paying out £30,000+ from your own pocket.
    • BoGoF
    • By BoGoF 11th Jan 18, 12:23 PM
    • 2,838 Posts
    • 2,082 Thanks
    BoGoF
    Speeding or not speeding, you say you saw the car coming and still decided to carry out the move in the hope there would be a gap in the traffic from your left before it reached you.
    • billyghom
    • By billyghom 11th Jan 18, 12:35 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    billyghom
    Speeding or not speeding, you say you saw the car coming and still decided to carry out the move in the hope there would be a gap in the traffic from your left.
    Originally posted by BoGoF
    Thank you.

    Yes, it is not an illegal manoeuvre and it is done all the time. If you stand on any busy street for an hour, you will see it done at least two or three times, maybe more.

    What changes things is that I was stationary when i was hit. i will copy and paste my reply on this to another member :

    "Yes, I understand that. But what may change things in my favour is that I was stationary when I was hit. As I understand it, it is a generally accepted standard in the insurance industry that if a stationary vehicle is hit, the vehicle that hit the stationary car is at fault. Except my insurance company keep telling me I can't prove I was stationary. I remind them that there is no one on the other side to dispute if I was stationary, but that doesn't seem to matter to them (I realise the other insurance company could dispute it, but they weren't there on the night)."

    Anyway, sincerely thank you for taking the time to read and reply, i know it was a long post.
    • marlot
    • By marlot 11th Jan 18, 12:44 PM
    • 3,204 Posts
    • 2,334 Thanks
    marlot
    ...Yes, it is not an illegal manoeuvre and it is done all the time. If you stand on any busy street for an hour, you will see it done at least two or three times, maybe more...
    Originally posted by billyghom
    Actually, it is an illegal move if there was a give way sign or give way line.

    Where there is a GIVE WAY sign (diagram 602), regulation 16 requires that:
    No vehicle shall cross the transverse line shown in diagram 1003 nearer to the major road at
    the side of which that line is placed, or if that line is not clearly visible, enter that major
    road, so as to be likely to endanger the driver of or any passenger in any other vehicle or to
    cause that driver to change the speed or course of his vehicle in order to avoid an accident.

    Many of us do the same as you on a regular basis. Doesn't make it right though.
    Last edited by marlot; 11-01-2018 at 12:52 PM.
    • BoGoF
    • By BoGoF 11th Jan 18, 12:45 PM
    • 2,838 Posts
    • 2,082 Thanks
    BoGoF
    Yes, it is not an illegal manoeuvre and it is done all the time. If you stand on any busy street for an hour, you will see it done at least two or three times, maybe more.
    Originally posted by billyghom
    You seem to have trouble accepting that you were in any way in the wrong so will leave you to it.
    • missile
    • By missile 11th Jan 18, 12:54 PM
    • 9,137 Posts
    • 4,469 Thanks
    missile
    We all do it - look right, look left, then judge whether we think the car from the left will pass...

    Yes we all do it - and 99.99% of the time we're all lucky ...
    Originally posted by PasturesNew
    Well I for one don't pull out from a side road and stop blocking the lane waiting for a queue of cars from the left to pass before turning right.
    That is at the very least inconsiderate to other road users and IMHO the OP is at fault for this accident.
    "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
    Ride hard or stay home
    • keith1950
    • By keith1950 11th Jan 18, 12:54 PM
    • 2,414 Posts
    • 1,069 Thanks
    keith1950
    Look, you obviously aren't listening , it doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same thing , you were in the wrong.
    They may have been speeding and under the influence but you are going to get no where with this.
    You can't prove you were stationary , you are just wasting your time argueing with people who are trying to give you advice. Can't you see from all the replies that you are the only one that thinks you have right on your side.
    As the car was stolen makes your chances even worse....give up and get over it!
    • takman
    • By takman 11th Jan 18, 1:00 PM
    • 3,002 Posts
    • 2,586 Thanks
    takman
    Yes, I understand that. But what may change things in my favour is that I was stationary when I was hit. As I understand it, it is a generally accepted standard in the insurance industry that if a stationary vehicle is hit, the vehicle that hit the stationary car is at fault. Except my insurance company keep telling me I can't prove I was stationary. I remind them that there is no one on the other side to dispute if I was stationary, but that doesn't seem to matter to them (I realise the other insurance company could dispute it, but they weren't there on the night).
    Originally posted by billyghom
    That's not true at all just because someone is able to stop and be stationary before an accident occurs doesn't mean they are without fault.
    So in this example; if your going down the motorway at 70 MPH and I pull out of the hard shoulder in front of you at the last minute and manage to stop before you hit me. You would be happy to take full responsibility for the accident because i was stationary?.

    The fact is that you pulled out and blocked their path and expected them to stop for you when you were supposed to give way. You also didn't keep an eye on their position otherwise you could have reversed back as they started to get closer.

    But i don't understand why you pulled out at all?. You should have just waited for both ways to be clear before you made your move.

    Also there were no other cars coming (behind the BMW), this was late at night.
    Originally posted by billyghom
    So you wouldn't have had to wait much longer before the road was clear and no need for you to pull halfway across the road.
    • billyghom
    • By billyghom 11th Jan 18, 1:01 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    billyghom
    Actually, it is an illegal move if there was a give way sign or give way line.

    Where there is a GIVE WAY sign (diagram 602), regulation 16 requires that:
    No vehicle shall cross the transverse line shown in diagram 1003 nearer to the major road at
    the side of which that line is placed, or if that line is not clearly visible, enter that major
    road, so as to be likely to endanger the driver of or any passenger in any other vehicle or to
    cause that driver to change the speed or course of his vehicle in order to avoid an accident.

    Many of us do the same as you on a regular basis. Doesn't make it right though.
    Originally posted by marlot
    Thank you. I don't disagree. But it doesn't say it's illegal and says it is okay to come out if it is safe to do (last few lines about not endangering anyone), and I cannot say enough it was absolutely safe for me to come out.

    Thank you.
    • Loanranger
    • By Loanranger 11th Jan 18, 1:02 PM
    • 2,019 Posts
    • 5,243 Thanks
    Loanranger
    I am surprised that so many seemingly qualified and experienced drivers think it's acceptable to pull out and sit in the middle of the road!
    Just wait til both sides are clear or take another route if you are not patient enough to do that.
    • takman
    • By takman 11th Jan 18, 1:02 PM
    • 3,002 Posts
    • 2,586 Thanks
    takman
    Well I for one don't pull out from a side road and stop blocking the lane waiting for a queue of cars from the left to pass before turning right.
    That is at the very least inconsiderate to other road users and IMHO the OP is at fault for this accident.
    Originally posted by missile
    Yes i fully agree, it's a very inconsiderate way to drive and pretty silly considering it was late at night and if they had simply waited for the BMW to pass they could have pulled out safely.
    • billyghom
    • By billyghom 11th Jan 18, 1:06 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    billyghom
    That's not true at all just because someone is able to stop and be stationary before an accident occurs doesn't mean they are without fault.
    So in this example; if your going down the motorway at 70 MPH and I pull out of the hard shoulder in front of you at the last minute and manage to stop before you hit me. You would be happy to take full responsibility for the accident because i was stationary?.
    .
    Originally posted by takman
    Thank you, from an insurer's persepctive, who would be at fault here? (sorry, I genuinely don't know, that's why I'm asking)

    Thanks.
    • vacheron
    • By vacheron 11th Jan 18, 1:09 PM
    • 753 Posts
    • 666 Thanks
    vacheron
    Thank you.

    Yes, it is not an illegal manoeuvre and it is done all the time. If you stand on any busy street for an hour, you will see it done at least two or three times, maybe more.
    Originally posted by billyghom
    You would also see 2 or 3 people speeding, 2 or 3 people on their mobile phones, 2 or 3 making illegal turns and 2 or 3 driving without due care. That still does not make it legal.

    If their actions had gone on to result in an accident I'm sure that defense wouldn't work for them either.
    • The rich buy assets.
    • The poor only have expenses.
    • The middle class buy liabilities they think are assets.
    Robert T. Kiyosaki
    • billyghom
    • By billyghom 11th Jan 18, 1:13 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    billyghom
    You would also see 2 or 3 people speeding, 2 or 3 people on their mobile phones, 2 or 3 making illegal turns and 2 or 3 driving without due care. That still does not make it legal.

    If their actions had gone on to result in an accident I'm sure that defense wouldn't work for them either.
    Originally posted by vacheron
    Thank you, but there is a big difference between doing something that is illegal and just not getting caught or penalised, and doing something that is not illegal in the first place. Can't conflate the two.

    Thank you.
    • missile
    • By missile 11th Jan 18, 1:25 PM
    • 9,137 Posts
    • 4,469 Thanks
    missile
    Thank you. I don't disagree. But it doesn't say it's illegal and says it is okay to come out if it is safe to do (last few lines about not endangering anyone), and I cannot say enough it was absolutely safe for me to come out.

    Thank you.
    Originally posted by billyghom
    It was clearly not safe to do so ......... you caused the accident
    "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
    Ride hard or stay home
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 11th Jan 18, 1:27 PM
    • 34,064 Posts
    • 18,028 Thanks
    Quentin
    Thank you, from an insurer's persepctive, who would be at fault here? (sorry, I genuinely don't know, that's why I'm asking)

    Thanks.
    Originally posted by billyghom
    In your case, your insurer has seemingly accepted you are liable


    Bearing in mind that they are the ones who "lose" by making this decision, and have no axe to grind, why not accept that this is your fault and move on!


    Alternatively concentrate on persuading eg. a claim handler/the MIB/the third party insurer that you are blameless - only way you are going to get any compensation for your write off!!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

215Posts Today

1,819Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @clq: @MartinSLewis You hit that one right out of the park. It might be the Tweet of the Century. I don't think anyone can do any Batter?

  • You've run-out of puns. That's a bit of a googly, maybe I can help break your duck, though it is s sticky wicket, t? https://t.co/nJT51NpXfO

  • RT @richlaing: @MartinSLewis Obviously spot poll but interested in the fact that 9% would opt out of donation. Interested to hear reasons w?

  • Follow Martin