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 3
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 11th Jan 18, 1:30 PM
    • 1,788 Posts
    • 1,612 Thanks
    Comms69
    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.
    Originally posted by billyghom
    Ok, lets ignore if it's legal or not (you did endanger someone, but lets leave that aside)


    Most accidents aren't the result of someone doing something deliberately wrong. They're still at fault though.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 11th Jan 18, 1:31 PM
    • 3,522 Posts
    • 4,874 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    It doesn't actually matter who was right and who was wrong what matters is the type of insurance you had. Third party does not insure your vehicle against damage. It only insures you for damage to the other persons vehicle that is why it is cheaper and also why most people pay the extra for fully comprehensive insurance. Fully comprensive insurance insures your car and the other car. Third party only offers insurance to the other party in an accident not you.

    There is no insurance for you to get. You didn't take any out for damage to your car.

    Your insurance does not pay out for damage to your car. That is it. There is nothing to overturn. You did not pay to insure your car there is no insurance money to pay for damage to your car because you didn't insure your car against damage.

    You only get insurance money for something that you have paid to insure. You didn't pay to insure your car against damage in an accident so the insurance company doesn't owe you anything.


    There is no point in trying to be in the right about this accident because it doesn't matter who was right and who was wrong all that matters is that you did not buy insurance for damage to your car in an accident.

    Most people who buy Third party do so because they have a very old car that they don't mind if it gets damaged because it isn't worth very much.
    • billyghom
    • By billyghom 11th Jan 18, 1:33 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    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!!
    Originally posted by Quentin
    thank you, those all avenues i will follow, but i will not give up trying with the insurance company just yet

    thanks once again
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 11th Jan 18, 2:20 PM
    • 34,080 Posts
    • 18,034 Thanks
    Quentin
    thank you, those all avenues i will follow, but i will not give up trying with the insurance company just yet

    thanks once again
    Originally posted by billyghom
    Sorry to keep repeating this - but you have no insurance cover for damage to your car!!


    There is no point continuing "trying" to convince your insurer - even if you were not to blame they wouldn't be paying for your write off!


    (It would be in their interest to consider you blameless - but the facts are you were to blame - as you are constantly being advised here)
    Last edited by Quentin; 11-01-2018 at 2:22 PM.
    • billyghom
    • By billyghom 11th Jan 18, 2:37 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    billyghom
    Sorry to keep repeating this - but you have no insurance cover for damage to your car!!


    There is no point continuing "trying" to convince your insurer - even if you were not to blame they wouldn't be paying for your write off!


    (It would be in their interest to consider you blameless - but the facts are you were to blame - as you are constantly being advised here)
    Originally posted by Quentin

    Hi,

    sorry, I probably should have to made this clear earlier. But if I can overturn the decision for fault, then it no longer matters that I have TPFT, because it will be me making a claim against the other party.

    But as it stands, my insurance company is not willing make a claim against the other party because they have put me at fault. So just need to get that changed.

    They said they might be willing to overturn the decision if I can prove the other driver was intoxicated, if I can prove I was stationary, or if I can prove the other vehicle was speeding. But they are all things I cannot prove (no CCTV footage). But I keep telling them why do I have to prove these things when the other party will not dispute any of these because they are in hiding from the police and won't come out of hiding to dispute these. They risk being arrested if they do.

    It's silly, because of course the other driver was intoxicated with the amount of used drugs they had in the car, but because he fled the scene, the police could do not do tests on him for intoxication. That leaves me with no way to prove it.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by billyghom; 11-01-2018 at 2:41 PM.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 11th Jan 18, 2:40 PM
    • 34,080 Posts
    • 18,034 Thanks
    Quentin
    Your insurer will never make any claim for you off the third party! They have nothing to claim for


    When you bought tpft insurance then you accepted that!


    (Saying the driver was intoxicated seems a guess???)
    Last edited by Quentin; 11-01-2018 at 2:48 PM.
    • billyghom
    • By billyghom 11th Jan 18, 2:49 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    billyghom
    Your insurer will never make any claim for you off the third party!


    When you bought tpft insurance then you accepted that!


    (Saying the driver was intoxicated seems a guess???)
    Originally posted by Quentin
    If the other party is found at fault, then I can make a claim for damages on their insurance regardless of the type of cover I have? Am i misunderstanding that, maybe I am

    Thanks.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 11th Jan 18, 2:53 PM
    • 34,080 Posts
    • 18,034 Thanks
    Quentin
    If the other party is found at fault, then I can make a claim for damages on their insurance regardless of the type of cover I have? Am i misunderstanding that, maybe I am

    Thanks.
    Originally posted by billyghom




    Not necessarily. The car was stolen so the third party insurer may simply refer you to the MIB


    But understand you don't need to argue with your own insurer!!
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 11th Jan 18, 3:14 PM
    • 3,522 Posts
    • 4,874 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    If the other party is found at fault, then I can make a claim for damages on their insurance regardless of the type of cover I have? Am i misunderstanding that, maybe I am

    Thanks.
    Originally posted by billyghom
    So if you want to claim for damage why are you trying to get your insurance company to claim for damage? Your insurance company did not insure your vehicle for damage so they are not going to claim from the other car's insurance company for your non existent damage cover.

    This is nothing to do with your insurance company you didn't have cover for damage to your car.

    Stop arguing with your insurance company over your non existent policy and go ahead and claim for damages against the insurance company which insures the other car. See how far that gets you. You certainly aren't going to be able to prove that the owner of the other car was at fault because they weren't driving the car. The people who were driving it were not insured to drive it.

    This kind of problem is exactly why people pay for fully comprehensive insurance which is more expensive. You took the cheaper option and you got what you paid for.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 11th Jan 18, 3:16 PM
    • 34,080 Posts
    • 18,034 Thanks
    Quentin
    ......This kind of problem is exactly why people pay for fully comprehensive insurance which is more expensive. You took the cheaper option and you got what you paid for.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    Annoyingly for the OP, comprehensive cover is normally cheaper than TPFT!
    • forgotmyname
    • By forgotmyname 11th Jan 18, 3:21 PM
    • 26,408 Posts
    • 10,556 Thanks
    forgotmyname
    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
    If it was safe how did you manage to cause the accident?

    It was not safe because there was a car coming you admit that, its speed is immaterial. You positioned your vehicle in the path of the oncoming vehicle, who had right of way. You are to blame end of.

    But your not going to listen to anyone on here, you disagree with your insurance and you will disagree with everyone that says you were at fault.

    You knew it was speeding, (which you cannot prove), and yet still pulled out.

    If you could not judge his speed as he approached i have to ask if you actually bothered looking properly.
    Punctuation, Spelling and Grammar will be used sparingly. Due to rising costs of inflation.

    My contribution to MSE. Other contributions will only be used if they cost me nothing.

    Due to me being a tight git.
    • billyghom
    • By billyghom 11th Jan 18, 3:25 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    billyghom
    So if you want to claim for damage why are you trying to get your insurance company to claim for damage? Your insurance company did not insure your vehicle for damage so they are not going to claim from the other car's insurance company for your non existent damage cover.

    This is nothing to do with your insurance company you didn't have cover for damage to your car.

    Stop arguing with your insurance company over your non existent policy and go ahead and claim for damages against the insurance company which insures the other car. See how far that gets you. You certainly aren't going to be able to prove that the owner of the other car was at fault because they weren't driving the car. The people who were driving it were not insured to drive it.

    This kind of problem is exactly why people pay for fully comprehensive insurance which is more expensive. You took the cheaper option and you got what you paid for.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    So under TPFT, your insurer will not claim for damages with the other side if you are not at fault? Remember, that is not the same as claiming for damages with your insurer if you have TPFT

    I don't know that's why I'm asking
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 11th Jan 18, 3:27 PM
    • 34,080 Posts
    • 18,034 Thanks
    Quentin
    How many times can it be repeated


    TPFT insurance doesn't cover your own vehicle.


    And your insurer has nothing to claim for as they have not got anything to pay out for


    If you are not at fault then it's down to you to claim off the third party (Instruct a solicitor/claims manager/or DIY)
    • billyghom
    • By billyghom 11th Jan 18, 3:27 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    billyghom
    If it was safe how did you manage to cause the accident?

    It was not safe because there was a car coming you admit that, its speed is immaterial. You positioned your vehicle in the path of the oncoming vehicle, who had right of way. You are to blame end of.

    But your not going to listen to anyone on here, you disagree with your insurance and you will disagree with everyone that says you were at fault.

    You knew it was speeding, (which you cannot prove), and yet still pulled out.

    If you could not judge his speed as he approached i have to ask if you actually bothered looking properly.
    Originally posted by forgotmyname

    No I did not know it was speeding at the time. I've explained this, please read back on my replies if you really want to know. Thank you for replying, anyway. Cheers.
    • FlameCloud
    • By FlameCloud 11th Jan 18, 3:32 PM
    • 1,792 Posts
    • 870 Thanks
    FlameCloud
    So under TPFT, your insurer will not claim for damages with the other side if you are not at fault? Remember, that is not the same as claiming for damages with your insurer if you have TPFT

    I don't know that's why I'm asking
    Originally posted by billyghom
    No they cannot.

    Indeed if your insurers accepts costs on their own policy that are not covered (i.e. TPFT cover and paying for your own damage) prevailing case law says expressly that it is counted as an ex gratia payment that they cannot recover.

    Note there is nothing stopping you pursueing the third party insurers directly, but expect to find it difficult. You may wish to use a solicitor but given the circumstances it might be difficult to get one on a fee agreement.
    • billyghom
    • By billyghom 11th Jan 18, 3:35 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    billyghom
    No they cannot.

    Indeed if your insurers accepts costs on their own policy that are not covered (i.e. TPFT cover and paying for your own damage) prevailing case law says expressly that it is counted as an ex gratia payment that they cannot recover.

    Note there is nothing stopping you pursueing the third party insurers directly, but expect to find it difficult. You may wish to use a solicitor but given the circumstances it might be difficult to get one on a fee agreement.
    Originally posted by FlameCloud
    Thank you, that is very useful. Cheers.
    • BoGoF
    • By BoGoF 11th Jan 18, 3:35 PM
    • 2,838 Posts
    • 2,083 Thanks
    BoGoF
    Hopefully the penny drops now.
    • molerat
    • By molerat 11th Jan 18, 3:36 PM
    • 17,670 Posts
    • 11,935 Thanks
    molerat
    A fair chance each insurer has agreed to cover their own and as OP only has TP they have dipped out.
    www.helpforheroes.org.uk/donations.html
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 11th Jan 18, 3:38 PM
    • 3,522 Posts
    • 4,874 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    So under TPFT, your insurer will not claim for damages with the other side if you are not at fault? Remember, that is not the same as claiming for damages with your insurer if you have TPFT

    I don't know that's why I'm asking
    Originally posted by billyghom
    Whether you were at fault or not makes no difference because you didn't have any insurance against damage to your vehicle. It is the lack of insurance for damage to your vehicle that means that the insurance company is not going to chase the otherside. They don't owe you any money.

    If you want to claim for the damage you have to do it yourself. However I have no idea how you are going to prove that the other car owner was at fault because they were not driving the car and the people who were didn't have any sort of insurance to drive it.
    • billyghom
    • By billyghom 11th Jan 18, 3:42 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    billyghom
    Whether you were at fault or not makes no difference because you didn't have any insurance against damage to your vehicle. It is the lack of insurance for damage to your vehicle that means that the insurance company is not going to chase the otherside. They don't owe you any money.

    If you want to claim for the damage you have to do it yourself. However I have no idea how you are going to prove that the other car owner was at fault because they were not driving the car and the people who were didn't have any sort of insurance to drive it.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    Thank you, it would have to be an MIB claim then. But shouldn't I try to overturn the decision for liability with my insurer anyway, to stop my premium from going up at least?

    Thanks.
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

2,160Posts Today

8,505Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Today's Twitter poll: Following yesterday's poll about being an organ donor when you die - would you consider being? https://t.co/tCTWjJBin8

  • 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

  • Follow Martin