Being sued for £10.000

wizk1

The accident could possibly have occurred on a roundabout where the OP pulled out without giving way to the right, causing the BMW to crash into him/her. But then again, this IS SPECULATION, and we'll hopefully find out soon from the OP what actually happened. I'm simply giving a possible reason why this was ruled against the car in front.

KILL_BILL

just send the letter to the insurance company and call them as well to tell them that the company is putting them on notice that legal action is being considered

comapnies have to give the third party/ tpi stautory notice that they are going to sue otherwise even if they get a judgement the insurance company dont have to deal with the judgement made.

Pollycat

I'm just a bit bemused about all this speculation about why the OP was deemed to be at fault with this accident.

Disregarding the letter stating intention to sue (which is another issue altogether) - surely the insurance company would have considered the circumstances of the accident at the time before deciding the OP was to blame and paying the other driver's claim?
And if the OP didn't consider him/herself to be in the wrong, wouldn't they have taken this up with the insurance company at the time?

So does it matter (other than for curiosity) how the accident happened and who really was to blame?

Isn't it as simple as forwarding the letter to the insurance company to deal with?

pinkshoes

Pollycat wrote: »

So does it matter (other than for curiosity) how the accident happened and who really was to blame?

It's not just curiosity. A car running into the back of another car is the fault of the driver behind in nearly all cases.

The OP states the BMW ran into the back of their car.

We're just making sure that the BMW driver hasn't used some bolshy lawyer, making the OP's insurance company just give in.

With such a large claim, this will make their premium rocket, and if money is tight, this could be the end of them affording to drive!

Pollycat

pinkshoes wrote: »

It's not just curiosity. A car running into the back of another car is the fault of the driver behind in nearly all cases.

The OP states the BMW ran into the back of their car.

We're just making sure that the BMW driver hasn't used some bolshy lawyer, making the OP's insurance company just give in.

With such a large claim, this will make their premium rocket, and if money is tight, this could be the end of them affording to drive!

I may be naive here, but would an insurance company really just 'give in' and pay a claim if the person they've insured is not to blame because they're dealing with a bolshy lawyer?

As you've pointed out, that will impact on the OP's next policy premium - the OP is not a newbie - did he/she ask for advice re this strange accident at the time it happened, which was 9 months ago?

I just can't see anyone accepting the blame for another driver smashing into the back of them unless they really WERE to blame.

I look forward to clarification from the OP regarding the circumstances of the accident.

dacouch

Reversing his car me thinks

pendulum

If you get imaginitive you can think of many examples:
a. OP emerging from parked position, hit in rear offside corner by BMW;
b. OP changed lanes and braked causing car behind to strike rear;
c. OP was reversing; or car rolled back / handbrake not applied.

But for the OP to lose completely (e.g. not even shared liability) then there must have been an independent witness, or the OP admitted liability on the claim form. It would be interesting to know the circumstances and it is mostly out of curiousity but it is also to make sure the OP hasn't been a victim of a weak claims handler that has caved in when he/she really shouldn't have.

If the insurance co has already paid out as the OP claims then that may have been their final payout as far as they are concerned, so they may wish to defend this court case. Or they might go the other way and want to settle out of court. It would be nice to know how this one goes.

giggles123

My brother had an accident about a year ago. Just last week an indian company rang up asking for 'the person who had an accident'. I spoke to them for a bit and they had no details whatsoever, they didn't know what type of accident it was or the persons name. They just had a phone number.

wizk1

giggles123 wrote: »

My brother had an accident about a year ago. Just last week an indian company rang up asking for 'the person who had an accident'. I spoke to them for a bit and they had no details whatsoever, they didn't know what type of accident it was or the persons name. They just had a phone number.

Right..... ?

pinkshoes

giggles123 wrote: »

My brother had an accident about a year ago. Just last week an indian company rang up asking for 'the person who had an accident'. I spoke to them for a bit and they had no details whatsoever, they didn't know what type of accident it was or the persons name. They just had a phone number.

I had exactly the same thing from my accident 18 months ago. I got a text message a couple of days ago saying I could be entitled to £3700 from the accident I had! I have no idea where they got my number from!

Pollycat wrote: »

I just can't see anyone accepting the blame for another driver smashing into the back of them unless they really WERE to blame.

Yes I agree, but just thought it odd how the OP wrote "At Christmas a BMW ran into the back of my car" implying it was the fault of the other person.

If they did it, they would have written "At Christmas I reversed into the back of a BMW"...