accused of hit and run,advice please

mikeouk

MsAnderson wrote: »

Understood. I should have made it clear, when I said "Leave it to them to prove. " I meant the complainer had to prove there was a case.

yes, thats all i can do, but i can only assume the solicitors are acting on behalf of the claimants insurance company.
It struck me that this person could have had damage to their car already and decided to blame a random person so they wouldnt loose their no claims, because its now gone to their insurance company, they are now trying to put the blame on me.
Im not particularly worried, the police have said theres no evidence, and theres some pictures of the back of my van, how can that prove anything? its just the hassle of it, and ive got other pressing issues in my life at the moment without this.

Quentin

mikeouk wrote: »

they want me to confirm its my vehicle and that i recognise the road. they say if i wish to dispute the matter (which i do) then they will send an investigator to take a full statement.then i can attend court and defend the case.

As previously posted, don't reply, but send this on to your insurer to deal with. They are paid to have this sort of hassle with third parties!

As long as you keep to the conditions of your policy - which will include passing all correspondence over to your insurer to deal with - then should the threat be carried out and you end up losing in (county) court over the claim, then your insurance will cover the cost! (Though that would be a long, long way in the future!)

vaio

mikeouk wrote: »

they want me to confirm its my vehicle and that i recognise the road. they say if i wish to dispute the matter (which i do) then they will send an investigator to take a full statement.then i can attend court and defend the case.

and I certainly wouldn't be confirming anything or giving any statements to a third party ambulance chaser.

As others have said just pass everything on to your insurance company

Quentin

LucyBC wrote: »

For what it's worth I give legal advice on Honest John and we have had a few of these, one in particular which I have strong suspicions to be an attempt at a fraudulent claim. This may be the same - particularly if there is a personal injury claim involved.

Having seen some of the poor advice in Honest John's columns, it may not be worth much!

If you know about motor insurance, then you should know its a contract with responsibilities for both sides to adhere to.

One of those is invariably that the policyholder must inform the insurer about any "contact from another party in relation to any claim" (or similar wording - that is taken from aviva).

Additionally policies invariably cover the receipt of correspondence in relation to any claim, saying it should be passed on unanswered for the insurer to take over and manage on behalf of the policyholder.

Your advice to attempt to deal with the matter to avoid a case being opened is bad.

Are you suggesting that come renewal time if the case has not been concluded, and the OP wanted to change insurer he should not mention this to any future insurer? If so, then this is more bad advice which could come back and bite should the matter result in a subsequent claim.

The police will very much get involved in these cases if there is proof of an accident

You are wrong! The police do not get involved in minor accidents with no injuries - telling the participants wanting them to get involved that it needs to be sorted out by insurers.

Quentin

LucyBC wrote: »

Thanks for the insult but you are wrong. The police can and do get involved in accidents when someone leaves the scene without leaving their details - which was the accusation in this case.

Where have I insulted you?

You now are moving the goalposts regarding the police from wrongly telling us that "The police will very much get involved in these cases if there is proof of an accident" to the police get involved in accidents when someone is suspected of committing an offence.

We know they suspected the OP of leaving the scene as it is reported in the OP! It seems following his statement they have lost interest.

Liability in claims is often unresolved at renewal time, in that case if premiums are affected because of a loss of NCD then the circumstances should be explained, and agreement reached that the premium will be amended should the NCD be reinstated and a refund given.

I am surprised that Honest John would go so far as to advise us to go in breach of our insurance policy conditions and not report an incident like this to our insurers (where court action is threatened by a solicitor).

Quentin

LucyBC wrote: »

She gains nothing by reporting a non-accident. At this stage it is up to the third party to show the accident took place. If they can she has to report it, if not she does not.

If I put you on notice through this forum that I believed you had bumped my car this afternoon, never having met me and with absolutely no credible evidence presented whatsoever to prove my claim would you feel duty bound to report it to your insurer? Of course not.

The OP does gain by reporting this.

The insurance policy is complied with, and the insurer will deal with it professionally, taking the hassle away from the OP and ensuring a badly worded "amateur" reply doesn't cause further issues for the OP.

Your example isn't comparing like with like.

The OP has received a solicitor's letter over an alleged incident threatening court action, with some (maybe so called) proof the OP's vehicle was involved. That is quite a different scenario to you anonymously accusing me on here!

Heliflyguy

Only a couple of weeks ago a friend of a co-worker had a simalar claim against them but can prove (witnesess including the local Mayor) they and the car were somewhere else, according to the local police these claims are becoming rather common.

Do you recall your whereabouts that day?
Have they told you were the accident took place, times etc.

Are you sure these solicitors are working for the claimants insurance company, I would have thought their insurance company would have contacted you or your insurance company.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/insurance-assurance-companies/184945-claim-my-insurance-accident.html

Quentin

LucyBC wrote: »

Cynical? moi?

I don't know whether you are cynical or not.

You have used strange tactics to argue your point here (eg you accused me of insulting you, presumably to gain some sympathy (I did ask you where, but you have not bothered to reply), and now you are repeating your earlier points.

eg. You again say we can expect increased premiums at renewal if the matter is unresolved, as previously posted, it is not unusual to have an unresolved liability matter going on at renewal time, and there are ways to ensure this isn't to the policyholder's detriment should the NCD be subsequently reinstated.

The third party has produced some "evidence", which though far from conclusive does make this more than just a random scam, and the OP is of the opinion the solicitor's letter comes on instruction from the third party's insurer. So why continue your advice not to comply with the policy conditions and pass this on to the insurer to deal with.

If they are as unprofessional as you allege, then that bridge will have to be crossed!

Heliflyguy

LucyBC wrote: »

Quoting "Only a couple of weeks ago a friend of a co-worker had a simalar claim against them but can prove (witnesess including the local Mayor) they and the car were somewhere else, according to the local police these claims are becoming rather common."

They are almost always bogus and they are usually given false weight by the involvement of the claimant solicitor who is often innocently involved but fishing for a personal injury claim.

If this went to court on the evidence as presented the claimant has no chance but unfortunately there have been numerous examples when spineless insurers have settled them.

It is bogus.
I cannot ask my co-worker what has happended to her friend but I know that the friends insurance was due for renewal and this is already causing a problem.

Heliflyguy

Quentin wrote: »

The third party has produced some "evidence", which though far from conclusive does make this more than just a random scam.

My co-workers friend had "evidence" produced against her, even her description, scams like these are well thought out and are becoming more popular due to the facts that LucybC states.
If the insurance companys had done their job a bit better they would have caught the guy that was causing the accidents on the roudabout rather than the office workers next to the roundabout spotting him.