Tesco Car Insurance How Are They Getting Away With It

miltonskeen

cmg127 wrote: »

A couple of months ago I was sitting in my car, a motorcyclist came flying past me and fell off.
I told him he should be more careful, driving so fast in a built up area was dangerous and reckless - we had a few words and that was that... or so I tought.

cmg127 wrote: »

He reported it to the police saying i had forced him to break making him fall of his bike. Which is total Bs because he game right thou a zibera crossing passing 2 waiting cars and not missing the woman crossing the road by much. I was turning right as the road was clear upto the zibera crossing as there was someone crossing it. Because he came flying thou it he didnt see me turning right. He then braked hard falling of claiming i pulled out in front of him.

Now 'sitting' in your car is very different to driving it, and turning right across oncoming traffic...

And as for him not seeing you... its also worth pointing out you also did not see him. You have pulled out in front of him, he has swerved to miss you, and fallen off his bike.

I would say thank god no-one was more seriously hurt, and suggest you bite the bullet and accept the 30% extra on your insurance.

StephenMarsh

difficult one as hes claiming you turned into his path and without any independant witnesses very difficult to fight it best case would be a 50/50 which still results in loss of your NCD. That being said if your not happy with the service or the way in which the handler dealt with it your only course of action is to follow Tesco complaint proceedures.

mattymoo

This book - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uJkwId8zvS0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=motor+insurance+law&hl=en&ei=hJBzTOzjNsy6OI_DxLII&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=overtaking&f=false

explains a lot of the decided case law relating to motor insurance.

The police, when they prosecute via the CPS, have to prove their "case beyond a reasonable doubt" and probably felt they would not succeed against the motorcyclist in this instance. The motorcyclist only has to prove "on the balance of probabilities" that you contributed to the accident in some way, e.g. turning accross his path.

The classic case law for this is Powell v Moody - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v_Moody

OP - I suspect the motorcyclist has convinced your insurer that your actions were partially to blame, hence they had to deal with the claim and you lost your NCD.

lisyloo

I think the lesson is that if there are other cars stopped (or pedestrians or cars that you can safely stop) then get their details to act as a wtiness and take photos if you can safely do that.

I have a van hit me in the rear about a year ago.
I stopped the car in front and took his details.
Nothing has happened and there has been no claim, but if it does I do have the details of a witness for the sake of 5 minutes of someones time.

Unfortunately where there are no witnesses or evidence, then there is rarely any choice but to go 50/50. Otherwise they face potential high costs and a court case which would increase premiums, so they go for the cheaper option.

I am a motorcyclist and I think the guy was in the wrong even attempting the manouver, but that doesn't matter without any witnesses. He can say what he wants and you have no proof it isnt' true. Sorry. I'm not saying it's right, just saying it's the way it is and this is not particular to Tescos. Any insurer would act the same (although some may give better phone service).

cajef

Several years ago my daughter was on her motorbike overtaking a long line of stationary queueing traffic on a wide main road into a city, one of the cars in the queue decided to do a U turn as he did not want to wait any longer and just pulled out obviously not bothering to check his mirrors or blind spot, hitting her and knocking her off the bike.

His first reaction was not to see how she was but to rant that it was her fault as she was flying down the road at a ridiculous speed, the witnesses in the other vehicles who helped her did not agree and confirmed that actually they had seen her coming and told the Police she in fact was being very careful and travelling at a reasonable speed which expained why fortunately she only had minor bruises and scratches though the bike was damaged.

I only point this out as there are two sides to every story so a one sided rant does not really tell what really happened.

miltonskeen

What he said ^

cmg127

miltonskeen wrote: »

Now 'sitting' in your car is very different to driving it, and turning right across oncoming traffic...

And as for him not seeing you... its also worth pointing out you also did not see him. You have pulled out in front of him, he has swerved to miss you, and fallen off his bike.

I would say thank god no-one was more seriously hurt, and suggest you bite the bullet and accept the 30% extra on your insurance.

the motor cyclist did not crash in to me, there was no damage to my car at ALL, my idea to the whole situation is he was speeding and lost control off his motobike, The road was clear when i turned he came right thou the crossing passing 2 stationery cars

cajef

cmg127 wrote: »

my idea to the whole situation is he was speeding and lost control off his motobike,

That is just your opinion which obviously differs from his version, unless you have independent witnesses to confirm your take on the situation you have not got choice but to stop moaning and pay the increased premium.

lisyloo

the motor cyclist did not crash in to me, there was no damage to my car at ALL, my idea to the whole situation is he was speeding and lost control off his motobike, The road was clear when i turned he came right thou the crossing passing 2 stationery cars

The problem is this is your word against his and your word on it's own means little.
You need independent witnesses and photos can help.

It doesn't matter how strongly you feel you are right.
It's just one persons word against anothers and no insurer will go to court on that unless there is something independent to bakc it up.

miltonskeen

cmg127 wrote: »

the motor cyclist did not crash in to me, there was no damage to my car at ALL, my idea to the whole situation is he was speeding and lost control off his motobike, The road was clear when i turned he came right thou the crossing passing 2 stationery cars

Doesn't matter if he hit you or not. If you caused a accident with your negligence then your still guilty, as as such your insurance should cough pay out to cover this guys injuries and bike damage.

Unless you have witnesses and statements to the contary, its your word against his.