Not my fault accident Tesco bank demands I go 50/50!

Mrcrimbo

asbokid wrote: »

So what was your trajectory and the 3rd party's trajectory in the moments leading up to the collision?

i can kind of see how the accident happened... myou were accelerating as you exited the roundabout. the lights had just changed on the bridge approach road. the other party indicated that he wanted to change course, and move into the exit lane for the a217. However, he didn't see you accelerating along his nearside. he moved into your lane and...crunch.

the other driver, having left it too late to safely leave by the a217 exit (wandsworth bridge road), should have continued all the way around the roundabout, allowing himself ample time to safely get into the correct lane for that exit.

Bingo, that's exactly what happened. And my trajectory did not change, I was already on my exit lane and stayed there, while he was in his, and eventually he decided he wanted to be where I was at the last minute. What I also want to try and prove also is that the driver was unfit to drive in the first place. Had I been a vunerable road user, I would have been killed. He was a danger to the road. I am planning to go down to the police station and report him.

He was unable to tell me anything about himself at the time, his name, address. He simply could not comprehend it, possibly not due to wanting to be evasive but because he had some sort of medical condition due to his very old age. Eventually his partner produced a medical I.D card whereby I eventually got his details!

lisyloo

What I also want to try and prove also is that the driver was unfit to drive in the first place.

My FIL (now 83) had an accident a few years ago.
He was not at fault, but the police came round and tested his eyesight.
Provided he can read a numberplate at the required distance (and you have to practically blind not to) and he does not have any medical conditions that exclude him from driving (like epilepsy or uncontrolled diabetes) then I think you will have a hard time proving it.
The basic requirement is only to read a numberplate that's straight in front of you.

I am planning to go down to the police station and report him.

But you won't get anywhere without proof.
The proof required for Tescos (balance of probabilities) is a lot lower than the proof the police would require for a criminal conviction (beyond reasonable doubt).
From what you've said so far, you don't have any proof so will get nowhere. It's much harder to prove a criminal offence than a civil offence.

possibly not due to wanting to be evasive but because he had some sort of medical condition due to his very old age.

Most likely he was in a state of shock.
Very common after an accident and proves absolutely nothing.

I know I now sound unsympathethic which is a million miles from the truth, but I'm pretty sure your legal advice will tell you it's not worth going to court.

If you have any photos of what actually happened (rather than just the road layout) or the polcie come up with some CCTV, then that obviously changes everything.

Mrcrimbo

lisyloo wrote: »

Sorry I didn't explain myself very well. I meant a video camera actually in your car for the future.
I have this one which covers 170 degrees, but there might be better solutions for a car.
http://www.actioncameras.co.uk/X170

Do you have any photos that show the posistion of the cars when they hit? i.e. did you both stop in-situ after the collision.
If you just have photos of the road layout then I'm afraid that doesn't show who moved into who's lane.

lisyloo wrote: »

My FIL (now 83) had an accident a few years ago.
He was not at fault, but the police came round and tested his eyesight.
Provided he can read a numberplate at the required distance (and you have to practically blind not to) and he does not have any medical conditions that exclude him from driving (like epilepsy or uncontrolled diabetes) then I think you will have a hard time proving it.
The basic requirement is only to read a numberplate that's straight in front of you.

But you won't get anywhere without proof.
The proof required for Tescos (balance of probabilities) is a lot lower than the proof the police would require for a criminal conviction (beyond reasonable doubt).
From what you've said so far, you don't have any proof so will get nowhere. It's much harder to prove a criminal offence than a civil offence.

Most likely he was in a state of shock.
Very common after an accident and proves absolutely nothing.

I know I now sound unsympathethic which is a million miles from the truth, but I'm pretty sure your legal advice will tell you it's not worth going to court.

If you have any photos of what actually happened (rather than just the road layout) or the polcie come up with some CCTV, then that obviously changes everything.

Thanks, I appreciate that your taking an independant approach to your help, I will take note of all your points. As it happens, you mentioned uncontrolled diabetes, the medical I.D card that the partner produced was an emergency card that said 'I have diabetes' with a variety of boxes for name, address, etc on it. If I were to go down to the police station with the photograph of this I.D card (which I took) would I be on to something?

Thanks again

huckster

How would taking the drivers ID card to the Police help? What would they do with it ?

The other thing which may not be helpful to you is the other drivers age. I can't see this being in your favour if you took them to court, if you were to go down that avenue. It is just the way it would look, without you having definate evidence of them being at fault, it could look like you were trying to frighten an old man using legal threats.

Obtain as much information as you can and take further advice. You don't want to incur costs and still end up with a 50/50.

asbokid

Mrcrimbo wrote: »

my trajectory did not change, I was already on my exit lane and stayed there, while he was in his, and eventually he decided he wanted to be where I was at the last minute.

All your photos, all your road layout sketches, aerial photos and streetview shots from google still can't prove that though..

The old git has probably been groomed into lying by younger members of his family. They all sat down together and constructed a plausible account that would extricate the old git from liability. And in a sense they have succeeded. The fabrications from the 3rd party coupled with the laziness of the claims negotiators at Tesco Insurance sees you lumbered with 50% apportionment of blame.

lisyloo

If I were to go down to the police station with the photograph of this I.D card (which I took) would I be on to something?

Not just because he's a diabetic, no.
A lot of diabetics have their condition under control with medication and are fully able to drive safely.

I don't think you could get access to his medical records on your own.

Mrcrimbo

Thanks I appreciate all your advice..

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but based on all of the information so far, what should I do?

Is it reasonble to conclude that there is nothing I can do now other than go 50/50 (which would seriously undermine the insurance industries ability to defend innocent parties)

Or somehow find a lawyer, discuss the case and go legal, or is this futile.

Or something else entirely?

lisyloo

which would seriously undermine the insurance industries ability to defend innocent parties

They cannot defend innocent parties with no proof.
I fully understand that's entirely unsatisfactory, but if they spent money in court for every 50/50 case then it would be the lawyers who would win and other innocent motorists who would pick up the tab.
Think about it logically.
If there's say £1K worth of damage it doesn't make sense to get forensic teams, lie detectors and psychological profilers on the case like they would for a murder investigation.
Overall it's just not warranted although it's hugely satisfactory.

Personally I would try to get some independent legal advice (get all your photos etc. together).
There are lots of solicitors who will give you 1/2 hour for free.
I often chase up my grievances to give myself "closure".
If you lose you will at least know you did everything you could.
You could also write a formal complaint to Tescos. At least that way you know you have chased down every avenue.

I think it's just one of life's unfair situations, but by all means chase down the free routes so that you know to your own satisfaction that you did everything you possibly could.

The other motorist may not be a liar but may be recollecting the situation differently from you.
People can have genuinely different recollections of the same event (usually in their favour).

vman

I don't get why a third party would benefit from a 50/50 claim, whether they are 50% or 100% to blame, they lose their no claims, etc. Why screw the other person? I can't help thinking these 50-50s are put forward/encouraged by the insurance companies rather than their customers as they are the only ones that gain out of it.

InsideInsurance

Not sure why you are digging up an old thread to ask the questions but:

1) The TP gets 50% of all of their uninsured losses paid out to them so that includes excess, hire car, personal injury, loss of earnings, loss of use etc etc. If you have a £50,000 PI claim getting 50% of that will make a much bigger difference then any impact on your premiums

2) The principle, you have to remember that in most cases on these forums we only ever hear one persons version of events. You may well find another forum there is someone else posting about the idiot how pulled out on them on the round about and how it is a travesty that they are having to settle 50/50 despite the OP here being obviously to blame.


With the average claim involving a TP being in the thousands it is not in the insurers interest to go 50/50 if they believe they can win. The reality in many of these cases is that it is simply one persons word against anothers and so you may as well flip a coin as to go to court. On the basis that going to court costs money there is little point in, on average, incurring additional costs by going to court.

If they feel there is strong evidence then they will argue and issue. I cannot think of any liability dispute case that I handled in my claims days where the PH agreed to go to court and I felt we had a case to argue which wasnt agreed by management. In the end only a handful ever ended up there as either the TPI backed down when our solicitors sent the notice letter and/ or the PH decided that he didnt want to go to court after all. All the cases that did go to court we won.